Au dernier sommet du G20, les Présidents états-unien et russe ont exprimé poliment mais fermement leurs désaccords sur le devenir de la Syrie et donc de la région,laissant à leurs Ministres de Affaires étrangères le soin de négocier les conditions politiques d’une Conférence de Paix.

Mais, avant même que les Ministres des Affaires étrangères, John Kerry et Sergueï Lavrov, ne se rencontrent, l’opposition syrienne, dite ‘’modérée’’, a posé les conditions de sa présence à une telle Conférence se résumant en un: ‘’Tout sauf Bachar El Assad’’. Il faut souligner qu’un tel préalable survient au moment où l’ensemble des groupes armés ‘’modérés’’ ou non subissent des défaites militaires significatives, notamment à Alep. Un cessez-le-feu qui a débuté avec l’ouverture du front du Golan où Jordanie, Israël et Front al-Nosra agissent main dans la main.

On connaît les grandes lignes de l’accord conclu entre la Russie et  les États-Unis pour la mise en place d’un processus politique en Syrie. A ce sujet, deux questions se posent.

Peut-on apporter un quelconque crédit à la volonté américaine d’imposer à ses protégés et à ses alliés locaux les conditions de cet accord?

Les Etats-Unis sont-ils réellement animés par le désir d’une résolution du conflit syrien?

Abstraction faite de la  »grosse bavure intentionnelle » de l’armée US à Deïr Zor, il est permis de douter de cette bonne volonté occidentale.

Un cessez-le-feu sans lendemain

Sans lendemain parce qu’il est difficile de croire que les parrains locaux, wahhabite, turc , jordanien et israélien, des groupes armés, aient une volonté d’imposer à leurs protégés une ligne politique qui acte, ni plus ni moins, leurs défaites militaires. A supposer que les pays occidentaux ne sont, eux, animés que par le souci de la mise en place d’un processus démocratique avec ou sans le Président syrien, croire à un tel scénario suppose que l’ingérence des Monarchies du Golfe et d’Israël est dictée par l’unique avenir du peuple syrien.

En effet, croire à une issue politique limitée dans le temps et l’espace syrien, signifie que ce conflit est avant tout, local sans dimension géostratégique internationale. Il va de soi qu’une telle lecture est coupée de toute réalité. D’une part, depuis une trentaine d’années, les exemples ne manquent pas pour affirmer qu’en Syrie comme ailleurs la motivation affichée occidentale,  ‘’Droit de l’Homme’’, ‘’Droit de protéger les minorités’’ s’apparente plus au  »Droit de civiliser les races inférieures » du colonialisme d’hier qu’à un quelconque souci de protéger. D’autre part, pour Israël et les Monarchies wahhabites, l’Iran, la Syrie et le Hezbollah constituent à leurs yeux une menace existentielle.(1)

Aussi répéter avec instance qu’une volonté politique occidentale existe pour mettre fin au drame syrien est, au contraire, annonciateur d’une mutation de la confrontation militaire. Une mutation dans la forme et dans l’espace géographique de la confrontation avec son corollaire militaire, l’entrée en scène de nouveaux acteurs.

Apporter un quelconque crédit à une volonté politique  américaine de mettre fin au conflit syrien, c’est oublier, premièrement, que se joue au Moyen-Orient :

« la lutte entre deux axes géopolitiques: celui qui défend la prépondérance américano-israélienne, saoudienne et turque au Moyen-Orient d’un côté et celui qui conteste cette prédominance et qui, aujourd’hui, regroupe l’Iran, la Russie, la Chine, l’Etat syrien et le Hezbollah libanais et ses alliés qui se recrutent -dans toutes les communautés libanaises. C’est une bataille titanesque. »(2)

Deuxièmement, les Etats-Unis et les membres de l’Otan qui regardent, en Europe, la Russie comme un ennemi à encercler et à affaiblir, ne sont pas prêts à lui faciliter la tâche au Moyen-Orient. Et de surcroît offrir au Président Poutine une victoire politique et militaire au Moyen-Orient.

Pour comprendre les tenants et aboutissants de ce qui se jouent dans cette région, les déclarations actuelles des dirigeants occidentaux ne sont d’aucune utilité. Au contraire, celles-ci servent plus à masquer le réel qu’à le cerner.

Mais, en s’appuyant sur quelques déclarations et analyses d’idéologues israéliens et américains, on peut entrevoir la future phase de la confrontation, une fois le décès du ‘’cessez-le-feu de  la fête symbolisant le sacrifice d’Abraham » constaté. Un décès qui ne saurait tarder.

Le Chaos créateur au cœur de la géostratégie impérialo-sioniste

Le sourire charmeur d’ Obama ne doit pas faire illusion  sur les objectifs stratégiques de la politique internationale des Etats-Unis. Une politique internationale  à laquelle la France s’est alignée corps et âme. Un objectif stratégique constitué d’ un arsenal idéologique qui définit la place et le rôle des Etats-Unis dans le monde du 21° siècle comme un Empire au-dessus de la loi internationale puisqu’il est la Loi. A ce sujet, il ne faut pas se leurrer, l’Empire n’a pas pour mission de veiller au respect du Droit international mais d’être  la Loi. En ce sens,  l’Iran,  la Syrie, le Hezbollah, la Russie et  la Chine représentent l’avant garde de la résistance à cet Empire dont Israël est l’une des pièces maîtresses. Pour cet Axe de la résistance, le Droit international, notamment la souveraineté des Etats est ,en même temps, sa  force et sa faiblesse parce que ce dernier affronte une nouvelle forme de stratégie idéologique et militaire: le Chaos créateur.

Pour donner quelques caractéristiques de ce Chaos. Commençons par une question-réponse:

«Croyez-vous que des solutions efficaces puissent émerger d’une analyse judicieuse de la réalité observable?»

La réponse est sans ambiguïté :

« En vérité, le monde ne marche plus réellement de cette manière. Nous américains, nous sommes maintenant un Empire et lorsque nous agissons, nous créons notre propre réalité. Et pendant que vous étudiez studieusement cette réalité, nous ne perdons pas de temps, nous agissons et nous créons de d’autres réalités nouvelles qu’il vous est loisible d’analyser…C’est ainsi que les choses se passent, pas autrement. Nous sommes les acteurs et les producteurs de l’Histoire. A vous, vous tous, il ne vous reste qu’à étudier ce que nous créons.» (3)

Des propos qui ne peuvent être compris sans un retour dans le passé et en s’appuyant sur quelques  faits historiques.

A cet effet, prenons comme point de départ, un document israélien publié en février 1982 par la Revue d’Etudes palestiniennes. En voici la teneur  :

«…La décomposition du Liban en cinq provinces préfigure le sort qui attend le monde arabe tout entier, y compris l’Egypte, la Syrie, l’Irak, et toute la péninsule arabe… La désintégration de la Syrie, de l’Irak en province ethniquement ou religieusement homogène est l’objectif prioritaire d’Israël à long terme…A court terme, l’objectif est la dissolution militaire de ces Etats…»  Il ne faut pas oublier, nous sommes  en 1982. Et pour compléter cette vision du Haut fonctionnaire des Affaires étrangères Oded Ollin, ajoutons ce que l’armée arabe syrienne soutenue par l’Iran, la Résistance arabe dont le Hezbollah et la Russie ont empêché d’advenir : «…La Syrie va se diviser en plusieurs Etats suivant les communautés ethniques, de telle sorte que la côte deviendra un Etat alaouite chiite; la région d’Alep, un Etat sunnite…» (4)

Les autres Etats arabes, Irak, Liban, Egypte, Libye, Soudan… n’échappent pas à la désintégration   anticipée. Il va sans dire que la réalité actuelle de ces Etats confirme la  »vision » d’Oded Yollin. Mais loin  d’être un visionnaire, Oded Yollin ne faisait que tracer la  »Feuille de Route » de la «Stratégie pour Israël dans les années 80.»

Et la place du peuple palestinien dans cette  »Feuille de Route »?

Le Haut fonctionnaire israélien Oded Yollin répond sans détour :

«…La tactique d’Israël soit militaire, soit diplomatique, doit viser à liquider le régime jordanien et à transférer le pouvoir à la majorité palestinienne. Ce changement de régime en Cisjordanie résoudra le problème  des territoires cisjordaniens…Il faut rejeter le plan d’autonomie et toute proposition de compromis…»

Evidemment, il faut ajouter à cette patrie palestinienne, la Bande de Gaza. Elucubrations ou pas d’un illuminé, une chose est sûre: la colonisation de la Cisjordanie et sa mutation en  Judée-Samarie, y compris Jérusalem-Est, est en cours d’achèvement avec le soutien sans condition des puissances occidentales. Aussi croire que, par la voie diplomatique, une solution politique reconnaissant un Etat palestinien en Cisjordanie et à Gaza avec Jérusalem-Est comme capitale, c’est croire tout simplement à l’existence du  Père Noël. Ceci d’autant plus que se tissent des alliances politiques et militaires avec les Monarchies wahhabites en vue de la future phase de la confrontation régionale dont le prix à payer est l’abandon du Golan, un contrôle militaire israélien sur sa frontière Nord et une autonomie palestinienne à minima.  Ainsi la «Stratégie pour Israël dans les années 80» prend corps dans la réalité actuelle des Etats et des peuples arabes. C’est cela le Chaos créateur dont parle l’idéologue néo-conservateur  K.Rove.

Le rôle des Monarchies wahhabites: légitimer religieusement l’entrée en guerre d’Israël

Deux moments historiques permettent de définir le rôle actuel de l’Arabie saoudite dans ce Chaos créateur. Tout d’abord, sa création même par le colonialisme britannique : diviser le Moyen-Orient arabe et combattre le mouvement de la Renaissance arabe. Puis, à partir de 1945, se  substitua, peu à peu, au colonialisme franco-britannique, l’impérialisme américain pour faire de l’Arabie Saoudite le gendarme idéologique en s’appuyant sur sa force pétrolière et surtout religieuse. Le Pacte du Quincy de 1945, renouvelé en 2005 et la doctrine Roosevelt de 1956, consacrèrent l’Arabie Saoudite telle qu’elle apparaît, aujourd’hui, sur la scène musulmane. Un Etat anachronique mais fort utile à l’Impérialisme occidental et au Sionisme.

Aujourd’hui, en présentant l’Iran comme l’ennemi juré du  sunnisme, l’Arabie Saoudite prépare mentalement la population à majorité sunnite à une extension du conflit. Et au regard du rapprochement politique et plus secrètement, militaire entre les Monarchies du Golfe et l’Etat d’Israël, le Liban est sans doute le prochain théâtre militaire avec l’entrée en scène d’Israël. Il est évident que la Résistance libanaise incarnée par le Hezbollah est la cible désignée. Sur ce point, la participation de l’aviation militaire d’ Emirats arabes unis à un exercice militaire organisé par l’Etat- major américain auquel a participé également Israël et le Pakistan est-elle anecdotique?

Toujours est-il le réveil des cellules dormantes des organisations terroristes au Liban, financées dès 2007 (1)  sera l’annonciateur  d’une intervention militaire d’une grande ampleur dans le pays du Cèdre.

Mohamed El Bachir

10 septembre 2016

(1) http://questionscritiques.free.fr/dossiers/Seymour_Hersh/Etats-Unis_Pr…

(2) Michel Rimbaud : Tempête sur le Grand Moyen-Orient Broché – 24 février 2015

(3) https://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2007/12/SALMON/15433

(4) http://www.renenaba.com/revue-detude-palestiniennes-n-14-fevrier-1982

 

  • Posted in Francais @fr
  • Commentaires fermés sur Après l’Irak, la Syrie…De nouveau, le Liban au centre de la résistance

Les États-Unis tentent de se décharger d’une partie de la responsabilité de leur soutien aérien à ISIS contre l’armée arabe syrienne à Deir Ezzor.

Les faits, qui ne sont pas démentis par les États-Unis, ont été révélés par l’armée russe, dans une déclaration qui a fait suite à l’incident de samedi :

«Aujourd’hui, à 17: 00-17: 50, heure de Moscou, la coalition internationale anti-Daesh (deux F-16 et deux A-10 jets) a effectué quatre frappes sur les unités syriennes forces gouvernementales encerclées par Daesh près de l’aéroport de Deir ez-Zor. L’appareil de la coalition est entré dans l’espace aérien syrien depuis la frontière irakienne», a déclaré le Major Général Igor Konashenkov.

[…]

Soixante-deux soldats syriens ont été tués et environ 100 autres ont été blessés, selon les informations fournies par le commandement syrien de Deir ez-Zor.

Le gouvernement syrien vient de déclarer qu’en fait environ 82 soldats ont été tués dans l’attaque qui a également détruit trois chars T-72, 3 véhicules de combat d’infanterie, un canon anti-aérien et au moins 4 mortiers. Après l’attaque aérienne, les troupes d’État islamique ont pris d’assaut la position du gouvernement syrien sur la colline de Jabal Thardeh. Elles sont maintenant en mesure d’attaquer l’aéroport de Deir Ezzor, la seule ligne d’approvisionnement de la ville assiégée par ISIS et où 150 000 civils vivent sous la protection du gouvernement.

Nous notons que ce n’est pas la première attaque des États-Unis contre les forces du gouvernement syrien à Deir Ezzor. En décembre dernier, trois soldats syriens ont été tués dans un raid aérien. En juin une attaque aérienne américaine sur Manbij a tué une centaine de civils. Aucune attaque étasunienne sur une cible d’ISIS en Syrie n’a jamais fait autant de victimes.

Maintenant, le blâme doit être partagé.

Dimanche matin, l’Australie s’est empressée de prétendre que ses jets avaient pris part à l’attaque :

Des avions australiens ont été impliqués dans une opération de la coalition menée par les États-Unis, qui a tué des dizaines de soldats syriens stationnés près du fief oriental d’ISIS de Deir Ezzor, a confirmé le Département de la Défense de l’Australie.

[…]

«Des avions australiens faisaient partie des avions internationaux qui ont pris part à cette opération de la coalition», a déclaré le ministère de la Défense dans un communiqué.

Dimanche soir, les Danois leur ont emboîté le pas :

«Deux [avions de chasse] danois F-16 ont participé à ces attaques avec les avions d’autres nations. Les frappes ont été stoppées dès que le camp russe a indiqué que les positions de l’armée syrienne avaient été touchées», a déclaré l’autorité de commandement militaire des forces armées danoises dans un communiqué publié dimanche.

Ce matin, le correspondant de la défense de la BBC a dit que le Royaume-Uni était également coupable :

Jonathan Beale @bealejonathan

BBC comprend @RoyalAirForce des jets anglais pourraient avoir été impliqués dans les bombardements en Syrie qui ont tué 60 + soldats syriens.

Quatre avions ont attaqué et quatre forces aériennes prétendent avoir fait partie de l’attaque ? Ce n’est ni crédible, ni réaliste.

Seuls les États-Unis utilisent des avions d’attaque A-10. Ni l’Angleterre, ni l’Australie, ne possèdent ni n’utilisent des chasseurs F-16. Quant à l’aviation danoise, elle a bien déployé des F-16 au Moyen-Orient, mais ces avions n’opèrent qu’en Irak, pas en Syrie :

Le Danemark va envoyer sept avions de chasse F-16 pour aider à combattre les militants d’IS en Irak, a déclaré vendredi la première ministre Helle Thorning-Schmidt.

«Je suis très heureuse qu’il y ait maintenant une large coalition, incluant les pays de la région qui veulent […] contribuer», a-t-elle dit lors d’une conférence de presse, ajoutant que les avions de chasse danois ne se joindraient aux avions américains pour bombarder des cibles en Syrie.

En outre, l’armée syrienne a déclaré que les avions sont arrivés d’Erbil qui est situé dans la zone kurde du nord de l’Irak. Il n’y a que les États-Unis qui utilisent la base d’Erbil pour leurs avions de chasse.

Il est évident que quelqu’un d’un commandement étasunien a téléphoné aux alliés américains et leur a demandé d’avoir la gentillesse de partager la responsabilité d’avoir offert par erreur un soutien aérien à l’attaque au sol d’ISIS : «Si tout le monde est coupable, personne n’est coupable et personne ne sera puni.»

Un film tiré d’un livre célèbre illustre cette tactique :

En avançant dans son enquête, Poirot découvre que tout le monde dans le compartiment avait un lien avec la famille Armstrong et, par conséquent, avait un mobile pour tuer Cassetti. Poirot propose deux solutions possibles […] La première solution est qu’un étranger soit monté à bord du train et ait assassiné Cassetti. La seconde est que les 13 personnes du compartiment se soient entendues pour assassiner Cassetti qui avait échappé à la justice des États-Unis. Poirot admet que la comtesse Helena Andrenyi n’a pas pris part au meurtre, de sorte que les meurtriers, au nombre de 12, constituent une sorte de jury auto-proclamé. Mme Hubbard reconnait que la deuxième solution est la bonne.

Les États-Unis disent que quelque 67 nations ont rejoint leur «coalition» contre ISIS. Huit alliés américains supplémentaires admettront bientôt que leurs avions ont également pris part au raid : «Le Cessna de Micronésie aussi ?».

Plus il y a de monde qui revendique un crime, moins le vrai coupable a de chance d’être condamné. Ce nouveau Crime de l’Orient-Express restera impuni.

Le cessez-le feu en Syrie est en train de se déliter. Les États-Unis n’ont pas rempli leur promesse de séparer leurs forces par procuration, les rebelles modérés, d’al-Qaïda. Aucun écran de fumée de lamentation sur l’accès humanitaire ne peut changer cette réalité.

Les aviations russe et syrienne vont bientôt se remettre au travail. Les soldats de la coalition des États-Unis en Syrie feraient bien de surveiller le ciel. Si les États-Unis et leurs alliés peuvent faire des «erreurs», comme à Deir Ezzor, les opérations d’autres acteurs ne sont pas non plus à l’abri des imperfections.

 

Article original en anglais : U.S. Allies ‘Volunteer’ To Share (Implausible) Blame For Deir Ezzor Attack, Moon of Alabama, 19 septembre 2016

Traduction : Dominique Muselet

  • Posted in Francais @fr
  • Commentaires fermés sur Les alliés des Etats-Unis sont prêts à partager avec eux la responsabilité de l’attaque de Deir Ezzor

Commenting on Monday’s attack on the humanitarian convoy in Syria, both Russian experts and representatives of the Syrian Arab Red Crescent, who escorted the convoy, agree that it was a provocation. Russian experts suggest it was aimed at distracting attention from an earlier attack on Syrian army positions by the US-led coalition.

« There is no evidence that it was an airstrike of either Russian or Syrian aviation on the humanitarian convoy in Syria, » Wael al Malas, the representative of the Syrian branch of the Red Crescent, which escorted the convoy, told Russia’s Izvestiya newspaper.

« On the contrary, everything points to it being the militants of the terrorist organizations who exploded and set on fire the trucks of the convoy, » he added.

It should be also noted, al Malas added, that the attack coincided with the militant assault on the positions of the Syrian army near Aleppo.

« Therefore it was more likely a provocation aimed at capturing the media’s attention in order to accuse Damascus and Moscow of the attack, » he stated.

This view is echoed by Yuri Zinin, Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Partnership of Civilizations of Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO).

« The US is trying to deflect the criticism it was subjected to after the assault on the positions of the Syrian army at Deir ez-Zor [on September 16] by the US-led coalition, » he told the newspaper.

« It cannot be ruled out that there was an order to distract somehow the attention from that particular incident and move the spotlight on to Russia, » he suggested.

« The attack [on the convoy] is a provocation aimed to disrupt the peaceful settlement of the Syrian conflict and any possible negotiations on the matter, » the political analyst added.

He further explained that in case there are any agreements on the settlement of the conflict, many forces, and first of all the oppositions, would be left outside the political process and will lose financial support.

The expert said, there are thus two possibilities behind this attack: either the oppositional forces decided on their own to escalate the situation and attack the convoy, or they might have received an order from the US to do so.

Speaking on Wednesday at the UN Security Council High-Level Briefing on the Situation in the Middle East and North Africa, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov also pointed out at the timing of an attack on the humanitarian convoy, which coincided with a fierce attack of al-Nusra Front and allied detachments on the Syrian government forces in the same area known as the Ramus road.

« I am not trying to make any accusations, » Sergei Lavrov said.

« However, I am convinced that such coincidences call for serious analysis and investigation. We insist on the most thorough and impartial probe into the attack against the humanitarian convoy. »

« There are many indications that it could have been a rocket or artillery attack. Initially that was how it was reported. Then they started mentioning helicopters and then aircraft. Therefore it is probably necessary to refrain from emotional responses and to not immediately grab the microphone and make comments, but conduct a thorough and professional investigation. »

It is also noteworthy that the distance between the site of the incident and the epicenter of the battle in western Aleppo, where Jabhat al-Nusra is active, does not exceed five to seven kilometers, » Russia’s top diplomat said.

« Russia has provided all the data in its possession related to the attack against this convoy, including real-time video footage. Despite our calls regarding the need to influence the armed opposition and corresponding groups, as recorded in UN Security Council decisions, so far, very little result has been achieved in this sphere, » he stated.

Meanwhile the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) for the Middle East and North Africa (ROMENA) told Izvestia that it has launched a full-scale investigation into the attack.

« The UN is conducting a large-scale investigation into the incident near Aleppo in order to find out what really happened and who is responsible for the attack (on the convoy), » Regional Public Information Officer Iyad H. Nasr told the newspaper.

« At the moment, we can’t say who was behind the attack. However we are in constant contact with the Syrian authorities, opposition and the [US-led] coalition, he said.

Nasr also noted that the UN so far does not have exact data on the number of victims but confirmed that both civilians and members of the humanitarian mission were among those killed in the attack.

« On the whole I would like to underline the threat that the attack poses to the continuation of humanitarian aid deliveries to the Syrian people. We have currently halted further humanitarian convoys but the work of the previous humanitarian missions goes on, as it is not acceptable that the Syrians are held indirectly responsible for this particular incident, » he finally stated.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Attack on Humanitarian Convoy in Syria ‘Provocation Aimed to Distract Attention’

Interview réalisée par Mohsen Abdelmoumen publiée le 20 septembre 2016

Mohsen Abdelmoumen : Vos travaux portent essentiellement sur la stratégie de la guerre masquée. Pouvez-vous nous expliquer ce concept ?

Dr. Daniele Ganser : Une guerre secrète, une guerre masquée, est une guerre où l’attaquant ne reconnaît pas qu’il attaque le pays cible. En 1961, par exemple, la CIA a fait une invasion de Cuba et a tenté de renverser le gouvernement de Fidel Castro. C‘était une opération secrète, et ensuite à l’Organisation des Nations Unies, l’ambassadeur américain a menti en disant: Nous n’avons rien à voir avec cela.

Quel est le rôle des médias dans la stratégie de la guerre masquée ?

Aujourd’hui, nous avons une guerre secrète contre la Syrie. En 2011, les quatre pays de l’OTAN, les États-Unis, la Grande-Bretagne, la France et la Turquie ont attaqué la Syrie, ainsi que le Qatar et l’Arabie Saoudite. Ces six pays veulent renverser le gouvernement du président Assad. Ceci est illégal selon la Charte des Nations Unies. Mais les médias embrouillent le public. Ils répandent des histoires selon lesquelles ce que nous avons en Syrie est une guerre civile d’un dictateur brutal contre sa propre population. Avec ce récit, les médias cachent que les puissances internationales tentent de provoquer un changement de régime. Mais il y a toujours des journalistes courageux qui tentent d’informer le public sur ce qui se passe réellement. Ces journalistes rapportent par exemple comment les pays de l’OTAN coopèrent avec des terroristes en Syrie qui veulent aussi renverser Assad. Bien sûr, les pays de l’OTAN disent alors que jamais ils ne coopéreraient avec des terroristes comme al Nosra, mais seulement avec des « rebelles modérés ». Donc, nous sommes au milieu d’une guerre de l’information.

Votre thèse de doctorat portait sur Gladio. Pouvez-vous nous éclairer à ce sujet ?

L’Organisation du Traité de l’Atlantique Nord (OTAN), la plus grande alliance militaire menée par les USA sur la planète, avait mis en place des armées secrètes dans tous les pays d’Europe occidentale après la Seconde Guerre mondiale. En Italie, l’armée secrète avait pour nom de code Gladio. Ces réseaux ont été armés et entraînés par la CIA et le MI6. Leur mission initiale était de se battre derrière les lignes ennemies en cas d’une invasion soviétique, d’où le nom de réseau stay-behind (rester derrière). Mais dans certains pays comme l’Italie, la France et la Turquie, ces armées secrètes sont devenues opérationnelles en l’absence totale d’une invasion soviétique en ciblant l’opposition intérieure et sont devenues tragiquement liées au crime et à la terreur.

Comment se fait-il que dans les soi-disant « démocraties » occidentales, des armées secrètes liées souvent à l’extrême-droite agissent en toute impunité ? Où sont les États et leurs institutions ?

En Suisse, en Belgique et en Italie il y a eu une enquête sur les armées stay-behind, donc au moins dans certains pays, les parlements locaux se sont penchés sur cette affaire délicate. Mais dans de nombreux autres pays, dont l’Allemagne, la France et la Turquie, il n’y a pas eu d’enquête approfondie. En outre l’OTAN et la CIA ont refusé de commenter. Ce fut un grand scandale militaire, et le président américain Bush père, qui était en poste à Washington lorsque l’existence des armées secrètes a été révélée en 1990, a tout simplement refusé de commenter. Des agents de la CIA ont confirmé que le rôle des armées secrètes existait, mais ils ont affirmé qu’elles avaient été conçues uniquement pour lutter contre une invasion soviétique. La CIA a déclaré que les armées secrètes Gladio n’étaient en rien liées avec le terrorisme. En novembre 1990, le parlement de l’UE a protesté « vigoureusement contre la prise en charge par certains membres du personnel de l’armée américaine du SHAPE et de l’OTAN du droit d’encourager la création en Europe d’un réseau clandestin de renseignement et d’opérations » et a appelé à « une enquête complète sur… ces organisations clandestines… et le problème du terrorisme dans Europe ». Mais rien ne s’est produit, l’affaire était délicate et le parlement européen était impuissant contre l’OTAN et de la CIA.

Vous appuyez souvent vos travaux avec des documents déclassifiés de diverses agences de renseignement, CIA, MI6, etc. Avez-vous pu obtenir facilement certaines informations confidentielles ou top secret ?

Non, il a toujours été très difficile de trouver des documents historiques sur la guerre secrète en général et sur l’opération Gladio en particulier. J’ai introduit une requête FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) avec la CIA, mais la CIA a refusé de me remettre les documents Gladio. L’OTAN a refusé aussi l’accès aux documents pertinents.

Peut-on dire que nous vivons le prolongement de la Guerre Froide, notamment avec le conflit larvé entre l’Union européenne et les USA d’un côté et la Russie de l’autre dont l’un des épicentres est l’Ukraine ?

Oui, en Ukraine, nous avons une nouvelle confrontation entre Washington et Moscou, une confrontation entre deux puissances nucléaires. Le 20 Février 2014, les États-Unis ont parrainé un coup d’État à Kiev, la capitale de l’Ukraine, dans le but de renverser le gouvernement Ianoukovytch et d’installer le nouveau gouvernement intérimaire de Porochenko. Le plan des États-Unis est de faire glisser l’Ukraine dans l’OTAN. Porochenko veut se joindre à l’OTAN. Le responsable du coup d’État de Kiev était Victoria Nuland qui est devenue célèbre pour son commentaire « Fuck the UE« , parce qu’elle ne se souciait pas ce que l’UE pense quand les États-Unis réalisent un coup d’Etat en Ukraine.

Mais les Russes ne veulent pas de cela. Ils ne veulent pas que l’Ukraine devienne un membre de l’OTAN. Donc, en mars, Poutine a réagi et a pris la Crimée. Aussi maintenant l’Ukraine est divisée en deux parties : l’une est alignée avec Washington, l’autre alignée avec Moscou.

Les États-Unis vont élire un nouveau président et choisir entre Trump et Clinton. Ne croyez-vous pas que ces deux candidats sont dangereux pour la stabilité et la paix dans le monde ?

Malheureusement, tant Trump que Clinton sont un danger pour la paix mondiale, ils serviront tous deux le complexe militaro-industriel, par conséquent ils serviront l’intérêt des puissants groupes de pression à Washington qui veulent plus de guerres et vendre plus d’armes.

D’après vos analyses, des dirigeants ont fomenté des complots en dehors du contrôle de leur Parlement et des institutions, certains sont vivants comme Blair, Bush, Cheney, Sarkozy, etc. Pourquoi ne sont-ils pas jugés ? Est-il utopique de croire à leur procès ?

Bush, Blair et Cheney devraient être traduits devant la Cour pénale internationale CPI à La Haye parce qu’ils ont attaqué l’Irak en 2003, ce qui était illégal. Sarkozy devrait également être traduit devant la CPI parce qu’il a attaqué la Libye en 2011avec Obama et Cameron. Mais ces dirigeants de pays de l’OTAN sont très puissants. Il est très difficile de les amener devant un tribunal, et en ce moment, cela semble impossible.

D’après vous, cette stratégie de guerre masquée et de création de tensions vise-t-elle à s’accaparer les ressources naturelles des pays, ou y a-t-il d’autres objectifs sous-jacents ?

Les guerres secrètes ont toujours été utilisées pour augmenter l’influence de l’empire américain et des pays alignés de l’OTAN. Donc, c’est vraiment le désir d’avoir plus de puissance et plus d’argent. La soi-disant guerre contre le terrorisme, qui a commencé en 2001, est pleine de mensonges. Surtout l’effondrement du WTC7 qui est tout à fait incertain. Je pense que la guerre entière contre le terrorisme n’a pas pour but de capturer des terroristes, mais d’obtenir le contrôle de l’approvisionnement en pétrole et en gaz.

D’après vos travaux, les groupes occultes qui commettent ces attentats et ces complots sont minoritaires. D’où tiennent-ils leur influence, et est-ce que les agences de renseignement ne sont pas infiltrées par ces groupes ?

Oui, les gens qui commencent toutes ces guerres et mentent au public sont une minorité. Mais ils sont puissants et ils contrôlent les services de renseignement comme la CIA et le MI6.

On constate un rôle croissant des sociétés militaires privées, comme Blackwater maintenant Academi, CACI, etc. Allons-nous assister à la privatisation de secteurs sensibles tels que la Défense et le Renseignement ? Qui est derrière ces sociétés ?

Je sais que l’influence d’Academi et d’autres sociétés militaires privées est en augmentation. Mais vraiment, je ne sais pas grand-chose à ce sujet parce que je ne l’ai pas étudié en détail.

À votre avis, pourquoi les puissances occultes au service de l’impérialisme éprouvent-elles le besoin d’accuser ceux qui contestent leurs thèses officielles d’être des conspirationnistes, des adeptes de la théorie du complot, et autres qualificatifs péjoratifs ?

Le terme théorie du complot est utilisé pour discréditer tout qui critique l’élite et aussi l’abus de pouvoir de l’élite. Si vous doutez des attaques terroristes du 11 Septembre, vous êtes immédiatement attaqué comme un théoricien de la conspiration. Mais de plus en plus de gens commencent à comprendre que la soi-disant guerre contre le terrorisme dans son ensemble est pleine de mensonges et de brutalité.

Toutes les informations dont nous disposons au sujet de ces criminels en col blanc, leurs assassinats de masse, les mensonges d’État, ne sont-ils pas une goutte dans l’océan ?

Non, cette information est importante; nous devons essayer de comprendre ce qui se passe.

En manipulant le terrorisme, les pays occidentaux ne jouent-ils pas avec le feu ?

En effet, il est très dangereux de manipuler les terroristes. La CIA l’a fait en armant Al-Qaïda en Afghanistan dans les années 1980. Et maintenant, la même chose arrive à nouveau en Syrie.

Vous êtes également un expert en énergie, quelles sont vos prévisions par rapport à ce marché ? L’humanité peut-elle se permettre de rester dépendante des énergies fossiles?

Non, nous devons aller vers les énergies renouvelables. Nous devrions essayer de réduire la consommation de pétrole, de gaz, de charbon et d’énergie nucléaire et aller vers l’énergie solaire, l’énergie éolienne, l’énergie de l’eau, et l’énergie géothermique.

 

Article original en anglais :

Trump_&_Clinton

The US Strategy of A “Masked War”. US-NATO’s Undeclared “Secret War” against Syria. Both Trump and Clinton are a Danger for World Peace

Both Trump and Clinton are a danger for world peace

Traduction : oximity.com

Daniele Ganser est né en 1972 à Lugano en Suisse. Il est historien et chercheur spécialisé dans les questions énergétiques, l’histoire économique, la géostratégie et l’histoire contemporaine internationale depuis 1945. Il est le fondateur et le directeur de l’Institut suisse pour la recherche sur la paix et l’énergie (SIPER).

  • Posted in Francais @fr
  • Commentaires fermés sur Stratégie médiatique et guerre masquée ou secrète USA-OTAN en Syrie. « Tant Trump que Clinton sont un danger pour la paix mondiale »

« Il ne s’agit pas ici de contester l’urgence ou la gravité de la situation humanitaire des populations civiles dans la région d’Alep, mais de montrer comment cette thématique est instrumentalisée, par la coalition internationale menée pas les Etats-Unis, dans le but de sauver les factions djihadistes combattant au sol. »

Le bombardement des positions de l’armée syrienne par l’aviation américaine près de l’aéroport de Deir ez-Zor, le 17 septembre, a signé la fin de la trêve « humanitaire » négociée entre la coalition internationale et l’axe Moscou-Damas. Cet engagement armé de la coalition contre l’armée régulière syrienne a pris place au cours d’une offensive de Daech dans la région et a permis aux combattants du groupe terroriste de s’emparer des positions occupées par les troupes gouvernementales près de l’aéroport de la ville. Cet événement a donc marqué la coopération opérationnelle des Etats-Unis et des membres de la coalition avec le groupe Etat Islamique ainsi que la fin de la trêve négociée précédemment et destinée, comme je le soulignais dans un précédent article, à desserrer l’étau autour des combattants du Front Al-Nosra qui occupent la partie est d’Alep.

Mardi 20 septembre, la destruction de la majeure partie d’un convoi d’aide humanitaire de l’ONU et du Croissant Rouge à destination de la périphérie d’Alep a donné lieu à une nouvelle offensive de la propagande occidentale sur la thématique « humanitaire » ciblant l’armée syrienne et son allié russe. Cette attaque s’est déroulée opportunément alors que s’ouvrait la 71ème assemblée générale de l’ONU et a permis aux leaders occidentaux qui se sont succédé à la tribune des Nations Unies de clamer leur « indignation » face à ce qui apparaît comme un acte barbare, mais aussi d’insister sur l’urgence de la mise en place d’une nouvelle trêve permettant de faire parvenir aux populations civiles l’aide humanitaire internationale. Il ne s’agit pas ici de contester l’urgence ou la gravité de la situation humanitaire des populations civiles dans la région d’Alep, mais de montrer comment cette thématique est instrumentalisée par la coalition internationale dans le but de sauver les factions djihadistes combattant au sol.

Il faut en effet d’abord remarquer que c’est le bombardement des positions de l’armée syrienne par la coalition internationale près de Deir ez-Zor en appui d’une offensive de Daech qui a mis fin de facto à la trêve toute relative signée par les belligérants le 9 septembre, et qui n’avait semble-t-il jamais été respectée par les groupes djihadistes. Selon le général russe Viktor Poznikhir : « Seules les parties russe et syrienne remplissent entièrement leurs engagements. » Moscou a également accusé les rebelles de « profiter de la trêve pour se regrouper et remplir les stocks de munitions et d’armements ».

L’attaque de mardi contre un convoi humanitaire de l’ONU et du Croissant Rouge constitue donc un prétexte idéal, dans le contexte d’indignation internationale qu’elle a suscité, à l’imposition d’un nouveau cessez-le-feu à l’avantage des groupes djihadistes soutenus par la coalition.

La destruction du convoi humanitaire a ainsi été immédiatement attribuée aux forces armées syriennes, puis russes, sans que des éléments tangibles viennent pour l’instant les étayer.

Le directeur de l’ONG syrienne Shafak a ainsi déclaré « Nous ne sommes pas sûrs si ce sont des hélicoptères ou des avions qui sont intervenus en premier. Mais ce qui est sûr, c’est que la deuxième frappe venait d’un avion, et qu’elle était particulièrement précise.»  Les rebelles ne possédant pas d’aviation ces déclarations, désignant l’action des forces armées syriennes et de l’aviation russe, ont été immédiatement reprises par le département d’Etat américain. John Kerry a ainsi réagi : « Les Russes contrôlent Assad qui de toute évidence bombarde indistinctement, y compris des convois humanitaires », ajoutant pour faire bonne mesure : « Nous avons besoin de voir ce qu’il s’est passé et ensuite on se fera une opinion. » Bel exemple d’inversion accusatoire qui consiste tout d’abord à désigner un coupable puis de demander des investigations afin « d’établir les faits »… On peut toutefois remarquer que les premiers témoignages, remontant du terrain et émanant pour la plupart de militants d’ONG humanitaires, se contredisent sur l’origine des bombardements ayant détruit le convoi. Il s’agit tantôt de « bombes baril » larguées par un hélicoptère syrien, tantôt de tirs de missiles de l’aviation russe, voir les deux.

Zakariah Junaid un activiste média proche des rebelles, a ainsi raconté à la BBC :

« Le bombardement a commencé avec un hélicoptère qui a largué deux bombes-barils ; elles sont tombées sur le dispensaire du croissant Rouge Syrien, dans la campagne à l’ouest d’Alep… 30 minutes plus tard ce sont des avions qui ont attaqué le centre médical, cette fois à la roquette… »

Le New-York Times rapporte quant à lui les déclarations d’un « haut fonctionnaire américain » affirmant que « le Pentagone a déterminé avec une probabilité très haute qu’un Sukhoï 24 russe se trouvait directement à la verticale du convoi moins d’une minute avant que l’attaque ne soit rapportée. »

Mardi, le porte-parole du bureau de l’ONU pour la coordination des affaires humanitaires, Jens Laerke, a toutefois démenti ces affirmations en déclarant : « Nous ne sommes pas en position d’affirmer qu’il s’agissait d’attaques aériennes. Nous pouvons simplement dire que le convoi a été attaqué. »

Malgré les dénégations officielles des gouvernements russes et syriens des témoignages émanant d’ONG, d’activistes médias proches des rebelles, ou encore du Pentagone, concordent tous à pointer la responsabilité de l’aviation russe et/ou de l’armée syrienne, dans ce qui apparaît comme une attaque délibérée et coordonnée.

On peut cependant s’interroger sur le bénéfice opérationnel et tactique d’une telle attaque pour le régime syrien et son allié russe, dès lors qu’il ne s’agit pas d’une « bavure ». Si, comme l’affirment les différents témoignages, le bombardement était coordonné et planifié, quel pouvait être son objectif stratégique à part provoquer l’indignation internationale et créer un rapport de force en faveur de la négociation d’une nouvelle trêve « humanitaire » ?

Selon le journal Libération, le convoi était régulier et avait reçu les autorisations nécessaires de Damas, il empruntait cette route « une fois par mois ». Le centre de stockage était également identifié par l’armée syrienne. Ces éléments permettent donc d’écarter l’hypothèse d’une « bavure » et ne laissent subsister que celle d’une attaque délibérée ne répondant pourtant à aucun objectif opérationnel et stratégique autre que celui de susciter l’indignation internationale et de décrédibiliser toute l’action militaire du régime syrien et de son allié russe…

Il y a une autre possibilité. Il peut évidemment s’agir d’une attaque des groupes djihadistes dans le but d’en imputer la responsabilité aux forces régulières syriennes et russes et susciter ainsi l’indignation « humanitaire », ce qui créerait un rapport de force favorable susceptible d’imposer une nouvelle trêve.

Suite à l’attaque, l’ONU a ainsi immédiatement suspendu toutes ses opérations visant à acheminer de l’aide humanitaire, ce qui aura pour effet de renforcer la dégradation de la situation des populations civiles et l’urgence d’imposer une nouvelle trêve destinée à leur porter assistance. Dans les faits, l’imposition d’une nouvelle trêve est essentielle au renforcement des capacités militaires des groupes djihadistes et à leur approvisionnement…

Le 17 septembre, le gouvernement syrien accusait les groupes rebelles d’entraver le déploiement de l’aide humanitairedans la région d’Alep, avançant qu’ils avaient menacé d’attaquer la route que les convois devaient emprunter. Les rebelles continuent à ouvrir le feu sur la route du Castello et les routes secondaires adjacentes, ajoutait le ministère syrien des affaires étrangères. Ces derniers refusent en effet les termes de l’accord américano-russe sur l’acheminement de l’aide humanitaire et plus particulièrement le fait que cette dernière soit supervisée par les forces russes et le gouvernement syrien. On comprend donc mieux l’intérêt qu’auraient ces groupes à imposer un nouvel accord sur la question stratégique de l’aide humanitaire, qui leur permettrait, si cette dernière n’était plus contrôlée par les forces russes ou le gouvernement syrien, d’acheminer des armes et des équipements aux groupes djihadistes actuellement pris au piège dans les quartiers est d’Alep…

Guillaume Borel

 

Crédits/photos : Omar Haj Kadour (AFP)

 

 

Guillaume Borel, documentaliste, analyste politique, est l’auteur de l’ouvrage Le travail,histoire d’une idéol ogie. Éditions Utopia: 2015. Il s’intéresse aux questions de macro-économie, à la géopolitique et aux questions de propagande et d’intoxications médiatiques.

  • Posted in Francais @fr
  • Commentaires fermés sur Convoi humanitaire détruit en Syrie : à qui profite le crime ?

The US and its allies  had  established a Field Operations Room in the Aleppo region integrated by intelligence personnel. Until it was targeted by a Russian missile attack on September 20,  this « semi-secret » facility was operated by US, British, Israeli, Turkish, Saudi and Qatari intelligence personnel.  

According to Fars News, this intelligence facility was attacked by Russia in the immediate wake of the US Air Strikes against Syrian SAA forces at Deir Ezzor in support of the ISIS-Daesh terrorists. « The Russian warships stationed in Syria’s coastal waters targeted and destroyed a foreign military operations room, killing over two dozen Israeli and western intelligence officers »

« The Russian warships fired three Caliber missiles at the foreign officers’ coordination operations room in Dar Ezza region in the Western part of Aleppo near Sam’an mountain, killing 30 Israeli and western officers, »

The operations room was located in the Western part of Aleppo province in the middle of sky-high Sam’an mountain and old caves. The region is deep into a chain of mountains.

 

The Fars report conveys the impression that the Operations Room was largely integrated by Israelis. In all likelihood, the US was « calling the shots » and the facility was coordinated by Washington’s regional allies, in close liaison with (and on behalf) of the US military and intelligence apparatus.

With the exception of the Fars report and Sputnik Arabic, this Russian attack directed against a US-led coalition intelligence facility has not made the headlines. In fact there has been a total news blackout. The accuracy of the Fars report is yet to be fully ascertained.

What is significant is that the Operations Room situated in rebel held territory in the Aleppo region is manned by the main state sponsors of ISIS Daesh and Al Qaeda inside Syria, namely the US, UK (largely involved in the air raids), plus four countries of the region: Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Israel and Qatar. The respective roles of the four regional countries relating to recruitment, training, logistics and the financing of terrorism have been amply documented.

This Operations Room (i.e Combat Information Center) in the Aleppo region as well as field operations rooms in other regions (in territories controlled by rebel forces) are in permanent liaison with the US, Israeli and allied military command and control.

We will recall that in October 2015,  Obama announced that he was dispatching US Special Forces to operate on the ground inside Syria in the alleged counterterrorism operation against ISIS-Daesh. These US Special Forces would “involve fewer than 50 Special Operations advisers, who will work with resistance forces battling the Islamic State in northern Syria but will not engage in direct combat” (WP, October 30, 2015).

They will not engage in combat, they will be involved in »advisory » activities, –i.e. both within rebel formations as well as in the field operations rooms.

In recent months (May 2016), Washington confirmed that another 250 US special forces were to be deployed on the ground in Syria. A select number of intelligence officials were no doubt assigned to the field operations rooms.

This dispatch of US special forces coincided with the influx of  thousand of newly recruited « jihadist mercenaries » who joined the ranks of the various terror formations.  “Thousands of terrorists” were reported to have crossed the Turkey-Syria border in early May 2016, to be deployed against government forces in the Aleppo region.

Voice of America (undated) http://www.voanews.com/a/us-to-send-special-forces-to-syria-to-fight-islamic-state/3029684.html

The Operations Room in the Aleppo region was used to coordinate actions on the ground, drone surveillance as well as air-strikes.  According to the Fars report, the intelligence personnel assigned to the US led coalition Operations Room destroyed by Russia was  involved in coordinating US and allied sponsored terrorist attacks in Aleppo and Idlib. In all likelihood, the Operations Room destroyed by Russia was also involved in the planning and implementation of the Deir Ezzor attack by the US Air force against Syrian SAA forces, carried out in the immediate wake of the Geneva ceasefire agreement.

The Syria based « Operations Rooms » were also in liaison with US and allied command as well as Special Forces on the ground (including Western military personnel hired by private mercenary companies) embedded within the various rebel terror groups including ISIS-Daesh and Al Nusra.

The existence and location of the Aleppo region Operations Room facility must have been known and (until recently) tolerated by both the Syrian government and the Russian military. And until recently no action was taken.

According to the Fars News Agency report (yet to be fully confirmed), it would appear that Moscow chose to target the Aleppo region (« semi-secret ») Operations Room in the immediate wake the Pentagon’s decision to order the USAF airstrikes against Syrian government forces involved in combating the ISIS-Daesh terrorists in Deir Ezzor.

The Russian attack against a US-NATO intelligence facility reported by Fars News Agency has not been picked up by the media, nor has it been acknowledged at the official level.

Assuming that the Fars New Report is accurate, the Russian attack against the US led coalition operations room has significant implications. Does it create a precedent? Russia attacks a US-led intelligence facility in reprisal for the Deir Ezzor attack against Syrian forces

It constitutes a potentially dangerous watershed in the evolution of the war on Syria, which should be seen within the broader context of military escalation.

Yet at the same time the Operations Room is an undeclared intelligence facility. Washington has not acknowledged it and Moscow has not provided an official confirmation of the attack. The Russian media is mum on the subject and so is Washington. Neither side has interest in making this issue public.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur U.S. Coalition Intelligence « Operations Room » Inside Syria, Destroyed by Russian Missile Attack: Thirty Israeli, American, British, Turkish, Saudi, Qatari Intelligence Officials Killed, Report

Monsanto-Bayer et le contrôle numérique de l’agriculture

septembre 22nd, 2016 by Silvia Ribeiro

Mercredi 14 septembre 2016, Monsanto a finalement accepté la troisième offre de Bayer pour l’acheter. Cela va convertir Bayer en la plus grande entreprise du monde de produits agrochimiques et semences, en plus d’être un des géants de la pharmacie. Bien que ce soit une fusion de grande ampleur aux conséquences sur un temps long, ce n’est qu’une des diverses fusions récentes entre transnationales de l’agrobusiness. Il y a aussi des mouvements entre les entreprises d’engrais, de machines agricoles et celles qui possèdent des banques de données qui influent sur l’agriculture et ses procédés, dans une bataille à qui contrôlera non seulement les marchés, mais aussi les nouvelles technologies et les contrôles numériques et par satellite des cultures [voir aussi les articles publiés sur ce site en date du 21 septembre 2016].

Divers facteurs poussent à l’accélération de cette vague de fusions qui a commencé en 2014. Un d’entre eux est que les cultures transgéniques se heurtent à de nombreux problèmes, ce qui aiguillonne les géants des transgéniques à chercher des positions plus solides face à ce qui semble être une source de vulnérabilité croissante. Il est significatif qu’un quotidien conservateur comme The Wall Street Journal reconnaisse dans son édition du 14 septembre 2016 que le marché a été affecté par «les doutes» des agriculteurs des Etats-Unis à propos des cultures transgéniques. Car, alors qu’elles sont sur le marché depuis 20 ans, elles présentent de nombreux désavantages: des «super mauvaises herbes» résistantes aux pesticides, des rendements qui ne couvrent pas le coût élevé des semences transgéniques, ni ce qu’il en coûte d’appliquer des quantités croissantes de pesticides et de fongicides de plus en plus puissants pour tuer les mauvaises herbes et les divers nuisibles résistants, ni l’augmentation du travail pour contrôler les mauvaises herbes. La chute des prix des commodities, les matières premières et agricoles, a accéléré le malaise et conduit des agriculteurs qui semaient des transgéniques à revenir à la recherche de semences non transgéniques, meilleur marché et de rendements égaux voire meilleurs.

Si la fusion avec Monsanto est autorisée par les autorités de contrôle de la concurrence, Bayer en viendra à contrôler près d’un tiers du commerce mondial des pesticides et des semences commerciales. Cette fusion suit de près celles de Syngenta avec ChemChina et celle de DuPont avec Dow Chemical, dans un vertigineux processus de fusions et acquisitions dans l’industrie agrochimique et des semences. MonsantoSyngentaDuPontDowBayerBasf réunis contrôlent 100% du marché des semences transgéniques, qui désormais ne resteraient en mains que de trois entreprises. Ces fusions sont scrutées de près par diverses agences anti-monopole [au sein de l’UE], parce qu’elles constituent des blocs qui auront un pouvoir énorme sur des marchés décisifs et provoqueront assurément une hausse des prix des fournitures agricoles. En outre elles feront pression pour plus de lois et règlements en leur faveur, contre la souveraineté alimentaire et contre les semences paysannes. Rien que le fait que trois entreprises contrôlent à elles seules toutes les semences transgéniques devrait être un argument suffisant pour n’importe quel pays pour refuser ces cultures, à cause de la dépendance inacceptable qu’elles impliquent.

Mais le contexte des opérations dans la chaîne agroalimentaire est plus complexe et inclut aussi les prochains maillons de la chaîne, comme le décrit le Groupe ETC dans son analyse de la fusion MonsantoBayer(www.etcgroup.orghttp://tinyurl.com/ze6zs21). Alors que la concentration du secteur des semences et des pesticides a lieu depuis des décennies et atteint un sommet, ces deux secteurs ont des ventes bien moindres que les entreprises d’engrais et de machines agricoles, des groupes qui depuis quelques années ont commencé à faire des incursions dans les marchés des entreprises de pesticides et de semences, en concluant des alliances stratégiques. En outre, ces industries sont, elles aussi, en processus de concentration. Peu avant l’accord MonsantoBayer, deux des principales entreprises d’engrais, Agrium et Potash Corp, ont décidé de fusionner pour se transformer dans la plus grande entreprise d’engrais mondiale. Ce qui, selon des analystes du secteur, a poussé Bayer à augmenter son offre pour Monsanto.

Parallèlement, le secteur des machines agricoles – et il ne s’agit pas seulement de tracteurs et moissonneuses, mais aussi de drones, des robots ainsi que des systèmes GPS qui leur permettent de recueillir des données de terrain par satellites – a vu se développer des alliances avec tous les géants des transgéniques, qui incluent l’accès à des banques de données agricoles, sur le sol, le climat, les maladies, etc. En 2015, John Deere, la plus grande entreprise de machines agricoles du monde, a passé un accord avec Monsanto pour lui racheter sa filiale Precision Planting LLD de données agricoles. Mais le Département de la justice des Etats-Unis a porté plainte et suspendu la vente en août 2016, parce que John Deere aurait alors «dominé le marché des systèmes de cultures de précision et aurait pu monter les prix et ralentir l’innovation, aux dépens des agriculteurs des Etats-Unis qui dépendent de ces systèmes» puisque Precision Planting LLD et Deere en seraient venus à contrôler 85% du marché de l’agriculture de précision [qui vise à une gestion des parcelles agricoles, des relations entre elles, en tenant compte de la variabilité des relations entre plante et régions; elle utilise l’imagerie satellitaire, les mégadonnées, etc., dans le but «d’optimiser rendements et investissements»].

Comme cet accord ne s’est pas concrétisé, la filiale est restée propriété de Monsanto et fait donc partie du paquet de la nouvelle fusion avec Bayer. Cela pourrait conférer à Bayer un nouveau positionnement dans le domaine du contrôle numérique et déplacer toutes les pièces de l’échiquier. De plus en plus, le maniement de données sur le sol, le climat, l’eau, la génomique des variétés cultivées, les mauvaises herbes et les nuisibles liés sera ce qui décidera qui contrôle tous les premiers pas de la chaîne agroalimentaire industrielle. Dans ce schéma, les agriculteurs sont un simple outil dans la course des entreprises pour produire des profits, et non des aliments, ce qui conditionne gravement la souveraineté des pays, et pas seulement la souveraineté alimentaire.

Silvia Ribeiro 

 

Article original en espagnol : Monsanto-Bayer y el control digital de la agricultura,  La Jornada,  le 17 septembre 2016

Traduction par le site  A l’Encontre

Silvia Ribeiro est une chercheuse mexicaine du Groupe ETC. En 2001, la Fondation pour le progrès rural s’est transformée en Groupe d’Action sur Erosion, Technologie, Concentration. Le Groupe ETC se consacre à «Surveiller le pouvoir, contrôler la technologie, renforcer la diversité». Il a des bureaux à Ottawa au Canada, à Carrboro aux Etats-Unis et à Mexico. ETC est consultant de la FAO, du Conseil économique et social des Nations Unies, et de la Conférence des Nations Unies sur le commerce et le développement.

  • Posted in Francais @fr
  • Commentaires fermés sur Monsanto-Bayer et le contrôle numérique de l’agriculture

Le Canada, défenseur de la paix… vraiment?

septembre 22nd, 2016 by Collectif

Les signataires du texte font valoir qu’en maintenant le contrat de vente de « véhicules blindés légers » à l’Arabie saoudite malgré une vive opposition citoyenne, le gouvernement Trudeau « alimente honteusement la guerre au Yémen et se fait complice de l’une des pires crises humanitaires sévissant actuellement dans le monde ».

Cette année, la Journée internationale de la paix (21 septembre) coïncide avec l’annonce par le gouvernement Trudeau du retour du Canada aux opérations onusiennes de maintien de la paix. Promesse électorale oblige, avec un budget de 450 millions de dollars sur trois ans et une contribution en effectifs de 600 soldats et de 150 policiers !

Pourtant, le monde a bien changé et s’est dangereusement militarisé depuis Lester B. Pearson, diplomate canadien à l’origine des Forces de maintien de la paix sous l’égide des Nations unies. Aujourd’hui, le commerce des armes supplante les missions de paix, les dépenses militaires mondiales atteignant la somme colossale de 1676 milliards de dollars en 2015, alors que les opérations de maintien de la paix coûtent annuellement 8 milliards de dollars. Se retrouvant aujourd’hui au 67e rang des pays contributeurs de Casques bleus et par ailleurs au 2e rang des exportateurs d’armes au Moyen-Orient, le Canada n’a pas à pavoiser, ni sur son engagement dans les missions de paix ni sur leur efficacité pour résoudre les conflits.

Le gouvernement Trudeau a plutôt choisi, malgré une vive opposition citoyenne, de maintenir le contrat de vente de « véhicules blindés légers » pour plus de 15 milliards de dollars à l’Arabie saoudite, un des grands violateurs des droits de la personne. Ce pays se retrouve à la tête d’une coalition qui bombarde le Yémen depuis des mois. Résultats : plus de trois millions de personnes déplacées, majoritairement à l’intérieur des frontières du pays, 7000 personnes tuées et 30 000 autres blessées. En janvier 2016, l’ONU confirmait que l’Arabie saoudite était la principale destination des exportations militaires canadiennes. Ce faisant, le Canada alimente honteusement la guerre au Yémen et se fait complice de l’une des pires crises humanitaires sévissant actuellement dans le monde.

Vers une nouvelle politique canadienne de défense

En avril, le gouvernement Trudeau a lancé une consultation publique en vue d’élaborer une nouvelle politique de « défense ». Se déroulant en bonne partie pendant la pause estivale, cette consultation qui s’adressait avant tout aux prétendus « experts » en matière de défense n’était pas publique. La participation citoyenne était envisagée strictement sur une base individuelle, et aucune organisation de la société civile n’a été formellement consultée.

Plusieurs aspects du document de consultation sur la politique canadienne de défense contrastent étrangement avec l’annonce récente des engagements du Canada en faveur des opérations onusiennes de paix. Le document soulève la possibilité d’un réexamen de la décision prise par le Canada en 2005 de ne pas participer au bouclier antimissile des États-Unis et envisage de doter les Forces canadiennes de drones armés pour des missions offensives.

De plus, ce document de consultation ne remet nullement en question la participation canadienne à la guerre d’agression menée en Afghanistan durant 13 ans ni dans les déploiements militaires en Ukraine, en Libye ou ailleurs. Au contraire, ces interventions sont présentées comme des contributions « à la paix et à la sécurité internationales »qui protègent les Canadiennes et les Canadiens et qui défendent les intérêts nationaux, sans plus de précision.

Appel à nos concitoyens

Il est illusoire de faire la promotion de missions de paix sans s’opposer aux missions offensives menées au sein de l’OTAN. Il est tout aussi vain de prôner la paix sans dénoncer la participation du Canada au commerce mondial de l’armement et sans exiger maintenant un débat public sur sa nouvelle politique de défense.

Jusqu’au jour du Souvenir, pour signifier l’opposition citoyenne aux visées militaristes du gouvernement Trudeau, nous porterons le coquelicot blanc. Nous invitons chaleureusement ceux et celles qui aspirent à un monde sans guerre à le porter en mémoire de toutes les victimes, majoritairement civiles, des conflits armés.

 

*Signataires : Paul Ahmarani, Omar Aktouf, François Avard, Luc Benoit, Serge Bruneau, Raphaël Canet, Donald Cuccioletta, Françoise David, Ferdinand Djayerombe Vaweka, Martin Duckworth, Ariane Émond, Andrés Fontecilla, Lorraine Guay, André Jacob, Robert Jasmin, Molly Kane, Jooneed Khan, Kelly Krauter, Danièle Lacourse, Régine Laurent, Abby Lippman, Suzanne Loiselle, Alain Long, Alain Marois, Gilles Marsolais, Serge Mongeau, Christian Nadeau, Ed Napier, Maude Prud’homme, Louis Rousseau, Isabelle Samson, Mélanie Sarazin, Caroline Toupin, Carmina Tremblay.

  • Posted in Francais @fr
  • Commentaires fermés sur Le Canada, défenseur de la paix… vraiment?

L’opinion d’un analyste membre d’un think tank proche des milieux néoconservateurs et d’anciens dirigeants de la CIA.

Les forces de défense israélienne ont annoncé, le 16 septembre qu’elles commenceraient l’entraînement du front intérieur à l’échelon national, la semaine prochaine. Cet entraînement appelé « Restons fermes » a pour objectif de préparer les civils à des situations d’urgence et comprendra des exercices militaires intensifs pour la prochaine guerre avec le Hezbollah. Ces exercices laissent prévoir que cette guerre sera relativement plus destructrice que les confrontations précédentes pour les deux parties, mais loin du scénario apocalyptique que certains envisagent.

Au cours des dix dernières années, depuis la Deuxième Guerre du Liban, le Hezbollah est devenu indéniablement une force plus aguerrie mais qui n’est cependant pas en mesure de défier les FDI. Son arsenal a grossi pour inclure 150 000 roquettes, un réseau de tunnel plus étendu et amélioré dans le sud-Liban et il s’efforce d’ouvrir un second front sur les hauteurs du Golan.

Les exercices du Commandement du Front Intérieur prennent en compte la montée en puissance du Hezbollah et visent à habituer les civils au pire scénario de guerre. Cette guerre, selon les prévisions du Commandement, devrait être menée sur plusieurs fronts, plaçant presque tout Israël sous le feu, et engagerait l’Iran, la Syrie et le Hamas. Des simulations de tirs de roquettes intensifs sur des quartiers peuplés, des dommages à des infrastructures vitales, des cyber- attaques, et des défaillances de fourniture d’électricité et de communication sont aussi à l’ordre du jour.

Selon l’estimation des FDI, ces protagonistes ont à leur disposition 230 000 roquettes et des missiles de portée diverse, plus de la moitié figurant à l’arsenal du Hezbollah. Ils auront la possibilité de tirer ensemble une moyenne de 1500 roquettes par jour sur Israël. Par comparaison, lors de la Deuxième Guerre du Liban, le parti chiite avait réussi à tirer 160 roquettes maximum par jour sur l’Etat hébreu.

Alors que ces chiffres paraissent impressionnants, les FDI présentent une image plus sobre et rassurante. Selon le Commandement du Front, 95% de ces roquettes ont une faible portée, un rayon d’action de 28 miles (soit 35kms) avec une charge de 10 kg d’explosifs. En d’autres termes, ce sont des roquettes Katyusha et Grad peu précises et ineffectives. Si l’armée estime à 10 000, le nombre de bâtiments touchés, les dommages se concentreront sur le nord d’Israël et seulement une douzaine de frappes atteindra, à partir de Gaza, la région de Gush Dan.

L’armée pense que la plupart des tirs manquera ses cibles. Mais Israël ne laisse pas la sécurité de ses citoyens au hasard. Au cours des dernières années, Israël a développé et déployé le Dôme de Fer, son système de missiles de défense destiné à faire face aux roquettes Katyusha et un petit 1% de celles-ci frappera les zones urbaines, causant peu de dégâts en raison de leur faible charge.

Israël a aussi amélioré son plan d’alarme d’urgence déployant des systèmes qui peuvent identifier une zone de frappe dans un rayon d’un km2. Le pays a été ainsi divisé en 250 zones d’alerte (contre 25 lors de la guerre de 2006) et les grandes villes, en petites sections. Dans la perspective d’une attaque, les sirènes ne retentiront que dans la zone concernée, évitant ainsi les évacuations massives de civils vers des abris à chaque frappe.

Entre améliorations et armes ineffectives du Hezbollah, les FDI prévoient un quotient faible de victimes civiles en Israël. Hassan Nasrallah, dirigeant du Hezbollah, avait menacé, par le passé, « de tuer des dizaines de milliers » d’Israéliens avec ses attaques à la roquette, mais le Commandement du Front intérieur évalue le nombre de victimes à 250/500.

Si les dégâts infligés au front intérieur et le nombre de victimes ne s’avéreront pas catastrophiques, il sera cependant bien supérieur à celui subi par l’Etat juif depuis la guerre d’indépendance de 1948. Un tel prix ne sera accepté que si les FDI arrivent à porter un coup sérieux au Hezbollah au cours de la prochaine confrontation.

 David Daoud

 

Version originale : Israel prepares home front for next war with Hezbollah, The Long war journal, 17 septembre 2016

Traduction et Synthèse : Xavière Jardez, france-irak-actualite.com

David Daoud est un analyste de langue arabe à la Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

  • Posted in Francais @fr
  • Commentaires fermés sur Israël prépare ses civils à une prochaine guerre avec le Hezbollah

Le 17e Sommet du Mouvement des Non-Alignés s’est tenu au Venezuela:  Sur la photo le président de la Bolivie Evo Morales aux côtés du président du Venezuela Nicolas Maduro. Source : 5minuteslus

 «Les expériences humaines dans bien des régions du monde ont démontré que les liens spirituels (…) n´ont pas pu résister aux coups de boutoir de la pauvreté et de l´ignorance pour la simple raison que les hommes ne veulent pas aller au Paradis le ventre creux. (…) Les peuples qui ont faim ont besoin de pain, les peuples ignorants de savoir, les peuples malades d´hôpitaux.»

 Discours de Boumediene à la Conférence des États islamiques à Lahore en 1974.

 

Le 17e Sommet du Mouvement des Non-Alignés s’est ouvert samedi 17 septembre 2016 au Venezuela. Le Mouvement né pendant la Guerre froide regroupait les pays qui n’estimaient ne faire partie ni du bloc de l’Est ni de celui de l’Ouest. Le Venezuela prend pour trois ans la direction du mouvement alors que l’Inde, l’un des pays fondateurs du mouvement, annonce qu’elle ne participe pas au sommet.

Pour rappel, le Mouvement des Non-Alignés, lit-on dans l’encyclopédie Wikipédia est une organisation internationale regroupant 118 États en 2008 (17 États et 9 organisations internationales), qui se définissent comme n’étant alignés ni avec ni contre aucune grande puissance mondiale. Le but de l’organisation tel que défini dans la «Déclaration de La Havane» de 1979 est d’assurer :

«l’indépendance nationale, la souveraineté, l’intégrité territoriale et la sécurité des pays non-alignés dans leur lutte contre l’impérialisme, le colonialisme, le néocolonialisme, la ségrégation, le racisme, et toute forme d’agression étrangère, d’occupation, de domination, d’interférence ou d’hégémonie de la part de grandes puissances ou de blocs politiques» et de promouvoir la solidarité entre les peuples du tiers-monde».(1)

Belle utopie !.  Qu’en est-il du Mouvement des Non-Alignés après la disparition du bloc soviétique, le nouvel ordre, la doctrine du néolibéralisme et les résistants du Brics? Que pèsent ces 120 pays  qui englobent 80% des richesses naturelles et de la surface de globe devant les  7 pays les plus riches ? Naturellement, le communiqué final rivalise par sa platitude avec les communiqués précédents, rien à voir avec le feu sacré des premiers sommets avec des diplomaties étincelantes qui furent le fait de grands hommes qui avaient des dimensions planétaires: Chou en Lai, Jawaharlal Nehru, Gamel Broz Tito, Gamel Abdel Nasser, Ahmed Soekarno et j’en passe. Les sommets se sont refroidis en rites dont on se demandera un jour pourquoi on perpétue un mouvement, qui n’a plus de mouvement, installé dans les temps morts, à moins d’un miracle. (2)

Selon l’économiste et spécialiste des pays émergents, Jean-Joseph Boilot :

«il y a, à l’intérieur de ce qui a été l’ensemble dit du tiers-monde », des petits pays qui se sentent un peu orphelins entre les grandes puissances: Etats-Unis, Chine, Inde, etc., parce qu’ils ne se sentent pas soutenus. L’Inde, dont le Premier ministre d’alors Nehru participait en 1955 à la célèbre conférence de Bandung fondatrice du non-alignement, a changé de camp: lors des derniers sommets internationaux comme la COP 21 ou le G20 de Hangzou en Chine début septembre, elle a joué un rôle de premier plan. En outre, selon Jean-Joseph Boilot, la confrontation entre les trois blocs: ensemble des pays en voie de développement, pays riches et bloc des pays de l’ Est n’a plus lieu d’être». «Le fait d’ailleurs que le sommet soit au Venezuela n’est pas un signe anodin. Le Venezuela n’est pas véritablement non-aligné au sens traditionnel du terme. Donc c’est le signe, là, d’un enterrement du Mouvement des Non-Alignés qui n’existe plus» (3)

Les heures de gloire du Mouvement

«Souvenons-nous, les grandes heures, c’était les années 60 et 70, avec la création du groupe des 77 aux Nations unies ou la revendication, en 1973, lors du sommet d’Alger, d’un nouvel ordre économique international, portée aux Nations unies l’année suivante. Autant de combats pour faire entendre la voix du tiers-monde sur la scène internationale. Le président algérien, Boumediene, au nom des Non-Alignés avait demandé à la tribune des Nations unies en 1974 un nouvel ordre économique plus juste. Avec la disparition de l’Union soviétique, et donc la fin de la Guerre froide, le Mouvement des Non-Alignés (MNA) a perdu de sa pertinence. Pourtant, le Mouvement des Non-Alignés -en tout cas certaines de ses idées- suscite un regain d’intérêt. Les années 1990 et le début des années 2000 ont vu le renouveau de concepts que ces fondateurs défendaient. L’altermondialisme, par exemple, qui prône un rééquilibrage des relations économiques entre pays riches et pauvres, est l’enfant du tiers-mondisme.» (4)

En outre, les pays émergents pèsent de plus en plus sur la scène mondiale. La Chine bien sûr, l’Inde, le Brésil, l’Afrique du Sud et beaucoup d’autres ébranlent sérieusement les Etats-Unis et les autres Etats occidentaux. Ces nations du Sud réussissent petit à petit, là où les dirigeants du tiers-monde avaient échoué dans les années 1960 et 1970.

«Le Mouvement des Non-Alignés conserve une signification politique en ce qu’il exprime la volonté d’un grand nombre de pays de garder ses distance vis-à-vis de l’Ouest, analyse Zaki Laidi, enseignant à l’Institut d’études politiques de Paris. Prenez le cas de l’Inde qui a de bons rapports avec les Etats-Unis mais qui, en même temps, veut montrer qu’elle garde sa marge de manoeuvre et d’appréciation. C’est un élément fondamental que vous trouvez aussi chez les Brésiliens [ndrl: qui ont un statut d’observateur au sein du Mouvement des Non-Alignés]. Le non-alignement aujourd’hui, c’est ne pas s’aligner complètement sur l’Occident, au moment où, d’ailleurs, on s’intègre de plus en plus dans l’économie mondiale. Plus vous vous intégrez dans la mondialisation, à l’économie capitaliste, plus vous vous dites: dans ce monde quelle marge de manoeuvre et d’appréciation personnelle je garde?» (4)

Boumediene: un architecte de l’appel à un nouvel ordre plus juste

Dans les années 1990 et le début des années 2000, on aurait cru à un second souffle du MNA avec l’altermondialisme dans le sillage des années 1960-1970 avec la création du groupe des 77 aux Nations unies ou la revendication, en 1973, lors du Sommet d’Alger, d’un nouvel ordre économique international. Autant de combats pour faire entendre la voix du tiers-monde sur la scène internationale. Dans son fameux discours, en avril 1974, à la session spéciale de l’Assemblée générale de l´ONU le président Boumediene, avertissait ses pairs que le Monde ne peut pas continuer à être injuste. Le nouvel ordre économique qu’il avait appelé de ses voeux est toujours d’actualité. Il avait mis en garde, en vain, le «Nord» contre ce déséquilibre qui, s’il n’était pas résorbé, devait amener des cohortes de gens du Sud vers le Nord. L’Occident- même englué dans sa crise- est plus arrogant que jamais, un monde plus juste est pour le moment encore une utopie.

L’Editorial du Journal Le Monde lui rend hommage:

«Boumediene a été un des premiers à comprendre que le principal conflit du dernier quart du vingtième siècle ne serait plus celui opposant l’Est à l’Ouest mais le Nord au Sud, les peuples riches aux peuples pauvres, les États industrialisés aux pays sous-développés. Aux autres, il offrait le prestige extérieur et les desseins ambitieux particulièrement séduisants pour ce peuple plein de fierté. Il semblait vouloir faire de l’Algérie la Prusse de l’Afrique, voire du Monde arabe… Énigmatique silhouette drapée d’un burnous noir, il aura disparu avant de réaliser ce rêve. Et, surtout, avant d’avoir réussi dans son pays ce total et harmonieux développement qu’il tenait, pourtant, pour essentiel.» (5)

Où en sont les pays alignés 60 ans après?

Le mouvement des Non  Alignés ressemble à un cadavre dont on a oublié  d’annoncer l’acte de décès dans le  maelstrom de la disparition de toutes les organisations continentales régionales qui militaient toutes pour une visibilité des damnés de la Terre après les décolonisations bâclées où les anciennes puissances ont eu vite fait de remplacer l’ancien colonialisme par un nouveau,  le néo-colonialisme où les nations nouvellement indépendantes  formellement continuent à  être exploitées à distance dans les mêmes conditions qu’avant avec des dirigeants aussi brutaux que les colons et dont la seule légitimité est l’adoubement par les puissances coloniales comme on le voit encore de nos jours dans les pays africains ; Il n’est que de voir ce qui se passe au Congo au Gabon, où les autochtones s’étripent pour « élire » un futur prévôt déjà choisi par les anciennes puissances.

S’agissant du mouvement des non alignés, de perfusion en perfusion on essaie de le réanimer. Ainsi et dans le cadre d’un rituel bien rodé,   en avril 2015, une réunion s’est ouverte en Indonésie à l’occasion du 60e anniversaire de la conférence de Bandung. La contribution suivante sans concession fait l’état des lieux :

« (…) Cette politique incarnée par Jawaharlal Nehru a permis au Tiers-Monde de «traire» les deux blocs et de s’avancer parfois de manière consolidée sur l’arène mondiale. Mais aujourd’hui, le revenu par habitant dans les pays asiatiques prospères est bien plus élevé que dans les pays sous-développés. La cohésion n’est plus qu’un slogan. Ce sommet historique avait indiqué aux jeunes pays libérés de leurs colonisateurs la voie à suivre en temps de Guerre froide: la politique de non-alignement. Le professeur Sergueï Lounev de l’Institut des relations internationales de Moscou note que «le mouvement de non-alignement était une organisation très puissante quand il existait deux pôles de force. Ils prônaient un nouvel ordre économique. Il semblait dans les années 1970 que ce combat mènerait les pays émergents à la victoire. Aujourd’hui, le mouvement de l’Asie, de l’Afrique et de l’Amérique latine a cessé d’être organisé». (..) Si au début des années 1960 la Corée du Sud et la Somalie avaient un revenu par habitant identique, il est aujourd’hui 50 fois supérieur en Corée du Sud. La seule chose qui rapproche ces pays est leur histoire, le sentiment d’avoir été soumis aux colonisateurs». Le terme «pays émergents» a perdu son sens: ceux qui appartenaient à ce groupe sont complètement différents aujourd’hui et ne peuvent donc pas régler des tâches communes.» (6)

La réalité du monde actuel : les vrais décideurs

Souvenons nous après le  Sommet réussi des chefs d’Etat à Alger en septembre 1973, le président Boumediene a sur sa lancée après le plaidoyer  aux Nations Unies  en mars 1974 , un Nouvel Ordre pour un monde plus juste.  Dans le même ordre d’une répartition plus juste des richesses avec un juste prix pour le pétrole ; le président Boumediene préside le premier sommet des chefs d’Etat de l’Opep à Alger le 4 mars 1975. Il  prononça à cette occasion un discours dans lequel il insista sur le principe de la souveraineté des pays producteurs d’hydrocarbures sur l’ensemble de leurs ressources naturelles, et en particulier énergétiques.

Nous en sommes loin et les  faibles résultats prévisibles   de la réunion de l’Opep du 26 septembre sont le signe d’une anomie totale de ces pays qui font partie du Mouvement des pays Non Alignés est  le signe d’une anomie totale: chaque pays ou groupe de pays défend ses intérêts sans aucune solidarité. Il est d’ailleurs curieux que l’Opep n’ait pas disparu elle qui est en définitive un rouage qui confie aux potentats du Golfe d’exécuter indirectement la feuille de route décidée par l’Empire.

Justement, le monde est devenu fébrile. Chaque pays en fonction de son poids réel cherche des alliances. Désormais, du fait de la mort virtuelle des anciennes instances, de nouvelles organisations régionales se sont multipliées, chacun des grands Etats «émergents» a ses propres stratégies régionales et globales: le MNA en a été affaibli d’autant, certains de ces pays se contentant désormais du statut «d’observateur» au MNA. Les cent vingt pays du MNA  le G120 sont plus dispersés que jamais, d’autant que beaucoup ont  fait le saut qualitatif qui leur permet de faire partie d’une nouvelle oligarchie censée guider le monde le G20

Les nouvelles instances fruit d’une peur panique mondiale

Pourtant  le monde a peur ! Le G20 n’est que l’une des conséquences mondiales.  A des degrés divers chaque pays compte ses atouts et cherche à se prémunir du futur qu’il pense être dangereux. Chacun cherche la parade en s’associant dans de nouvelles organisations :

«Il existe aujourd’hui lit-on sur une contribution sur RFI, d’autres instances à travers lesquelles ils peuvent s’imposer. A commencer par le G20 qui regroupe les vieilles nations riches et les pays émergents comme l’Inde, la Chine, la Corée du Sud, le Brésil, le Mexique ou l’Afrique du Sud. :

« Un forum aujourd’hui incontournable. (…)Il y a également le groupe informel des Brics (Brésil, Russie, Inde, Chine, Afrique du Sud). Des pays comme l’Inde ou l’Afrique du Sud, acteurs clés du mouvement, y voient une manière de montrer leur indépendance, mais tout en entretenant de bonnes relations avec Washington. En sont membres aussi des Etats arabes, notamment des monarchies du Golfe, qui sont clairement des alliés des Etats-Unis, Sans oublier les pays asiatiques, qui cherchent à prendre leurs distances avec la Chine.» (4)

Après la chute de l’empire soviétique. Une décantation s’est faite. Des instances nouvelles apparaissent:

*L’Organisation de coopération de Shanghai (OCS) (Russie, la Chine, le Kazakhstan, le Kirghizistan, le Tadjikistan et l’Ouzbékistan) créée à Shanghai les 14 et 15 juin 2001. Elle rassemble le pays le plus vaste du monde (la Russie) et le plus peuplé (la Chine) au total. 32,3 millions de km². La population des six pays et quatre États observateurs est de 2 milliards 755 millions d’habitants (40% de la population mondiale). Ils regroupent 20% des ressources mondiales de pétrole, 38% du gaz naturel, 40% du charbon, et 50% de l’uranium.

*Le Marché commun du Sud, Mercosur, une communauté économique composée de l’Argentine, du Brésil, de l’Uruguay, du Venezuela. créée le 26 mars 1991. Il représente 82,3% du PIB total de l’Amérique du Sud, et est considéré comme le 4e bloc économique du monde en termes de volume d’échanges.

* L’Accord de libre-échange nord-américain (Aléna, Nafta, Tlcan) depuis le 1er janvier 1994, qui a créé une zone de libre-échange entre les États-Unis, le Canada et le Mexique.

*Le Traité de Maastricht signé le 7 février 1992 pour l’Union européenne qui regroupe 27 pays 500 millions d’habitants 3e PIB après la Chine et les Etats-Unis. *La zone de libre-échange transatlantique (Tafta) ou partenariat transatlantique de commerce et d’investissement en cours de négociation entre l’Union européenne et les États-Unis. 46% du PIB mondial. Serge Halimi nous remet en perspective la réalité du monde et le danger de ce traité pour les peuples d’Europe: «Un aigle libre-échangiste américain traverse l’Atlantique pour ravager un troupeau d’agnelets européens mal protégés. (…) Dans cette affaire, mieux vaut donc se méfier des couples qu’on prétend liés pour l’éternité.» (7)

Aux dernières nouvelles ce traité est rejeté par les Allemands. Serge Halimi est rassuré.

Par ailleurs, il n’est un secret pour personne que les relations vont mal entre un Ouest sur le déclin et capable de tout et un Orient qui émerge inéluctablement. Le différend avec la Russie, mais aussi avec la Chine est dû à un problème de leadership que les Etats-Unis ne veulent pas perdre.

«La Chine et la Russie écrit Michel L’homme, ont conclu à Shanghai un mégacontrat d’approvisionnement gazier, fruit d’une décennie de négociations. Le prix total du contrat conclu pour 30 ans se chiffre à 400 milliards de dollars. (…)» (8)

Conclusion

Le MNA a vécu chaque pays est livré à lui-même. Les pays faibles et vulnérables sont plus que jamais sous les fourches caudines d’un Nouvel Ordre basé sur une rapine: les institutions (BM, FMI, OMC) avec le bras armé hard de (l’Otan) et soft (la CPI) sont là pour mettre les récalcitrants au pas. Tout est fait pour les discréditer. Les pays non-alignés – en majorité arabes et ou musulmans – sont dépecés au gré de la prédation et de la curée, l’Afghanistan, l’Irak, le Soudan, le Yémen, la Libye, ou reformatés selon le GMO comme la Tunisie, l’Egypte.

Nous sommes en face de deux visions du Monde les  Non Alignés ou ce qu’il en   reste après leur effritement, vivent encore dans une bulle du passée , d’assister et restent dans le même état d’esprit qu’au lendemain  de leur indépendance  en attendant le messie. Les pays du Sud  émergents qui auraient pu constituer  des «locomotives» comme ceux du Brics ne coopèrent pas avec les pays du Sud tout occupés à sauver leurs têtes.

Ils préfèrent être adoubés par les pays riches du G7, qui leur créent un espace approprié: le G20. G120 contre G20. C’est le lot de terre contre le pot de fer. Pourtant, il y aurait une nouvelle utopie si le MNA s’attaquait à la formation des hommes, à une vraie coopération Sud -Sud dans l’économie de la connaissance en créant des universités dignes de ce nom pour les jeunesses des différents pays. Mais comme je l’écrit c’est une utopie.

Professeur Chems Eddine Chitour

Ecole Polytechnique enp-edu.dz

1.Le Mouvement des non-alignés. Encyclopédie Wikipédia

2.http://www.legrandsoir.info/les-non-alignes-une-utopie-en-quete-d-une-nouvelle-boussole.html

3.http://www.rfi.fr/general/20160918-non-alignes-sommet-venezuela-porlamar-absence-inde-objectifs

4.http://www.rfi.fr/general/20120830-deuxieme-vie-mouvement-non-alignes

5.Editorial, «Un héritage important». Le Monde 28 décembre 1978

6. https://fr.sputniknews.com/presse/ 201504221015775951/

7.Serge Halimi: Les puissants redessinent le monde: Le Monde diplomatique juin 2014

8.  http://metamag.fr/metamag-2066-20-MA…-monde….html

 

Article de référence :

http://www.lexpressiondz.com/chroniques/analyses_du_professeur_ chitour/250282-deux-visions-du-monde.html

  • Posted in Francais @fr
  • Commentaires fermés sur Mouvement des Nations Non-Alignés-G 120 Contre G20 : Deux visions du monde

The Russian warships in Syria’s coastal waters targeted and destroyed a foreign military operations room in Dar Ezza region in the Western part of Aleppo near Saman mountain, killing over two dozen Israeli and western intelligence officers.

Several US, Turkish, Saudi, Qatari and British officers were also killed along with the Israeli officers.

The foreign officers who were killed in the Aleppo operations room were directing the terrorists’ attacks in Aleppo and Idlib.

« The Russian warships fired three Caliber missiles at the foreign officers’ coordination operations room in Dar Ezza region in the Western part of Aleppo near Saman mountain, killing 30 Israeli and western officers, » Sputnik quoted military source in Aleppo as saying on Wednesday.

The operations room was located in the Western part of Aleppo province in the middle of sky-high Saman Mountain and old caves. The region is deep into a chain of mountains, FNA reports.

Earlier in September, the Syrian army units launched a preemptive strike on the terrorists of the so-called Aleppo Operations Room in their gathering centers near Castello road in the Northern areas of Aleppo and Mallah farms, foiling their plots to attack the region’s supply route, a source said.

The source said that the army’s artillery units attacked the terrorists’ gathering centers near Castello and Mallah farms in Zahra Abdo Rabbah, Kafar Hamra and Hurayatyn which killed and wounded dozens of militants.

Also, the Syrian air force attacked the terrorists’ supply route in Northern Aleppo towards Hayyan and Adnan as well as the supply roads in Western Aleppo towards the North and smashed the terrorists’ convoys in al-Aratab, Urom Kobra and Maara al-Artiq which thwarted the terrorists’ plots and forced many of them flee towards the Turkish borders.

Informed media sources disclosed earlier that the Syrian army has continued its advances in the Southern part of Aleppo, and regained control over several strategic areas in the town of Khan Touman.

« A number of key warehouses of Khan Touman are now under the Syrian army’s control, », FNA reports.

The source noted that the Syrian air force and army’s artillery units also targeted the gathering centers and fortifications of the terrorists in Khan Touman.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Thirty Foreign Intelligence Officers of US-led Coalition Including Israelis Killed in Russia Missile Attack in Aleppo

The US State Department’s Young Southeast Asian Leaders Initiative (YSEALI) claims on its official US government website to build “the leadership capabilities of youth in the region and promotes cross-border cooperation to solve regional and global challenges.”

It not only consists of US-based educational and professional “fellowships” for Southeast Asian participants, but also a funding component to help alumni establish foreign-funded organisations posing as “nongovernmental organisations” (NGOs), enhancing the already large presence of US-funded organisations operating across Asia in the service of American interests.

Under an initiative called, “Generation: Go NGO!,” YSEALI claims:

This is an opportunity for young NGO leaders to advance their professional skills and competencies with the aim to grow, scale, and take the organizations they work for, or those they founded, to new heights. 

From developing baseline metrics to creatively pursuing financial and in-kind resources to assertively applying social media to advance mission, this workshop will bring together individuals from across ASEAN to learn and collaborate on ways to build capacity, message, and impact.

Beyond this, YSEALI also conducts other workshops across Southeast Asia to help prepare what is essentially a parallel political establishment that serves not Southeast Asian institutions or the population, but the US State Department and the corporate and financial interests it represents, quite literally an ocean and continent away.

One such activity was conducted by the US Embassy in Cambodia, called the “First Model Prime Minister Debate” organised by the US Ambassador’s Youth Council, Phnom Penh.

In essence, the US State Department is preparing an entire generation of impressionable young people, raised on American-style consumerism and hooked into US-based social media platforms like Facebook, and moulding them into a client political bloc they will eventually assist into power, just as they have attempted to do in Hong Kong recently with US State Department-funded “Umbrella Revolution” leaders winning several seats in local legislative elections and as they have already done in Myanmar through Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy (NDL) with her minister of information quite literally trained by US-funded organisations in neighbouring Thailand before assuming his post.

Using children and young adults through what appear to be benign overseas scholarships and work opportunities, as well as through events across Southeast Asia organised by US embassies appears at first disarming and scaled back from the sort of subversion the US has typically engaged in over the past several decades (i.e. 1953 Operation Ajax: Iran, 1973 Chilean coup d’état, or the violent 2011 Arab Spring).

Yet despite its apparent benign nature, it represents precisely the same end result; a US backed government, representing parallel institutions that answer not to the people they are put in power over, but instead represents those foreign interests that cultivated, funded and directed them into power from abroad.

YSEALI’s activities are fundamentally inappropriate, undiplomatic and constitute an intentional and direct threat to the sovereignty and self-determination of the entire region of Southeast Asia. Were China or Russia conducting such activities in the United States, it is likely a coordinated government and media campaign would be mobilised to counteract it, and possibly even legislation passed to stop it all together.

Likewise, ASEAN should consider revising rules, regulations and legislation governing foreign-funded organisations masquerading as “NGOs” and limiting foreign missions to the region and each respective nation to diplomatic activities only.

Funding from foreign governments for allegedly “nongovernmental” organisations is in itself a contradiction in both terms and in principle. And the idea of a parallel political system created in the US embassy and composed of Southeast Asian youths “built” by US efforts somehow representing or resulting in “democracy” or “self-determination” is an obvious and intentional misrepresentation by the US State Department.

Not only should local governments across Southeast Asia counter these efforts through restricting or ending them altogether, they should create their own programmes to develop their nation’s next generation of political and business leaders, infused with local principles, values, cultural ideals and reflecting the best interests of the people and nation they will eventually assume positions of power over. Self-determination is not a right the US or the “international community” it poses as leader of will grant freely to the nations of the world it presumes dominion over, it is a right that nations must fight for, earn and protect proactively.

Joseph Thomas is chief editor of Thailand-based geopolitical journal, The New Atlas and contributor to the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur America’s Quiet « Cultural Colonization » of Southeast Asia: State Department’s « Young Southeast Asian Leaders Initiative » (YSEALI)

The Syrian battlefield is now witnessing an escalation of the war. This is despite the fact that it is supposed to be a time of cessation of hostilities brokered by the US and Russia.

The Syrian war has two major fronts. The first and most important is in southern Syria, on the borderline with Israel and the occupied territories of the Syrian Golan Heights.  This area is divided into two areas:  the liberated area of Al-Quneitra, and the occupied area of the Golan Heights where Jabhat Al-Nusra and Al-Qaeda’s base their fighters.

Israel has been attempting to drive the Syrian army out of Al-Quneitra.  Israel’s objective is to join this part of the Golan Heights to the territory it controls, thereby creating a buffer zone like the one it once had in southern Lebanon. In order to achieve this objective Israel regularly bombs Syrian military positions in the area, including Syrian Arab Army artillery positions, radar stations, etc.

There is a UN Security Council Resolution (UNSC Resolution number 338) dated 22nd October 1973, which supposedly established a Syrian-Israeli ceasefire in this area.  There is also a UN force – UNDOF – set up in 1974, which is supposed to supervise the ceasefire line.  However, Israel has forced out most of UNDOF from the area, and in practice Israel simply ignores the terms of Resolution 338 and violates it at will.

By attacking the Syrian Army in Al-Quneitra Jabhat Al-Nusra – Al-Qaeda’s local franchise – is helping Israel.  Al-Nusra and Al-Qaeda fighters are attacking Syrian military positions important for the defence of Syria and of the Arab nation from Israeli aggression.

These Al-Nusra and Al-Qaeda attacks would not be possible without air support from Israel. Indeed, Israel has admitted many times that it supports these terrorists, whom it calls “moderate rebels”.

Israeli hospitals actually treat Al-Nusra terrorists, and Israeli ambulances regularly enter Syria to evacuate injured Al-Nusra terrorists via the Jbata crossing in northern Al-Quneitra to the Occupied Palestinian territories.  Many of the weapons seized by the Syrian army from the terrorists as they tried to cross into Sweda Province in southern Syria to surround Damascus were made in Israel.

Lately the Syrian Army has carried out a series of successful offensives in the area, defeating the Western and Arab Gulf-backed “rebels”.  Over the last few months the position of these so-called “rebels” has become desperate.

For that reason Israel has recently stepped its attacks on Syrian positions inside liberated Al-Quneitra, launching missiles into Syrian territory from its positions in the Israeli occupied section of the Golan Heights.

The Syrian military reported these attacks to the Syrian government.  A senior Syrian official visited the area.  He ordered the Syrian military in the area act to defend Syrian territory from Israeli attack.  The very next day Syrian Air Defence shot down an Israeli F-16 warplane and an Israeli drone.  The F16 was brought down on the border line in a place called Bir Ajam, which is under al-Nusra control. The drone was brought down in a place called Sa’sa’, which is inside Syrian army controlled territory.

This action marked a dramatic shift of  policy on the part of the Syrian government, decisively responding to the attacks by the Israelis.  It represents a direct counter to Israel’s aggression on Syrian land.

At around this time the US and the Russians, after prolonged negotiations, announced a ceasefire, the terms of which are secret.

The general opinion in Syria is that the terms of the ceasefire are secret because the US has longstanding obligations to the “moderate rebels” – who are neither “moderate” nor “rebels” but are actually terrorists – but has had to accede to demands from the Russians that it separates and identifies those fighters it supports from those it does not.

Had the US announced the terms of the ceasefire, the the morale of the fighters would have collapsed, since they would have confirmed that they had in effect been defeated.  They might even have rebelled against the US.

However, what followed next shows that the US – the true master of this war, and the one which confers immunity on its chosen terrorists by calling them “moderate rebels”  – can never be trusted in any quest for a peaceful solution to the war against Syria.  The U.S. broke the ceasefire by striking a Syrian military airbase in Deir Al-Zour, located in the Thardeh Mountains.

This is a tough target for ISIS to capture, and it requires coordination between the US led coalition and ISIS against the Syrian Arab Army to give them the chance to do so. The objective is for ISIS to capture the airbase there, which will give ISIS control of the city and ultimately over the whole province.

The US claims that despite its powerful satellites and other methods of surveillance it could not identify the Syrian Arab Army’s positions and that the attack was a “mistake”.

We – the Arab people of Syria and Iraq – have long become accustomed to such “mistakes”.  After all we remember the US-led coalition using similar rhetoric to drop weapons for ISIS in their stronghold along the border with Iraq, which it just so happens is also, interestingly enough, the border of Deir Al-Zour province.

That was the US’s gift to the barbarians of ISIS. Over 100 brave Syrian soldiers were martyred, and Syrian military positions resisting ISIS were destroyed and overrun.

Maybe I have got it the wrong way round.  Maybe I should say it another way:  What a great gift the barbarians of ISIS have given to the US – giving them the pretext to bomb Syria – the main country of the Resistance Front, and the only Arab country which together with Hezbollah resists Israel!

Meanwhile, Israel bombed a Syrian site in the south of Syria, claiming the life of another Syrian soldier.

Are we to believe this is all just coincidence?

The good news is that the Syrian Arab Army with Russian air support has been able to stop ISIS taking over the airbase near Deir-ez-Zour.  However in the fighting the terrorists, who have been given advanced anti-aircraft weapons, managed to down a Syrian airplane.

Syrians deserve the right to counter any aggression against their country and their army. They deserve the right to respond in the same way that they have recently responded to the aggression launched against them by Israel.

I have personally met a Syrian soldier who survived the US coalition bombing in Deir-ez-Zour.   He told Syrian Formal TV that US drones were flying over the airbase for more than four and a half hours before the US aircraft made their “mistake”. He said that he originally thought they were scanning the area to help the fight against ISIS.  However he gradually realised that the drones were actually undertaking surveillance of the base itself – of its equipment, tanks, ammunition, etc.  Later, the US aircraft destroyed all this whilst the ISIS terrorists were screaming Allah Akbar!

That brought back memories of the US led coalition drone that flew over the Presidential Palace in Lattakia, which our air defenses shot down over a year ago.

Would any sovereign country accept foreign powers bombing its army in its own land?

Add to that the Turkish troops in northern Syria who are – under UN cover – wanting to send 40 trucks of who knows what into Syria!

The UN prevented the Syrian authorities from checking these trucks, but they were still labeled “humanitarian aid.” What kind of aid is it really and who is it heading to? “Moderate” suicide bombers? ISIS?

And why are so many areas in Syria that are being besieged by terrorists being ignored by the UN?  After all no one asks the ‘international community’ (ie. the US and its friends) to lift the unjust sanctions on Syria to prevent starvation!

Syrians are wondering: is our war really with ISIS and Al-Qaeda or with the US and Israel – the true aggressors and puppet-masters – who have always wanted a long war against Syria in order to break and occupy us?

The writer is a Syrian journalist who regularly writes under the name Syrian Afra’a.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Here’s How the US, Israel, al-Qaeda and ISIS Work Together in Syria

Syrian Army Opens Fire on US Drone in Deir Ezzor

septembre 22nd, 2016 by Leith Fadel

The Syrian Arab Army’s 137th Artillery Brigade of the 17th Tank Division opened fire on a U.S. reconnaissance drone today after it was spotted flying over the Thardeh Mountains of Deir Ezzor.

According to a source at the Deir Ezzor Military Airport, the 137th Brigade fired several shots at the U.S. reconnaissance drone in Jabal Thardeh, forcing it immediately leave the area after several warnings.

Prior to the bombing that killed over 100 soldiers on Saturday, the Syrian Armed Forces allowed U.S. reconnaissance drones to freely fly above their positions in Deir Ezzor.

However, due to the U.S.’ poor coordination with their Russian counterparts, the Syrian Armed Forces will no long allow any unauthorized aircraft to fly near the Deir Ezzor Military Airport and 137th Artillery Brigade’s headquarters.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Syrian Army Opens Fire on US Drone in Deir Ezzor

The UN has revised its recently released statement regarding the humanitarian convoy affected by an attack in Syria. The phrase “air strikes” were replaced with references to unspecified “attacks.” Change of the text of the statement came after explanations of the Russian side.

Earlier, the UN reported that the convoy was damaged “as a result of an airstrike.” In response, the Russian delegation noted that that neither the Russian Aerospace Forces, nor the Syrian Air Forces have attacked the convoy with humanitarian aid.

Spokesman for the Russian Defense Ministry, Major-General Igor Konashenkov, said that after studying a video, no signs of aircraft ammunition’s hits on the humanitarian convoy on the outskirts of Aleppo have been identified. He also reminded that on Monday, terrorists of the Jabhat Fateh al-Sham (previously known as the Jabhat al-Nusra or the Al-Nusra Front) group began their offensive on Aleppo precisely in this direction, using “powerful artillery fire from tanks, cannon gunnery and various multiple rocket launchers.”

According to Konashenkov, the photos show that there are no relevant funnels, and vehicles do not have hull damages and fractures of its structures from the blast wave of the aero-ammunition. He also added that Russia had used drones to monitor the convoy but only to a certain point.

“Around 13:40 Moscow time (10:40 GMT), the aid convoy has successfully reached the destination. The Russian side did not monitor the convoy after this, and its movements were only known to militants, who were controlled the area,” Konashenkov said.

The spokesman also noted that a pickup truck with a large-caliber mortar, used by terrorists, can be clearly seen in the footage. “The video clearly shows how terrorists are relocating a pickup truck with a large-caliber mortar,” he said.

After this, the UN has decided to modify the text of the statement. The new wording states that the convoy suffered “as a result of an unknown attack.”

“We are not in a position to determine whether these were in fact airstrikes. We are in a position to say that the convoy was attacked,” a representative of the UN for Humanitarian Affairs, Jens Laerke, said. According to his words, mention of the air strike in the early edition of the UN document is a result of a drafting error.

According to UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, Stephen O’Brien, the attack may be considered a war crime, if intentionally directing attacks against volunteers of the humanitarian organization is proved.

However, despite the new UN statement, the US continues to believe that Russia is responsible for the incident.

US President Barack Obama’s national security adviser, Ben Rhodes, said that all indications are “that this was an airstrike.”

“There only could have been two entities responsible: either the Syrian regime or the Russian government. In any event, we hold the Russian government responsible,” he said.

On Monday evening, a humanitarian convoy of the UN and the Red Crescent came under an air attack on the Castello Highway. As a result of the attack, at least 18 vehicles were destroyed, and 12 people were killed.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur UN Removes Charges Against Russia and Syria Regarding Air Strike On Humanitarian Convoy in Syria

Les témoignages ci-dessous de soldats syriens qui combattent les rebelles du groupe armé État islamique (Daech) confirment ce que nous savions déjà.

Les États-Unis d’Amérique ne combattent pas les terroristes en Syrie.

L’administration Obama, avec le soutien de ses alliés dont la Turquie et l’Arabie saoudite, soutient le groupe armé État islamique (Daech).

La campagne de lutte contre le terrorisme d’Obama en Syrie et en Irak n’est que de la poudre aux yeux.

Lisez attentivement.

Ces témoignages confirment la vérité cachée :

OBAMA PROTÈGE LES TERRORISTES.

– Nous [les soldats syriens] avons d’abord cru que l’avion venait nous prêter main‑forte après les deux premiers tirs, mais nous avons vite réalisé qu’il visait nos forces avec insistance, alors que nous combattions les terroristes de Daech. L’avion a largué des bombes à fragmentation contre nous.

– La veille de la frappe aérienne, des drones [étasuniens] ont survolé et scruté tout le secteur.

– Les frappes aériennes des USA ont détruit tout notre équipement et nos postes de défense.  

– Les combattants de Daech nous ont attaqués tout de suite après et pendant les frappes aériennes des USA. Certains d’entre eux riaient.

– Des drones et des hélicoptères étasuniens ont ouvert le feu de leurs mitrailleuses sur nos forces qui battaient en retraite.

– Ce n’était absolument pas une erreur, ils nous ont visés intentionnellement pour aider Daech.

– L’Amérique, c’est Daech.

Traduit de l’arabe (H. E)

Les frappes de la US Air Force étaient délibérées. Elles ont été soigneusement planifiées et coordonnées avec des commandos de Daech sur le terrain.

Les bombardements ont permis aux mercenaires de Daech de lancer une contre-attaque efficace contre les forces du gouvernement syrien.

Cet « incident » a été traité avec désinvolture dans les médias étasuniens : « Des frappes aériennes étasuniennes ont raté Daech, mais ont nui à la politique des USA en Syrie ».

Des faux reportages soutiennent la fausse « guerre contre le terrorisme » : désolé, dommage collatéral, nous nous sommes trompés de cible…

Ils ont ensuite le culot de nous dire (les médias occidentaux) que l’État islamique menace le monde occidental, que des cellules de Daech sont responsables des attaques terroristes en Europe et aux USA.

« Les USA continentaux subissent des attaques et nous devons nous défendre. »

Foutaises!  Washington et ses alliés sont des États soutenant le terrorisme.

Diverses organisations terroristes dont Daech et le front al‑Nosra sont soutenues et financées par l’alliance militaire occidentale.

Pour reprendre les termes d’Oliver Stone :

« Nous ne sommes pas menacés, nous sommes la menace. »

« Nous devons nous défendre »

Les bombes qui ont éclaté le weekend dernier à New York et au New Jersey visaient à distraire l’attention du public du fait (abondamment démontré) que les forces étasuniennes en Syrie protègent les terroristes de Daech.

Selon Obama, les terroristes (à New York et au New Jersey) :

« cherchent à blesser des innocents, mais veulent aussi instiller la peur en chacun de nous (…). C’est notre rôle comme citoyens de veiller à ne pas succomber à cette peur. »

Selon le New York Times, le président Obama :

« a replacé ces attaques [New York, New Jersey, Minnesota] dans le contexte de la campagne militaire en Syrie et en Irak contre le groupe armé État islamique, appelé aussi Dacsh. »

Foutaises. Ce qui s’est passé n’a rien à voir avec la campagne militaire en Syrie. Les USA soutiennent le groupe armé État islamique.

« Nous allons supprimer leurs chefs; nous allons supprimer leur infrastructure, (…) Plus nous leur faisons perdre du terrain, plus nous démontrons que Daech poursuit une cause perdue », a dit Obama.

Monsieur Obama : C’est votre cause qui est perdue, car Daech, c’est vous. Votre administration incarne le terrorisme.

Les mensonges politiques sont colportés par la désinformation médiatique et la propagande de guerre. Les USA soutiennent le groupe armé État islamique. Les rebelles de Daech sont les fantassins de « l’alliance militaire occidentale ».

Michel Chossudovsky

Article original en anglais :

Obama is Protecting the Terrorists, America to the Rescue of ISIS-ISIL-Daesh. Testimonies of Syrian Soldiers Who Witnessed the US Airstrikes

Traduit par Daniel pour Mondialisation.ca

  • Posted in Francais @fr
  • Commentaires fermés sur Quand les USA viennent à la rescousse de Daech : les terroristes sous la protection d’Obama. Témoignages de soldats syriens victimes des frappes aériennes des USA

Syrie : US Go Home…

septembre 21st, 2016 by Moon of Alabama

Selon le Wall Street Journal, les États-Unis ont accepté de se joindre à une nouvelle invasion de la Syrie par la Turquie et ses forces par procuration.

Les États-Unis ont accepté d’envoyer environ 40 soldats des forces d’opérations spéciales épauler les forces turques qui combattent État islamique dans le nord de la Syrie, selon des officiels américains.
[…]
La mission conjointe doit se déployer vers la ville de Dabiq, au nord de la Syrie, un bastion de l’État islamique d’une grande importance symbolique. Les soldats des forces spéciales américaines joueront le rôle de conseillers de guerre de la même manière qu’ils le font en Syrie, selon des officiels américains.
[…]
Ankara a suggéré que les forces spéciales épaulent les troupes turques, à la fin du mois dernier, alors qu’elle planifiait une mission conjointe dans la ville de Jarablus au nord de la Syrie.

On peut raisonnablement penser que la présence des forces américaines dans une manœuvre d’invasion turque a pour seul but de dissuader les Russes ou les Syriens de s’y opposer. La présence des forces américaines fera réfléchir à deux fois le commandement russe avant de bombarder les Turcs s’ils dépassent les limites fixées par leurs accords avec les Russes.

Le déploiement de quelque 40 soldats des forces spéciales américaines à Al Ra’i ne s’est pas bien passé. Les combattants turcs par procuration de «l’Armée syrienne libre» ont menacé de tuer les soldats américains. Ils les ont traités d’«incroyants», de «croisés» et de «porcs» et les forces américaines ont dû se replier pendant que les Turcs les couvraient (vidéo). Des portes-parole de l’Armée syrienne libre ont prétendu plus tard que le différend portait sur le soutien des États-Unis aux Forces démocratiques syriennes kurdes, qui ont parfois combattu contre l’Armée syrienne libre. Des rapports non confirmés disent maintenant que les forces spéciales sont de retour à Al Ra’i après qu’il a été ordonné à certains groupes de l’Armée syrienne libre de quitter la zone. Il y a aussi des rapports affirmant que les États-Unis, après que les forces spéciales ont été chassées de la ville, ont «accidentellement» bombardé un groupe de l’Armée syrienne libre à Al Ra’i. Aïe !

Cependant, la partie hostile de l’Armée syrienne libre reste aux alentours et elle considère de toute évidence les forces spéciales américaines comme son ennemi. Si les forces américaines interviennent conjointement avec les autres groupes de l’Armée syrienne libre, elles vont devoir surveiller leurs arrières en permanence.

Les groupes confessionnels modérés de l’Armée syrienne libre soutenus par les Turcs sont les groupes que la CIA a «sélectionnés» et approvisionnés en missiles TOW et autres armes. Mais cela ne surprendra personne si ces groupes,  poussés par le fanatisme religieux, finissent par se retourner contre leurs sponsors. Ils l’ont fait dans toutes les situations historiques similaires.

Le cessez-le feu actuel en Syrie est déjà en train de se déliter. les médias américains affirment que la Russie et la Syrie bloquent l’aide des Nations Unies aux zones de l’est d’Alep contrôlées par al-Qaïda, mais d’autres médias disent que ce sont les «rebelles» qui menacent les convois. Dans Alep-est, des militants d’al-Qaïda ont manifesté (vidéo) contre l’aide des Nations Unies.

La Russie affirme que les États-Unis tentent d’esquiver les termes des accords du cessez-le-feu et elle demande aux États-Unis de rendre l’accord public. Ce que le Département d’État refuse de faire:

Jeudi, le porte-parole du département d’État américain, Mark Toner, a déclaré aux journalistes à Washington que le texte intégral de l’accord élaboré avec la Russie sur la trêve en Syrie ne serait pas rendu public. «Il traite de questions sensibles qui, si elles étaient rendues publiques, pourraient, selon nous, être utilisées à mauvais escient», a-t-il dit.

Traduction: «Il est plus difficile de tricher sur l’accord si ses termes sont publics.»

Les forces d’opposition soutenues par les États-Unis utilisent le cessez-le-feu pour préparer de nouvelles attaques contre Hama et au nord de la ville d’Alep. Je pense que ces assauts vont commencer au début de la semaine prochaine. Elles devront faire face à une solide défense et aux attaques féroces des forces aériennes syriennes et russes.

 

Article original en anglais :

syrian rebels cia

Syria: CIA Vetted “Rebels” Chase U.S. Forces Out Of Town

Traduction : Dominique Muselet

Vidéo de la manifestation des rebelles contre la présence des Américains
Vidéo de l’évacuation des forces spéciales américaines d’al-Raï

  • Posted in Francais @fr
  • Commentaires fermés sur Syrie : US Go Home…

Dans un article à la une intitulé «Une frappe égarée entrave les efforts pour calmer la Syrie », le New York Times lundi a fourni un alibi inconditionnel aux frappes menées par l’aviation américaine et alliée deux jours plus tôt. Ces frappes ont coûté la vie à 90 soldats de l’armée syrienne et ont fait plus de 100 blessés.

« Le bombardement américain accidentel des troupes syriennes ce week-end a mis Washington sur la défensive, minant les efforts américains pour réduire la violence dans la guerre civile et ouvrir des chemins à l’aide humanitaire », déclarait le Times.

Au deuxième paragraphe, le journal déclare que le « bombardement erroné » a « exposé comment la Maison Blanche peine à trouver une stratégie cohérente dans une guerre complexe ».

Et au quatrième paragraphe, il indique que le « bombardement égaré » a donné « aux Russes et au gouvernement syrien une manne de propagande ».

Comment le Times sait-il que le bombardement samedi d’une base stratégique de l’armée syrienne, surplombant l’aéroport de Deir ez Zor près de la frontière syro-irakienne, était «accidentel», «erroné» ou «égaré?» Il ne fournit aucune preuve pour étayer cette conclusion. Il ne cite ni une enquête ni des faits nouveaux découverts au cours de ses propres reportages.

L’attaque aérienne était un accident, une erreur, égarée parce que le gouvernement américain le dit. Point barre. Cela suffit, pour les trois journalistes qui ont signé l’article. Ils ne ressentent pas le besoin d’expliquer que « les responsables américains affirment que le bombardement était erroné », encore moins de demander les opinions de ceux qui croient fermement que ce n’était pas le cas.

Ce journal prétendument « de référence » ne soulève pas le moindre doute sur comment les États-Unis ont pu confondre une base militaire, occupée par l’armée syrienne depuis des années, avec un campement de l’Etat islamique (EI); ou, encore, pourquoi les satellites militaires sophistiqués et les drones du Pentagone n’ont pas fourni d’images précises de leur cible.

Le Times traite également le fait que les forces de l’EI ont profité du bombardement pour lancer leur propre assaut victorieux contre la base militaire syrienne de simple « accident ».

Ce bombardement, auquel des avions australiens, britanniques et danois ont participé à côté de l’US Air Force, a sapé un cessez-le-feu d’une semaine négocié à Genève par le secrétaire d’Etat américain John Kerry et le ministre des Affaires étrangères russe Sergueï Lavrov.

Là-dessus, le Times écrit: «De nombreux responsables américains croient que les Russes n’ont jamais pris au sérieux l’accord signé à Genève. Ils font valoir que les Russes étaient à la recherche d’une excuse qui le déraillerait et qui maintiendrait un statu quo où ils ont plus de contrôle sur les événements en Syrie que toute autre puissance, sauf peut-être l’Iran. Si tel est le cas, le bombardement accidentel leur rend la tâche plus facile ».

Des « responsables américains » anonymes à l’appui, le Times propose ainsi une thèse perverse. Cette attaque non provoquée, qui a tué ou blessé près de 200 soldats syriens, dans un pays où l’impérialisme américain mène des opérations militaires en violation flagrante du droit international, a fourni un prétexte à l’Etat russe pour abroger un cessez-le-feu qu’il avait lui-même avait proposé. Bref, malgré toutes les preuves du contraire, c’est la faute à Poutine.

En fait, l’article du Times fournit une explication bien plus plausible pour le massacre de samedi. Le cessez-le-feu « a soulevé l’opposition de nombreux sceptiques à Washington », selon le Times, qui ajoute que « Le principal d’entre eux était secrétaire à la Défense Ashton B. Carter », qui « craignait que l’accord révélerait aux Russes trop sur l’intelligence de ciblage américaine … ».

Cependant, l’article n’indique ni l’intensité ni la profondeur de l’hostilité du Pentagone envers le cessez-le-feu. Il ne s’agissait pas seulement du « scepticisme » de Carter. Des généraux en uniforme ont ouvertement remis en question un accord signé par le président des États-Unis.

Le lieutenant-général Jeffrey Harrigian, qui dirige les opérations aériennes du Central Command (la structure militaire chargée des opérations américaines au Moyen-Orient), a critiqué l’accord devant les médias : «Je ne dis ni oui ni non. Il serait prématuré de dire qu’on sautera en plein dedans ».

Le général Joseph Votel, le commandant du Central Command, a exprimé des opinions similaires : « Il faudra voir comment cela ira d’abord … voir dans quelle direction cela va … je ne sais pas si cela se matérialisera effectivement ou non ».

 

L’article du Times néglige d’informer le lecteur que vendredi, la veille du bombardement, Obama a réuni son cabinet de sécurité, comprenant Kerry et Carter, pour discuter de la crise qui entourait son gouvernement sur le cessez-le-feu en Syrie.

 

Compte tenu de ces faits, la décision du Times de faire echo à la propagande officielle et de traiter l’attaque à Deir ez Zor d’ « accidentelle», a indubitablement le caractère d’une dissimulation.

L’opposition des forces armées américaines au cessez-le-feu, qui frôle l’insubordination, suggère un scénario plus probable : loin d’être un accident, l’attaque était une tentative consciente de saborder l’accord, soit par l’armée agissant pour son propre compte, soit par l’Administration Obama, qui aurait changé sa politique sous la pression intense du Pentagone et du renseignement américain.

Cette opposition provient d’abord des conséquences pratiques de l’accord en Syrie. Washington s’était engagé à séparer la prétendue « opposition modérée », qu’il a armée et financée, du Front al Nosra, le représentant de longue date d’Al-Qaïda en Syrie. Mais c’est là une tâche pratiquement impossible, vu l’intégration des milices « modérées » avec les forces d’Al-Qaïda, qui forment l’épine dorsale de la guerre orchestrée par Washington pour renverser le régime syrien.

Plus largement, les couches dominantes de la hiérarchie militaire américaine s’opposent à toute collaboration avec Moscou, de peur de compromettre leurs préparatifs pour une confrontation militaire avec la Russie, la deuxième puissance nucléaire mondiale.

En outre, les frappes correspondent à une intention clairement articulée par l’élite politique. Au mois d’août, l’ex-directeur de la CIA Michael Morell a proposé de bombarder la Syrie pour «effrayer Assad» et «faire payer un prix aux Russes ». Morell est un fervent partisan de la candidature présidentielle de la démocrate Hillary Clinton.

Dans la même veine, le directeur de Human Rights Watch, Kenneth Roth, un spécialiste des prétextes « humanitaires » qu’utilise l’impérialisme américain pour justifier ses interventions au Moyen-Orient, a fait savoir sa satisfaction sur Twitter : « En tuant 80 soldats, les Etats-Unis envoient-ils un signal à Assad au sujet de son intransigeance sanguinaire » ?

Pour évaluer l’alibi conçu par le Times en rapport avec le bombardement en Syrie, il est important de relever que le journal a fourni des services presque identiques l’année dernière, après la frappe américaine du 3 octobre contre l’hôpital des Médecins sans Frontières à Kunduz en Afghanistan. MSF et les survivants ont accusé Washington d’avoir commis consciemment un massacre. Le Times s’est fondé sur des sources officielles américaines pour concocter un récit selon lequel le massacre était le produit de «décisions erronées» et de renseignements insuffisants.

La réaction du Times au bombardement en Syrie révèle comment le journal sert à l’Etat américain d’organe de propagande et de défenseur de politiques militaristes. La révélation de la complicité du journal dans la guerre d’agression illégale contre l’Irak, préparé par les rapports mensongers de son correspondant Judith Miller sur les armes de destruction massive inexistantes du régime irakien, n’a rien changé à la situation. Au contraire, le rapport entre la politique gouvernementale et les écrits du Times, devient de plus en plus étroit.

Il suffit d’examiner plus profondément les deux premiers signataires de l’article du Times pour saisir la nature concrète de cette relation. Le premier est le correspondant en chef à Washington, David E. Sanger. Tout en étant journaliste au Times pendant 30 ans, Sanger a trouvé le temps d’enseigner la politique à l’École Kennedy de Gouvernement à Harvard, qui forme des responsables politiques et militaires de haut rang. Dans son corps enseignant, on retrouve des personnages qui jouent un rôle clé dans la politique américaine en Syrie, dont Ashton Carter et l’ambassadrice à l’ONU, Samantha Power. Sanger participe à la fois au Conseil sur les relations étrangères et à l’Aspen Strategy Group, des boîtes à idées où des hauts responsables gouvernementaux, militaires et du renseignement, ainsi que des chefs d’entreprises, se retrouvent afin de discuter de la stratégie impérialiste américaine.

Le deuxième signataire est le spécialiste de questions de sécurité nationale, Mark Mazzetti. En 2011, il a acquis une triste notoriété en « divulguant » secrètement à la CIA, avant sa publication, un article de Maureen Dowd du Times sur l’assassinat d’Oussama ben Laden. Il l’a accompagné d’une note disant, « cela ne vient pas de moi … et s’il vous plaît supprimez cela après l’avoir lu. Vous voyez, rien à craindre » !

Bref, ces messieurs sont totalement intégrés à l’Etat, dont ils défendent les intérêts. La conception, datant des révolutions bourgeoises du 18e siècle, que la presse est un «quatrième pouvoir», servant de chien de garde, et qui adopte une posture critique envers le gouvernement et l’Etat, est pour eux une lettre morte.

Parmi ceux qui dirigent cette opération et sa marche constante vers la droite est l’éditeur récemment nommé à la rubrique éditoriale du Times, James Bennet. Parmi ses liens avec le renseignement et les cercles dirigents du Parti démocrate, il compte un père qui était ancien chef de l’USAID, une organisation écran de la CIA, et un frère sénateur du Colorado.

Sous l’égide de telles personnalités, le Times s’est fait le premier organe pour la désinformation et la propagande de l’Etat américain, et un instrument idéologique clé pour préparer une guerre mondiale.

Bill Van Auken

Version originale en anglais :

New York Times

New York Times Peddles Alibi for US Bombing in Syria.”Accidental”, “Mistaken”, “Errant”…

Article paru en anglais, WSWS, le 20 septembre 2016

  • Posted in Francais @fr
  • Commentaires fermés sur Le New York Times présente un alibi pour le bombardement américain en Syrie

Hier, le 20 septembre, le président Obama s’est adressé l’Assemblée générale des Nations Unies. Il s’est présenté à la manière d’un bon père de famille qui a horreur des guerres et qui souhaite tout ce qu’il y a de mieux pour tous les membres de cette grande famille des nations.  Les États-Unis dont il est le Président sont devenus le rempart des libertés démocratiques et le garant du développement et de la prospérité des peuples. Le système capitaliste, bien qu’imparfait, demeure toujours celui qui répond le mieux aux exigences de justice et de réduction de la pauvreté dans le monde.

L’intégration de l’économie mondiale a amélioré la vie de millions d’êtres humains, la part de l’humanité qui vit dans la pauvreté a été réduite à 10%, le nombre des démocraties dans le monde a presque doublé ces 25 dernières années et ceux qui nient la dignité aux autres se voient de plus en plus blâmés.  Il termine avec cette conviction qu’il « faut choisir ce qui fait appel à nos meilleurs instincts ».

Quels sont les choix de ce Président ?

Sur la scène internationale, il a poursuivi les politiques interventionnistes de son pays dans le monde. En Syrie, il y a à peine une semaine, il a donné le feu vert pour attaquer sur un territoire qui n’est pas le sien, une armée légitime qui combat des terroristes que lui-même, comme chef d’État, arme et soutient. Ceci s’est produit à quelques jours à peine après avoir signé un accord de cessez-le-feu avec la Russie et la Syrie.

En Amérique latine, c’est lui qui provoque par tous les moyens les gouvernements démocratiques qui ont fait vœu de servir les intérêts de leur peuple avant celui des États-Unis.

Il a encouragé et soutenu les coups d’État au Honduras, au Paraguay et tout récemment au Brésil. Il ne cesse de harceler les gouvernements de Bolivie, de l’Équateur et du Venezuela. Dans ce dernier cas, il demeure particulièrement actif. Des millions de dollars y sont investis auprès des dissidents et représentants de l’opposition pour soutenir des actions de déstabilisation du gouvernement. Des avions-espions survolent son espace aérien et la quatrième flotte y a jeté l’ancre tout près de sa frontière, prête à attaquer à tout moment. Pour que tout se fasse dans les règles, il a déclaré le Venezuela comme étant une menace à la sécurité nationale des États-Unis. Un tel décret constitue une véritable déclaration de guerre à un pays démocratique et de surcroît pacifique.

Il faut préciser le fait que le droit international et les institutions qui en assurent le respect passent au second plan. Ce sont d’abord les intérêts de ceux qu’il représente qui s’imposent avant tout. Il s’autorise ainsi à intervenir dans les pays comme bon lui semble.

Dans tous ces cas et bien d’autres, comme en Ukraine, en Irak, en Libye, en Afghanistan etc., il s’agit bel et bien du même Obama qui s’est présenté hier sous les dehors du bon pasteur, faisant appel à la bonne volonté de tout le monde pour assurer la démocratie, la paix et le développement. Par ses choix, s’il faut en croire ce qu’il en dit dans la phrase plus haut citée, il nous révèle ce que  sont ses meilleurs instincts : interventionnisme, conquête et domination.  De quoi nous laisser songeurs.

Je vous renvoie à quelques articles sur ce personnage qui a arraché des larmes au pasteur Jackson au moment de son assermentation, en 2009, et qui suscita de grands espoirs un peu partout à travers le monde. Aujourd’hui, pour nombre d’entre eux, c’est la grande déception. L’incitateur  les avait bien eus, moi y compris.

Oscar Fortin

21 septembre 2016

Voir également :

Venezuela: Obama derrière son masque

  • Posted in Francais @fr
  • Commentaires fermés sur Obama aux Nations Unies : Ce qu’il y’a derrière le masque

Dernière chance pour la démocratie

septembre 21st, 2016 by Israel Shamir

Les élections parlementaires russes se sont déroulées sur du velours. Le parti au pouvoir, Russie unie, a conquis une confortable majorité au Parlement, tandis que les trois autres partis, les communistes (CPRF), les nationalistes et les socialistes se partageaient le reste. Les partis pro-occidentaux n’ont pas atteint le seuil requis et sont restés en dehors du Parlement, sans changement.

La participation a été faible. Officiellement, 48%, mais en fait beaucoup moins. 20% à Moscou, 16% à St Pétersbourg. Ces chiffres ont commencé à grimper, inexplicablement, après cinq heures du soir, et Edouard Limonov, écrivain connu, et fin observateur de la scène politique, reste convaincu que le score a été artificiellement « amélioré ». Le nouveau système électoral (une combinaison spéciale entre système majoritaire et proportionnel) avait été infléchi pour favoriser le parti au pouvoir. Difficile de dire si les élections russes ont été falsifiées et si c’est le cas, jusqu’où. En tout cas, si un parti peut avoir été floué, ce sont les communistes, certainement pas les nationalistes pro-occidentaux ni les libéraux. Malgré ce que vous avez peut-être entendu dire, les communistes représentent la seule alternative véritable au régime de Poutine, car les partis pro-occidentaux sont minuscules et excessivement impopulaires; les communistes, tout comme les deux autres partis, sont amicaux avec Poutine; ils soutiennent la politique étrangère de Poutine, et soutiendraient tout autant une politique plus active. Ils ont approuvé de tout cœur  le retour de la Crimée dans le giron russe, et ils se sont exprimés en faveur d’une intervention militaire en Ukraine.

Poutine est, à côté d’eux, l’homme politique le plus modéré et acceptable pour le public ; toute alternative démocratique viable serait plus radicale, plus procommuniste ou nationaliste. Tous les politiciens russes d’un certain âge ont été membres du parti communiste ; les socialistes (Russie juste) constituent une écharde, un doublon du parti communiste monté par le Kremlin pour réduire l’audience du CPRF.

Dans ces élections, il y a eu des partis communistes alternatifs mis en place par le Kremlin, et beaucoup de Russes ont voté pour eux par erreur, en croyant qu’ils votaient pour les “vrais” communistes. Si les magouilleurs politiques russes devaient gérer la campagne de la Clinton, ils multiplieraient les candidatures de simili-Trump en espérant que beaucoup de partisans de Trump se tromperaient et voteraient pour le mauvais Trump.

En fait, tout en soutenant et en approuvant la politique étrangère de Poutine, les communistes, les socialistes et une minorité sensible du parti au pouvoir Russie unie sont en désaccord avec la politique économique et financière de Poutine. Ils aimeraient supprimer les oligarques, introduire des contrôles monétaires, re-nationaliser des industries privatisées  et renforcer la protection sociale.

Mais ils ne peuvent pas le faire ; même s’ils devaient obtenir une majorité claire aux élections, Poutine pourrait encore demander par exemple au libéral Medvedev ou à l’archi-libéral Koudrine de former le gouvernement. Le problème, c’est que les pouvoirs du parlement russe sont extrêmement limités. La constitution a été rédigée par les libéraux russes et leurs conseillers US afin d’empêcher les Russes de récupérer jamais leurs biens massivement détournés par une poignée d’affairistes juifs. La constitution a donné au président le poids d’un tsar, et a minimisé les pouvoirs du Parlement. Elle a été imposé à la Russie en 1993, après que le parlement précédent avait destitué Boris Eltsine. Au lieu de s’effacer poliment, il avait envoyé les tanks et bombardé le Parlement. Les défenseurs de celui-ci sont allés en prison, Eltsine s’est imposé, et Poutine a hérité du poste. Notre ami le Saker a dit: “ces élections ont été une grande victoire personnelle pour Poutine”. Mais est-ce que c’est bien vrai? Russie unie inclut des gens aux opinions largement divergentes, depuis des privatiseurs pro-occidentaux, jusqu’à des crypto-communistes. Leur plateforme commune, c’est leur adhérence au pouvoir. Ils sont tout aussi capables de soutenir Poutine que de le condamner et de l’expulser. Ils sont semblables au Parti des régions qui dirigeait l’Ukraine au temps du président Yanoukovitch, ou au Parti communiste soviétique à l’époque de Khroutchev. Si les choses se gâtent, ils prendront le large et laisseront seul le président.

Poutine aurait peut-être une assiette plus ferme s’il donnait plus de liberté et de démocratie, de façon à gagner des soutiens plus convaincus, des poutinistes authentiques, et non pas des carriéristes. Mais il préfère des carriéristes souples. Nous verrons bientôt s’il aura des raisons de le regretter, comme Yanoukovitch quand il a perdu ses soutiens et son poste de président élu.

Ça ne va pas loin, la démocratie, direz-vous, si un parlement impuissant est en fait ficelé par des carpettes sans visage. Le parlement n’est pas un lieu de débat, a dit Boris Gryzlov dirigeant de Russie unie et porte-parole du parlement. «  Ce n’est pas le lieu pour la bagarre politique, les batailles idéologiques. C’est le lieu où l’on fait les lois, de façon constructive, a-t-il ajouté. La liberté de parole russe (qui n’a presque pas de limites) est totalement déconnectée de l’action, et c’est très frustrant. Même les manifestations sont étroitement limitées, et peuvent vous conduire au poste. Dans les termes de Gryzlov, « les rues ne sont pas faites pour les actions politiques et les réclamations, mais pour les festivités. »

Si telle est bien la fonction du parlement,  pourquoi le prendre au sérieux ? Qui pourrait blâmer la majorité des électeurs russes de rester loin de la ville, dans leurs confortables villas (les célèbres datchas) alors qu’on est en plein glorieux été indien ?

Plus grave, il y a le fait que les gens ont de moins en moins de raisons d’aller voter, dans tous les pays. En Europe, la différence entre partis a pratiquement disparu.

Considérez la France; quelle différence entre Sarkozy le droitiste et Hollande le gauchiste? Le premier a fait exploser la Libye et a réintégré la France dans l’Otan, tandis que le second veut pulvériser la Syrie et se soumettre à tous les ordres US. Aucune différence non plus entre les partis suédois. Ils veulent tous recevoir un milliard de réfugiés, condamner les racistes en leur sein, rejoindre l’Otan et faire mousser la menace russe. Quelle différence entre Cameron le conservateur et Blair le travailliste ? Aucune ; Otan, bombes, exemption d’impôts pour les riches, ils sont pour, tous les deux.

Parlement et peuples signifient bien peu de choses maintenant en Europe, aussi peu qu’en Russie. Les Anglais ont voté pour le Brexit. Et alors ? Après, il ne s’est rien passé du tout. Le nouveau gouvernement non élu de Theresa May a juste repoussé à plus tard la décision, dans les dossiers non-urgents, à côté d’une demande de budget supplémentaire pour le zoo. Peut-être qu’elle rouvrira le dossier à Bruxelles dans un an ou deux, à moins que les gens aient oublié leur vote d’ici là.

Dans quelques mois, Mrs May dira comme Stephen Daedalus quand on lui demandait quand il rembourserait la livre qu’il avait empruntée : « Dans cinq mois. Toutes les molécules ont changé, je suis un autre moi-même, maintenant. C’est l’autre qui a gardé la livre ». L’autre Angleterre a voté pour le Brexit, mais toutes les molécules ont changé. Re-votons, ou mieux encore, oublions donc tout ça.

Bien des gens à qui je me suis adressé répètent, à l’unisson, le nouveau mantra de l’ère post vote du Brexit : « il n’y a que les vieux et les chômeurs racistes, qui ont voté pour le Brexit. » Mrs Clinton leur a donné un nom : les déplorables. Ce nom américain pour les futurs électeurs de Trump leur va comme un gant, aux partisans du Brexit. Déplorable, c’est la personne qui ne souscrit pas au paradigme néo-libéral dominant et à sa sœur jumelle, la politique communautariste.

Clinton a parlé des déplorables lors de sa rencontre avec les riches pervertis de Wall Street, à cent mille dollars la place. Que vous cassiez les banques ou que vous fournissiez des emplois, cela ne vous servira à rien, vous les saintes victimes LGBT de la persécution mâle blanche. Certes, mais cela nous sera utile à nous, les gens qui travaillons. Nous n’en avons que faire, des toilettes unisexe, nous ne sommes pas obsédés par les pourcentages de PDGées. Nous avons d’autres soucis ; comment obtenir un CDI et un logement décent, et de quoi nourrir les enfants. C’est ce qui nous rend si déplorables aux yeux des riches dégénérés.

Une nouvelle génération de partis sort de terre, dans toute l’Europe: le parti des déplorables. En Suède, pour le moment, il y a un « Parti des démocrates suédois », le SD, le seul parti qui s’exprime contre l’Otan, contre l’UE, contre le fait que la question des migrants ait été exclue du débat public. Deux partis importants, la droite et la gauche, ont oublié leur longue animosité et ont constitué un gouvernement ensemble, juste pour maintenir en dehors le SD, parce que ce sont des déplorables. Le résultat a été paradoxal : encore plus de gens se sont mis à soutenir le déplorable parti !

Le FN de Marine Le Pen en est un autre. Elle veut sortir la France de l’UE et de l’Otan ; et faire barrage aux vagues d’immigrants. Droite et gauche seraient plutôt prêts à se soumettre à l’Arabie saoudite et à transférer le pouvoir aux cheiks, plutôt que de permettre aux déplorables de gagner : c’est ce qu’envisage Houellebecq dans son roman Soumission.

Autre déplorable, Jeremy Corbyn, qui a presque été expulsé de la direction du parti travailliste par ses pairs. Ils ont préféré garder leur parti dans le rôle de clone des conservateurs et ne laisser à l’électorat aucun vrai choix. Mais Corbyn se bat, et on peut espérer qu’il gardera son parti en main, et marchera vers la victoire.

Plus de pouvoir, toujours plus d’argent, plus de contrôle entre les mains d’un groupe de plus en plus restreint. Nous avons été dépossédés de nos droits sans nous en apercevoir. Les financiers et leur nouvelle noblesse « de discours » se sont emparés du monde aussi complètement que l’aristocratie au XIX° siècle.

La Russie, avec sa démocratie pourtant très limitée s’en sort mieux : leurs néo-nobles, alias  Maîtres du Discours, ont obtenu moins de trois pour cent aux dernières élections, alors qu’ils sont encore lourdement représentés au gouvernement.

La dernière bataille décisive pour la préservation de la démocratie se tient maintenant aux US. Son champion invraisemblable, Donald Trump, est détesté par l’establishment politique, par les médias achetés, par les minorités téléguidées, autant que Poutine, Corbyn ou Le Pen sont détestés. Le Huffington Post a publié cette « Note de la rédaction »: « Donald Trump incite régulièrement à la violence et c’est un menteur récidiviste, un xénophobe rampant, un raciste, un misogyne et un nataliste qui a recommandé plusieurs fois d’interdire à tous les musulmans (soit 1,6 milliards de membres d’une religion toute entière) d’entrer aux US. »

Un homme aussi détesté par les ennemis de la démocratie est quelqu’un qui mérite notre soutien. Quand la révolution arrivera, tous ceux qui auront traité leur frère de « xénophobe, raciste, misogyne » seront alignés contre le mur et fusillés. Ce ne sera probablement pas la révolution selon Sanders.

J’ai bien peur que ses ennemis ne permettent pas à Trump de fêter sa victoire: ils diront que Poutine a truqué les machines à voter, et ils renverront l’affaire devant la Cour suprême; ou bien ils essaieront de l’assassiner. Mais d’abord, laissons-le gagner.

Les conséquences de sa victoire sont difficiles à prévoir. Newsweek a souligné (à propos du débat sur l’aide US à Israël) : « une victoire de Trump introduirait un niveau d’incertitude dans le monde qu’Israël redoute. Personne n’a la moindre idée de ce que Trump ferait en tant que président et c’est quelque chose de nouveau dans les relations internationales. »

Voilà qui déjà passablement excitant. Israël redoute la démocratie, redoute la paix au Proche Orient, redoute la désobéissance européenne, redoute que les juifs perdent leurs places réservées dans le salon des premières classes sur le pont des officiers, dans les comités de rédaction et dans les bureaux des directeurs de banque. A la bonne heure, qu’ils tremblent!

Les conséquences d’une victoire de Trump seront incalculables. Nous reprendrons notre foi en la démocratie. L’Otan va rétrécir, l’argent servira à réparer les infrastructures US au lieu de servir à bombarder la Syrie et la Libye. Et les Américains seront aimés à nouveau.

Les conséquences d’une victoire de la Clinton seront aussi provisoires que nous-mêmes, car elle nous gratifiera d’une horrible guerre nucléaire, et de la dictature éternelle du talon d’acier.

Ces élections, c’est comme le choix entre la pilule bleue et la pilule rouge. « Tu prends la bleue, et l’histoire finit là. Tu te réveilles dans ton lit, et tu crois ce que tu as envie de croire. Tu prends la rouge, tu restes au Pays des merveilles, et on descend ensemble au fond du gouffre dans le terrier du lapin blanc ». Heureusement, grâce à Dieu, nous savons quelle est la couleur de Trump, et quelle est la couleur des Clinton.

Israël Shamir 

Article original en anglais :

putin

Russia vs. America: Democracy’s Last Chance, publié le 21 septembre 2016.

Traduction : Maria Poumier, Entre la Plume et l’enclume

Pour contacter l’auteur: [email protected]

  • Posted in Francais @fr
  • Commentaires fermés sur Dernière chance pour la démocratie

The Russian military unveiled on Tuesday video footage of a UN humanitarian aid convoy that came under attack in Syria, which shows a militants’ pickup vehicle carrying a large-caliber mortar as part of the convoy.

The video shows that the UN aid convoy was accompanied by a terrorists’ off-road vehicle with a large-caliber mortar launcher, the Russian Defense Ministry spokesman said.

« The examination of the video footage made via drones of the movement of the humanitarian convoy in areas controlled by militants in the province of Aleppo has revealed new details.  The video clearly shows how terrorists are redeploying a pickup with a large-caliber mortar on it using the convoy as a cover, » Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov said. (right)

He said that

« it is unclear yet who accompanies whom: the [pickup with a] mortar accompanies the convoy with « White Helmets » volunteers or vise versa. And most importantly, where did the mortar disappear near the destination point of the convoy and what was the target of its fire during the convoy’s stop and unloading? »

On Monday, the United Nations’ Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) said that the aid convoy crossed the conflict line in the Big Orem area of the Syrian city of Aleppo.

Later in the day, UN officials stated that the convoy had been shelled and there were casualties.

Earlier in the day, the Russian Defense Ministry said that neither Russian, not Syria aircraft carried out strikes against the UN aid convoy, emphasizing that the examination of video footage reveals no signs of an ammunition strikes on the convoy and it seems to be set on fire.

The ministry emphasized that the perpetrator of the fire, as well as his goal may be known by members of the « White Helmets » organization that allegedly has connection to al-Nusra Front terrorists who have « accidentally » been at the right time and in the right place with cameras.

According to the official, al-Nusra Front terrorist group carried out an artillery attack on the southwestern suburb of Aleppo using multiple launch rocket systems.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Video Footage of Syria Aid Convoy Released: Who Was Behind the Attack? Convoy Accompanied by Al Nusra Terrorists’ Off-Road Vehicle
syria-obama2

Syria: Attack on Aid Convoy Kills Twenty, Destroys Aid, And Obliterates US War Crimes in Support of ISIS-Daesh Terror Group?

By Felicity Arbuthnot, September 21 2016

In the words of Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova: “We are reaching a really terrifying conclusion for the whole world: That the White House is defending the Islamic State. Now there can be no doubts about that”.

AleppoVideo: Contradictory Reports regarding “Humanitarian Convoy” Destroyed on Road near Aleppo

By South Front, September 21 2016

Heavy clashes resumed in Syria after the truce officially collapsed on September 19. The Jabhtat Fatah al-Sham (formerly Jabhat al-Nusra) terrorist group and its allies launched a full-scale advance against the Syrian army, the National Defense Forces and Hezbollah in southwestern Aleppo.

Flag-map_of_Syria.svg

Voices from Syria: “This Country is being Violated by Terrorists who Destroy History, and People”

By Mark Taliano, September 21 2016

Radwan Altaweel and his 24 year old son, Basel Altaweel, work at Shop.Altaweel Copper and Brass Designs. Basel’s 30 year old brother is currently in the military, serving with the Syrian Arab Army.  The family name means “tall”, and they are both standing tall against the Western designs to destroy their homeland.

india-kashmir-map1-e1285746721228

Kashmir: “We The People” Should Stand Up

By Chandra Muzaffar, September 21 2016

The armed conflict in Kashmir has reached a dangerous point. The killing of 17 Indian soldiers in the Uri camp, 6 kilometres from the Line of Control (LoC) that separates the two state protagonists, India and Pakistan, could lead to a further deterioration of a volatile situation that threatens to spiral into a much larger conflagration.  Indian authorities allege that the four militants who killed the soldiers were trained by Pakistan. Pakistan has denied the allegation.

Edward-Snowden

The Washington Post and Edward Snowden

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, September 21 2016

The tensions between those engaged in the dangerous and compromising pursuit of whistleblowing, and those who use the fruit of such efforts has been all too coarsely revealed in the Washington Post stance on Edward Snowden. Oliver Stone’s Snowden has done a good deal of stirring on its release, suggesting that the pardon powers of the Presidential office should be activated.  A recent petition calling for a pardon of the former National Security Agency contractor has already received signatures from Steve Wozniak, Maggie Gyllenhaal and Jack Dorsey.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Selected Articles: Voices from Syria: Contradictory Reports Regarding Attack on Aid Convoy

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” Candidate Barack Obama, December, 2007

As the US heaps blame and accusations on Russia and Syria for the alleged air strike on the aid convoy on Monday 19th September, as ever there are more questions than answers – and whatever US spokespersons state, absolutely no certainties.

The only undeniable fact is that another tragedy killed at least twenty Syrian Arab Red Crescent volunteers and the organisation’s local Director Omar Barakat, father of nine. At least eighteen of the thirty one-truck convoy were destroyed with the warehouse where humanitarian aid was stored.

The Russian Defence Ministry has categorically denied any attack and claims the convoy caught fire (1):  “We have studied video footage from the scene from so-called ‘activists’ in detail and did not find any evidence that the convoy had been struck by ordnance”, commented Igor Konashenkov, a Ministry spokesman.

“There are no craters and the exterior of the vehicles do not have the kind of damage consistent with blasts caused by bombs dropped from the air.” His observations are hard to challenge, anyone who has studied the assaults of the “international community” on far away countries over the last decades knows what a bombed truck looks like – what fragments remains of it.

Photographs of the affected lorries show burned out vehicles, metal skeleton intact.

Konashenkov said that damage visible in footage was instead the result of cargo igniting – “oddly” occurring at the same time as militants (formerly Nusra Front) had started a big offensive in nearby Aleppo, backed by tanks, artillery and other heavy equipment.

He added:

“Only representatives of the ‘White Helmets’ organization close to the Nusra Front who, as always, found themselves at the right time in the right place by chance with their video cameras can answer who did this and why.”

Indeed the ‘White Helmets’ boasted in a video of being on the scene within “moments.”

The “White Helmets” who have had the gall to entitle themselves the Syrian Civil Defence Force are seemingly neither Syrian, nor Civil, nor Defence. Vanessa Beeley who has meticulously charted their antics points out (2)

“This is an alleged ‘non-governmental’ organization … that so far has received funding from at least three major NATO governments, including $23 million from the US Government and $29 million (£19.7 million) from the UK Government, $4.5 million (€4 million) from the Dutch Government. In addition, it receives material assistance and training funded and run by a variety of other EU Nations.”

She informs of such concerns regarding the organization that:

“A request has been put into the EU Secretary General to provide all correspondence relating to the funding and training of the White Helmets. By law this information must be made transparent and available to the public.”

Beeley points out: “There has been a concerted campaign by a range of investigative journalists to expose the true roots of … the White Helmets. » The most damning statement, however (comes from) their funders and backers in the US State Department who attempted to explain the US deportation of the prominent White Helmet leader, Raed Saleh, from Dulles airport on the 18th April 2016.

Of the incident, Mark Toner, State Department spokesman stated:

“And any individual – again, I’m broadening my language here for specific reasons, but any individual in any group suspected of ties or relations with extremist groups or that we had believed to be a security threat to the United States, we would act accordingly. But that does not, by extension, mean we condemn or would cut off ties to the group for which that individual works for.”

Figure that one, Dear Reader.

The Ron Paul Institute has pointed out:

“We have demonstrated that the White Helmets are an integral part of the propaganda vanguard that ensures obscurantism of fact and propagation of Human Rights fiction that elicits the well-intentioned and self righteous response from a very cleverly duped public. A priority for these NGOs is to keep pushing the No Fly Zone scenario which has already been seen to have disastrous implications for innocent civilians in Libya, for example.” (See 2.)

What better chance to push “the No Fly Zone scenario” than arriving within “moments” of the convoy tragedy, filming it and creating a propaganda scenario before any meaningful forensic investigation could even be started, since the trucks were still burning. And of course, the “White Helmets”, aka “Syrian Defence Force”, were filming rather than attempting to put out the fire and rescue those in the burning trucks.

The Russian Defence Ministry subsequently caused outrage by claiming that Drone footage: “shows bombed Syrian aid convoy included truck full of militant fighters carrying mortar guns.” (3)

However: “The footage emerged as the United Nations rowed back from describing the attack on the aid convoy as air strikes, saying it did not have conclusive evidence about what had happened.”

It must be asked, why on earth, after long and protracted negotiations over the convoy would Syria and or their Russian ally risk the wrath of US and “coalition” further decimation of the country by laying themselves open to accusations of bombing and aid convoys?

The tragedy has emphatically achieved one thing, however. Wiped from the headlines is another atrocity – the US bombing which killed over sixty Syrian soldiers and wounded over a hundred others just two days earlier, on Saturday 17th September, causing Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova to comment: “We are reaching a really terrifying conclusion for the whole world: That the White House is defending Islamic State. Now there can be no doubts about that”, according to the RIA Novosti news agency.

Again – Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who will guard the guards?

Notes

1.http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-russia-convoyfir-idUSKCN11Q1SG

2.http://21stcenturywire.com/2016/06/21/who-are-the-syria-white-helmets/

3.http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/drone-footage-shows-bombed-syrian-8879319

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Syria: Attack on Aid Convoy Kills Twenty, Destroys Aid, And Obliterates US War Crimes in Support of ISIS-Daesh Terror Group?

As we have already said many times, the main aspect of this political season is not elections, but war. But if elections do have importance somewhere, then this is in the US where, once again, they are closely connected to war. Two days ago, on Saturday, September 17th, the likelihood of this war was breathtakingly high. As we know, American troops, who no one ever invited to Syria, bombed the positions of the Syrian army at Deir ez-Zor. As a result of the bombing, 60 Syrian soldiers were killed.

This strike was extremely important for ISIS militants, whom the US is informally advising and arming while supposedly fighting them. This crossed the line. Bombing Syrian soldiers is one thing, but this means declaring war not only against Syria, but also Russia, which is fighting in Syria on Assad’s side. And this means that we have reached a climax.

Sure, the US leadership immediately reported that the airstrike was a mistake and warned the Russian leadership not to express any emotions. But Americans can only be lying, as modern technology allows satellite objects to be seen from a desktop. Theoretically, American bombers could not have simply confused such a strike. And what’s most important: if they had told you that they were preparing to bomb you, and you said nothing, then does that mean you agree?

It is completely obvious that the US is preparing to start a war against Russia. Border incidents represent reconnaissance operations. But how will Moscow, Putin, and the Kremlin react? The point of no return has not yet been crossed, but did Moscow’s reaction not show just how many Russians are ready for a direct, frontal confrontation with the US and NATO? This was why the airstrike was launched against Syrian army positions.

The globalist US leadership obviously cannot rule the whole world and, what’s more, the threat posed by Trump puts their control over America itself into question. Now, while the puppet Barack Obama is still in office and the globalist candidate Hillary Clinton is falling apart in front of American voters’ very eyes, is the last chance to start a war. This would allow them to postpone elections or force Trump, if he were to win, to begin his presidency in catastrophic conditions. Thus, the US neoconservatives and globalists need war. And fast, before it’s too late. If Trump gets into the White House when there will be peace, then there will be no such war, at least for the foreseeable future. And this would spell the end of the omnipotence of the maniacal globalist elites.

Thus, everything at this point is very, very serious. NATO’s ideologues and the US globalists falling into the abyss need war right now – before the American elections. War against us. Not so much for victory, but for the process itself. This is the only way for them to prolong their dominance and divert the attention of Americans and the whole world from their endless series of failures and crimes. The globalists’ game has been revealed. Soon enough, they’ll have to step down from power and appear before court. Only war can save their situation.

But what about us? We don’t need war. Not now, now tomorrow, never. Never in history have we needed war. But we have constantly fought and, in fact, we have almost never lost. The cost entailed terrible losses and colossal efforts, but we won. And we will always win. If this were not so, then today we wouldn’t have such an enormous country free from foreign control.

But in this case, we need to buy as much time as possible. The Americans have essentially attacked our positions, like the Georgians in Tskhinvali in August 2008. Russians are under fire, and this cannot be ignored. Our reaction is extremely cautious and balanced. We have expressed what we think about this American act of aggression, but in very deliberate terms.

The fatality of the situation lies in that, if Washington decides to opt for war now, then we cannot avoid it. If they will insist and repeat the September 17th situation again and again, then we will have to either accept the challenge and go to war, or knowingly admit defeat.

In this situation, the outcome of the struggle for peace which is, as always, fully in our interests, does not depend on us. We really need peace, to buy time until November 8th, and then everything will be much easier. But will the collapsing colossus allow us this time?

God forbid that this happens. But those who could pray prayed on the eve of the First and Second World War. In any case, our goal is always and only victory. Our victory.

The Americans are bombing our guys. A Third World War has never been so close.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Video: The Third World War Has Never Been So Close… « US Preparing to Wage War on Russia. How will Russia Respond? »

Last weekend, the US-led international coalition against ISIS used its air power against the Syrian Arab Army positions outside the eastern city of Deir Ezzor, supporting an advance of ISIS militants there. This was the second time in less than a year when the coalition’s warplanes bombed the Syrian government forces engaged in clashes with this notorious terrorist group. On December 6, 2015 four coalition warplanes hit the Syrian army’s field camp outside Deir Ezzor prior to the ISIS advance in the area.

It’s hard to believe in the official American version that the both incidents were accidental because in this case we should conclude that the US-led coalition has almost no intelligence about the situation in the province. Obviously, this is not true.

Most likely, Washington believes that such bombings are a demonstration of the coalition’s unity in countering the Russian-Syrian-Iranian efforts in the conflict and the answer to Russian air strikes on the US-backed New Syrian Army (NSyA) militant group that took place some time ago. The American political leadership likely believe that this move showed that the US is ready to answer if Moscow decides to intensify bombing of the so-called “moderate opposition.” Separation of this opposition from terrorists is not the case because when this is done it will become clear that various terrorist groups are a core of the anti-Assad forces.

The question is how will the Russian-Syrian-Iranian alliance to respond to its US-led counterpart?

  • Moscow has already started a media campaign that the US is not able and does not seek to separate the moderate opposition from the terrorists. And this can be described as a direct assistance to Jabhat Fatah al-Sham (formerly Jabhat al-Nusra).
  • In the same moment, the official version of Washington about an accident can be used to demonstrate inability of the US military to conduct successful anti-terror operations without additional assistance from other powers.
  • Strengthening of air defenses in the area will also help to cool hot heads in the US-led coalition. The case with allegedly downed Israeli aircraft shows that a real threat to sustain casualties as result of such PR actions reduces the willingness to conduct them.
  • The Russian-Syrian-Iranian alliance needs to continue military pressure on any groups embedded with Jabhat Fatah al-Sham and its proxies.

Summarizing the recent developments, it has become clear that Washington is pushing for breaching the ceasefire agreement and is searching a reason for this. So, Russia, Syria and Iran should be ready for continuation of the full-scale war if the truce is failed. This is why they took the lead.

On September 19, the head of the main operations department of Russia’s General Staff, Lt. Gen. Sergey Rudskoy declared during a press briefing on September 19 that there is no reason for the Syrian government forces to observe the ceasefire, unilaterally. The Russian military official emphasized the United States and US-backed opposition groups have not met any of the commitments of the agreements. The US even failed to provide the Russian military with precise data on the deployment of the US-controlled armed groups while the data, handed over to Russia on September 13, did not meet the bilateral agreement – it was merely a general list of the militant groups agreed to join the truce. In other words, the Russian military declared the end of the truce and the United States’ inability to fulfil the commitments of Geneva deal.

A few hours later, the Syrian army command declared the end of the nationwide ceasefire in Syria. In a statement released by SANA, it emphasized that “armed terrorist groups took advantage of the declared ceasefire” in order to regroup and mobilize forces. Now, the terrorists are aimed to launch attacks on “residential areas” and the government forces positions in several regions, including Aleppo. The ceasefire regime collapsed.

If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help: PayPal: [email protected] or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Collapse of Syrian Truce: US Air Strikes in Support of the Islamic State (ISIS-ISIL-Daesh) Terror Group

Kashmir: “We The People” Should Stand Up

septembre 21st, 2016 by Dr. Chandra Muzaffar

The armed conflict in Kashmir has reached a dangerous point. The killing of 17 Indian soldiers in the Uri camp, 6 kilometres from the Line of Control (LoC) that separates the two state protagonists, India and Pakistan, could lead to a further deterioration of a volatile situation that threatens to spiral into a much larger conflagration.  Indian authorities allege that the four militants who killed the soldiers were trained by Pakistan. Pakistan has denied the allegation.

Both India and Pakistan should not allow the situation to escalate into an open war between the two states. Starting with the first Kashmir War in 1947, they have already fought three wars over Kashmir. These wars have only witnessed the loss of thousands of lives on both sides.

The Kashmir conflict cannot be resolved through war and violence. Indian and Pakistani leaders know this. The people of Kashmir themselves are deeply aware of the importance of a peaceful solution.

Right from the beginning of the Kashmir conflict 69 years ago, many commentators from Kashmir, other parts of India and Pakistan and indeed from other countries have argued that a peaceful solution must be built around a free and fair plebiscite that would allow the people of Kashmir to determine their own future. Self-determination then is the key to ending the conflict in Kashmir. This was the position adopted by the United Nations itself in 1949. At that time, the people of Kashmir, it was felt, should be allowed to choose between joining India or Pakistan. Today, however, it is obvious that Kashmiris should be given a third choice: of establishing their own independent, sovereign state that is not a part of either their two neighbours.

Whatever it is, the fundamental principle that should be observed at all costs is the right of the people of Kashmir to decide their own destiny. Unfortunately, it does not appear that the elite in New Delhi or in Islamabad will willingly allow the people of Kashmir to exercise this right. The UN is in no position to compel the Indian and Pakistani authorities to give the green light to Kashmir’s sovereign right.

Major world powers will not be able to play a role either. The United States of America which has developed increasingly close ties to India in recent years will not try to persuade New Delhi to grant Kashmiris their sovereign right because it is not in its interest to do so. China which has tremendous rapport with Islamabad has no reason to ask the latter to acknowledge the right of self-determination of the people of the whole of Kashmir, including that part of Kashmir which is under the control of Pakistan. Incidentally, it is self-determination for the whole of Kashmir that the UN had in mind in 1949.

If the people of Kashmir cannot depend upon major powers or the UN to help them to exercise their right, who do they turn to? What can they do to achieve their goal of independence? Perhaps they should begin by acknowledging what they cannot do. Resorting to violence is not the solution — though it is true that freedom-fighters in Kashmir have been subjected to unspeakable brutality and horrific torture. This is also true of the present cycle of violence which reveals that the harsh measures adopted by the Indian armed forces have been mainly responsible for the retaliatory tactics of the freedom-fighters. But violence and counter-violence have only increased the immense suffering of the people of Kashmir which has been under a curfew for more than two months.

This is directly linked to another dimension of the conflict that demands the immediate attention of the international community. If freedom-fighters should not resort to violence, it is even more important for the Indian army to exercise maximum restraint in addressing peaceful dissent. Its excessive use of force must cease immediately. The world should demand this. Indeed, to develop a modicum of trust between the Indian authorities in Kashmir and the people, a substantial portion of the army should be withdrawn.

Just as the Indian authorities should demonstrate that they are capable of changing their behaviour, so should the Pakistani army and the Pakistani elite desist from any sort of conduct that would suggest that they are interfering in the domestic affairs of Indian occupied Kashmir. This will help to create an atmosphere that makes it easier for Kashmiris themselves to articulate their interests and mobilize the popular will in pursuit of their own agenda.

In ensuring that both India and Pakistan respect the rights of the people of Kashmir, the UN peace keeping force in Kashmir should perhaps expand its mandate beyond the LoC and play a more vigorous role in maintaining security and stability.  As a general principle, the UN should be more involved in trying to find a solution to the Kashmiri conflict — arguably one of the longest conflicts in the world that weighs heavily on the UN’s conscience.

For the UN to be more involved, global civil society should also give more attention to Kashmir. If world opinion could be mobilized on behalf of the right of self-determination of the Kashmiri people, it could well accelerate the peaceful resolution of this longstanding conflict.

The time has come for “we the people” in the language of the UN Charter to stand up for the sons and daughters of Kashmir.

Dr. Chandra Muzaffar is the President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST).

  • Posted in English @as @as
  • Commentaires fermés sur Kashmir: “We The People” Should Stand Up

Kashmir: “We The People” Should Stand Up

septembre 21st, 2016 by Dr. Chandra Muzaffar

The armed conflict in Kashmir has reached a dangerous point. The killing of 17 Indian soldiers in the Uri camp, 6 kilometres from the Line of Control (LoC) that separates the two state protagonists, India and Pakistan, could lead to a further deterioration of a volatile situation that threatens to spiral into a much larger conflagration.  Indian authorities allege that the four militants who killed the soldiers were trained by Pakistan. Pakistan has denied the allegation.

Both India and Pakistan should not allow the situation to escalate into an open war between the two states. Starting with the first Kashmir War in 1947, they have already fought three wars over Kashmir. These wars have only witnessed the loss of thousands of lives on both sides.

The Kashmir conflict cannot be resolved through war and violence. Indian and Pakistani leaders know this. The people of Kashmir themselves are deeply aware of the importance of a peaceful solution.

Right from the beginning of the Kashmir conflict 69 years ago, many commentators from Kashmir, other parts of India and Pakistan and indeed from other countries have argued that a peaceful solution must be built around a free and fair plebiscite that would allow the people of Kashmir to determine their own future. Self-determination then is the key to ending the conflict in Kashmir. This was the position adopted by the United Nations itself in 1949. At that time, the people of Kashmir, it was felt, should be allowed to choose between joining India or Pakistan. Today, however, it is obvious that Kashmiris should be given a third choice: of establishing their own independent, sovereign state that is not a part of either their two neighbours.

Whatever it is, the fundamental principle that should be observed at all costs is the right of the people of Kashmir to decide their own destiny. Unfortunately, it does not appear that the elite in New Delhi or in Islamabad will willingly allow the people of Kashmir to exercise this right. The UN is in no position to compel the Indian and Pakistani authorities to give the green light to Kashmir’s sovereign right.

Major world powers will not be able to play a role either. The United States of America which has developed increasingly close ties to India in recent years will not try to persuade New Delhi to grant Kashmiris their sovereign right because it is not in its interest to do so. China which has tremendous rapport with Islamabad has no reason to ask the latter to acknowledge the right of self-determination of the people of the whole of Kashmir, including that part of Kashmir which is under the control of Pakistan. Incidentally, it is self-determination for the whole of Kashmir that the UN had in mind in 1949.

If the people of Kashmir cannot depend upon major powers or the UN to help them to exercise their right, who do they turn to? What can they do to achieve their goal of independence? Perhaps they should begin by acknowledging what they cannot do. Resorting to violence is not the solution — though it is true that freedom-fighters in Kashmir have been subjected to unspeakable brutality and horrific torture. This is also true of the present cycle of violence which reveals that the harsh measures adopted by the Indian armed forces have been mainly responsible for the retaliatory tactics of the freedom-fighters. But violence and counter-violence have only increased the immense suffering of the people of Kashmir which has been under a curfew for more than two months.

This is directly linked to another dimension of the conflict that demands the immediate attention of the international community. If freedom-fighters should not resort to violence, it is even more important for the Indian army to exercise maximum restraint in addressing peaceful dissent. Its excessive use of force must cease immediately. The world should demand this. Indeed, to develop a modicum of trust between the Indian authorities in Kashmir and the people, a substantial portion of the army should be withdrawn.

Just as the Indian authorities should demonstrate that they are capable of changing their behaviour, so should the Pakistani army and the Pakistani elite desist from any sort of conduct that would suggest that they are interfering in the domestic affairs of Indian occupied Kashmir. This will help to create an atmosphere that makes it easier for Kashmiris themselves to articulate their interests and mobilize the popular will in pursuit of their own agenda.

In ensuring that both India and Pakistan respect the rights of the people of Kashmir, the UN peace keeping force in Kashmir should perhaps expand its mandate beyond the LoC and play a more vigorous role in maintaining security and stability.  As a general principle, the UN should be more involved in trying to find a solution to the Kashmiri conflict — arguably one of the longest conflicts in the world that weighs heavily on the UN’s conscience.

For the UN to be more involved, global civil society should also give more attention to Kashmir. If world opinion could be mobilized on behalf of the right of self-determination of the Kashmiri people, it could well accelerate the peaceful resolution of this longstanding conflict.

The time has come for “we the people” in the language of the UN Charter to stand up for the sons and daughters of Kashmir.

Dr. Chandra Muzaffar is the President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST).

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Kashmir: “We The People” Should Stand Up

The headline read: “Little boy pulled alive from the rubble”. The Aleppo Media Centre video and photograph of Omran Daqneesh, aka the ‘Dusty Boy” of Aleppo, allegedly rescued by the notorious White Helmets in terrorist-held East Aleppo, went viral almost immediately, rocketed into the propaganda stratosphere by the western mainstream media.

Almost every mainstream media outlet worldwide showcased this video and the now infamous still photograph of “Dusty Boy” Omran. The dusty and bloodied child was placed upon a chair in what seemed to be a pristine condition ambulance, despite being in an alleged war zone, while being photographed by a barrage of cameras and mobile phones. Meanwhile, nobody actually attended to him medically – it was as if this were a staged photo-shoot.

Nobody comforted him, dressed his supposed wounds, or put him in neck brace, or even on a stretcher presuming he might have had spinal injuries (standard first aid procedure) having just been rescued from ‘under the rubble’ of a bombed building which AMC claimed was targeted by “Russian and Syrian regime airstrikes.”

aleppo-media-center
PROPAGANDA HUB: The Aleppo Media Center supplies US, UK, NATO members states, Qatar’s Al Jazeera and many more, with pro-regime change images, providing PR backing for listed terrorist organizations operating in Syria. 

This Aleppo Media Centre pulled off a propaganda coup – one that generated calls for a No-Fly-Zone and associated western intervention policies all focused on salvaging the US failed road map of “regime change” in Syria. However, a number of independent international journalists, media analysts, and peace activists began to question the imagery and its source, which revealed some extremely disturbing details – not only about the picture itself, but more importantly about the organization who supplied it to an eager western media.

Recently, a compelling photo of a bleeding and seemingly confused young Syrian boy seated in an ambulance in Aleppo was widely distributed and commented upon in domestic and international news media.  In response, some journalists have called for the Obama Administration to “take action,” including bombing government military targets in Syria.

Veterans for Peace Statement

For further insights into the “dusty boy” propaganda go to 21WIRE’s video report: Aleppo, Syria, ‘Dust Boy’ Image Staged.

1-bbc-omran

Looking back at the event, the media furore, led by Washington, London, Europe, the Gulf States, Turkey and Israel, was intentionally overwhelming and acted not only as a familiar catalyst for the neocolonialist governments patterned responses, but it also successfully acted as a deflector and smokescreen, designed to conceal the daily massacres carried out by US-NATO and Gulf State-backed terrorist aka ‘moderate rebels’ in East Aleppo (approximately 220,000 people remaining, many of them terrorists and their families) against Syrian civilians who are living among the rarely mentioned 1.5 million civilians in West Aleppo, an area controlled and protected by the Syrian government and the Syrian national armed forces.

In the first two weeks of August alone there had been 143 civilians murdered by the majority Al Nusra Front mortar fire into western Aleppo, including 54 children and 23 women. This information was supplied to Vanessa Beeley by Dr Zahar Buttal, director of the Aleppo Medical Associationduring her trip to western Aleppo on the 14th August 2016.

aleppo-media-center-production-injured-child-1000x445
AMC photographer Mahmoud Raslan supplied the staged image of Omran to eager western media outlets.

The Usual Suspects

If the BBC, CNN, New York Times, Washington Post, Al Jazeera and others had conducted a cursory web search they would have quickly found out what other more thorough media outlets discovered.

The identification of alleged photographer of ‘Dusty Boy’ Omran was a man named Mahmoud Raslan [or Rslan] a self-described “activist photojournalist.” According to his own social media profiles and images, Raslan has been revealed as a fully-fledged terrorist sympathiser –  exposed very rapidly by a number of respectable and reliable media outlets including Sputnik News:

Photos circulating online from the social media account of Omran’s photographer, a man by the name of Mahmoud Raslan, appear to show him commiserating with the killers of another child – 12-year-old named Abdullah Tayseer Issa, who was gruesomely beheaded by US-backed ‘moderate rebels’ last month….The photos, circulating on social media and collected by LiveLeak (warning, graphic images), show screenshots of Raslan’s Facebook page, including an image showing him posing and smiling with the terrorists from the Nour al-Din al-Zenki Movement who murdered Issa in cold blood.”

Raslan capitalised on his new found media stardom and circulated his heart wringing witness statement, first to the Telegraph, that ran with the story without any apparent investigation into Raslan’s terrorist roots:

The tears started to drop as I took the photo. It is not the first time I’ve cried. I have cried many times while filming traumatised children. I always cry. We war photographers always cry.

Apparently the abuse, torture and beheading of 12 year old Abdullah Issa (child killers pictured with Raslan below) failed to produce the same copious crocodile tears from terrorist sympathizer, Raslan.

During his various forays into the murky world of this deep state-controlled mockingbird media, Raslan has maintained that he is a “freelancer”, one who dabbles in work for Al Jazeera and AFP and who is “affiliated” with the Aleppo Media Centre.

Sarah Flounders, head of the International Action Centre told RT:

No, I think this photographer absolutely is known on Facebook, on YouTube for continually posting images, pictures applauding the Zinki militia, really a terrorist organization – well known even before this horrendous beheading of a Palestinian-Syrian child. He is not by any stretch of the imagination a human rights activist. He calls himself a ‘media activist’, but his role has been to applaud and support the terrorist activity in Syria.

Among other statements, Raslan also posted on his Facebook page describing how, “some of the best times I have spent have been with suicide bombers.”

In a later interview with Al Babwa, Raslan does his utmost to repair his  shredded reputation.

I would never work with any group that disagrees with my personal beliefs, but sometimes we have to take pictures with them,”  adding “I normally take hundreds of selfies with whoever I see on the fronts. We who work in press take hundreds of pictures that we keep in our archives.

So from this, we should be able to deduce that next time Raslan is at a “front” his Facebook and Twitter pages will be awash with selfies of Raslan with ISIS, Al Nusra (al Qaeda), Arar al-Sham, Nour al-Din al-Zenki, or anyone else he bumps into at the ‘front.’

Follow the Money: Who’s Funding the Aleppo Media Centre?

Now it gets interesting. Writer Anne Barnard of the New York Times writes a suitably stirring account of the Omran story. It must be remembered she has also penned a very fine eulogy to a suicide bomber not so long ago. In her report, she identifies the Aleppo Media Centre as:

A longstanding group of anti-government activists and citizen journalists who document the conflict…

Anyone walking on the right side of the tracks of this Dirty War on Syria will shudder at the double whammy of ‘activist’ and ‘citizen journalist’ in the same sentence and then to have ‘anti-government’ thrown in for good measure – completes this propaganda picture.

What the NYT’s Barnard does not tell her readers: this terminology [when used by the NATO PR media] generally intimates a penchant for Wahhabi beards,  shouting Takbeer [God is great] when targeting civilians with a variety of missiles, and the acceptance of a “moderate rebel” selection process that ensures those who not adhere to the “moderate rebel” extremist ideology are declared infidels and summarily executed.

Follow the Money

First lets examine the funding sources of this group of activist-citizen-journalists – embedded alongside the gaggle of religious extremist terrorist groups and other US/NATO state operatives, located exclusively in the Al Nusra Front dominated areas of East Aleppo, itself the launch pad of the daily hell cannon missiles that shatter the lives of the 1.5 million Syrians living in the Syrian state and army controlled West Aleppo.

syrian-expatriates-organisation
As Sott.net rightly pointed out, Aleppo Media Centre is a ‘project‘ of the Syrian Expatriates Organisation [SEO]:

The SEO is what it sounds like, a group of American citizens of Syrian extraction who have their offices on K Street in Washington, D.C., a street that is famous for being the center of the American political lobbying industry, with numerous think tanks, lobbyists, and advocacy groups based there.

Sott.net

On the SEO website we find that they were instrumental in the establishment of the Aleppo Media Centre:

News reporting and media outreach have been among the major tasks that are vital to the civil uprising in Syria. Aleppo Media Centre, a specialized news center serving Aleppo and its suburbs, has been established with a generous contribution from SEO. Since October 2012, SEO has been responsible for coordinating Aleppo Media Center and providing technical and logistical help along with the financial help it provided.

However, the SEO is not the only benefactor of this much relied upon media centre, embedded inAl Nusra-land. In December 2015, France’s own state media body, Canal France International (CFI) celebrated the fact that Aleppo Media Centre would be broadcasting over the FM radio airwaves of Aleppo, Idlib and Hama. Again, Idlib and Hama, along with East Aleppo – are also Al Nusra Front strongholds.

The following statement accompanying the launch of the AMC radio station is to be found on the French CFI website:

Since 2012, the Aleppo Media Center, which has permanently brought together around twenty journalists based in Syria, has been providing continuous news coverage of the latest events affecting the region, with articles, photographs and videos being published on its website and on social media.

Thanks to the support that it has received from the Syrian Media Incubator in Gaziantep (Turkey), the Center is now seeking to bring a new project to fruition: setting up a local radio station in Aleppo, which will be broadcast for two hours every day on the FM 99.00 frequency, and around 15 hours per day on the Internet.

Over the course of 2015, the Incubator has given several training courses in radio and video to the journalists at the Aleppo Media Center. In November, it contributed towards the purchase of equipment for the studio and helped set the studio up, and also trained the team on how to use it.

In December, two members of the Center also received ‘trainer training’, which will allow them in turn to train citizen-journalists in Syria itself.

So, Aleppo Media Centre is also receiving “support” from an organisation called the Syrian Media Incubator based in Gazientap, Turkey.  Interesting choice of name, as Turkey has also acted as an incubator for US-NATO, Gulf State and Israeli supported terrorist mercenaries of all denominations who have poured into Syria via the Turkish borders, along with weapons and supplies – all of which are the number one factor that has extended the current Syrian Conflict and ensured a perpetual cycle of misery and bloodshed for the Syria people.

cfi-canal
Here’s where it gets really interesting. The ‘Syrian Media Incubator’ is a project funded by Canal France International (CFI), the French cooperation agency and media operator of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Yes, that is the French Foreign Office, once removed, which is funding the Aleppo Media Centre, the main and primary source of ‘news’ on Aleppo for the whole of the mainstream media outlets in the UK, US and Europe.

Indeed, it’s all up there in red, white and blue on the French government website:

Canal France International (CFI), the French cooperation agency and media operator of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, recently signed two substantial contracts (worth €2.7million) with the European Union to develop projects in support of independent media in the Arab world.

The first is a two-year contract concerning a project to further the development of independent media in Syria, mainly by providing training.

The project will receive funding of €1.5million, including €1.2million from the European Union(EU). The overall goal is to enable a new generation of Syrian journalists to produce high-quality, professional information today and to become pillars of the post-crisis media in the future.

In April 2014, CFI will open a media centre, the Syrian Media Incubator, in the Turkish city of Gaziantep, 60km from the Syrian border, to the north of Aleppo. This collective workspace aims to provide modern telecommunication tools and support Syrian journalists who are determined to continue relaying news from their country, whatever the cost.

This admission by the French government is truly spectacular. Let’s examine that statement: France and the EU, hardly impartial observers of the war being waged against Syria by the US and its allies in NATO, the Gulf States and Israel, are funding and supporting a media outlet that is whipping up the propaganda storms at strategic points in the battle by the Syrian Arab Army, to liberate Aleppo from the claws of the US coalition terrorist gangs.  Their stormshave sufficed to distract public attention from the real atrocities being committed by the terrorist entities against Syrian civilians in Aleppo and to once more invoke the clamour for a No Fly Zone, the ultimate tool that is needed by NATO to reduce Syria to a Libya style failed state.

rami-sohrNote here that the EU is also one of the main funding sources for another “Syrian opposition” NGO, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR), a one-man show based in Britain and run by a former Syrian convict called ‘Rami Abdelrahman’ (whose real name is Osama Ali Suleiman, photo,left), working in coordination with the British Foreign & Commonwealth Office. Why this is key is that just like the Aleppo Media Centre,the SOHR also provides all of these same western mainstream media outlets, and the US State Department and its allies – with all of their ‘news’ and ‘data’ about what is allegedly happening in Syria.

Whether it is Omran’s story or the recent claims of the use of chlorine bombs by the Syrian Army, they all serve an agenda that has little to do with benefitting the country of Syria, and much more to do with furthering the US-NATO’s own stated regime change policy objectives that have been at the top of their Syria to-do list since well before 2011 when the current pre-planned dirty war on Syria really started to gather momentum in Washington’s nation-building [destroying] agencies.

aptopix_mideast_syria-jpeg-3a1cb_c0-0-2000-1165_s400x233
MAN CARRIES CHILD, MEN LOOKING BUSY: A familiar emotive and staged image, generated by Aleppo Media Centre (Source: AMC/Washington Times)

Once again, we see these self-styled “citizen journalists” being embedded deep inside these newly established terrorist colonies – terrorist enclaves that are teeming with fanatical, drug fuelled, violent unstable, criminal factions who are fond of launching glass, shrapnel or chlorine and explosive filled containers indiscriminately into the densely populated residential areas of West Aleppo.

These “citizen journalists” relish their role and their encampment inside the terrorist heartlands, and they certainly have no fear of these murdering felons who have shown no compunction to carry out the most heinous of atrocities, including sawing off the head of a 12 year old, emaciated, and whimpering-with-fear child, the aforementioned Abdullah Issa.

We are seeing the creation of another sector of the west’s shadow state concealed through a series of western-funded ‘NGO projects’ which is being constructed in the fog of war, brick by brick, until it forms an impenetrable barrier between the greater public and the truth of what is actually happening inside Syria, and to the Syrian people.

This shadow media enclave is being installed in order to erect the US-NATO propaganda tent – one which suppresses and silences the voices which would normally be heard from inside Syria, but which are blacked-out in favour of contrived, and hoax imagery, and other twisted reporting that categorically refers to Islamist terrorists as ‘rebels’ and ‘freedom fighters’.

The authentic, majority of voices should be those of the Syrian people – as opposed to the war cries of from US-NATO selected ‘opposition’ – the majority of whom are not even living inside Syria.

The Method:

As a reminder, CFI already works in partnership with International Media Support (IMS) and Reporters sans frontières (RSF), and, in particular, helped in 2013 to set up an independent Syrian radio station called Radio Rozana, which broadcasts from Paris and relies on a network of 30 correspondents based in Syria. CFI provided several training sessions for these correspondents in 2013.

The Target Nations:

The second contract signed with the EU will enable CFI, over a period of three years, to fund projects seeking to develop online information services in AlgeriaMoroccoTunisiaLibya,EgyptJordanPalestineLebanon and Syria.

Their Clear Objective & End Game:

In this way, as the Arab world continues to evolve rapidly, CFI is redoubling its efforts to support the independent media that is destined to play a major part in the fragile processes ofdemocratisation taking place.

The French government’s endorsement:

The French Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Development (Ministère des Affaires étrangères et du Développement international – MAEDI) has set CFI the task of implementing its policy of aid for the development of public and private media and, more generally, the audiovisual industry with a tri-media outlook, in countries in receipt of development aid.

Its goals include the dissemination of information [propaganda], the strengthening of civil society and the State of law, and support for new democracies or ‘fragile States’“. It has the backing of France Télévisions and Arte France, ensuring service to a professional standard.

Media outlets such as Aleppo Media Centre are described in a CFI study, as a “bulwark against Damascus propaganda”, however as the so-called Damascus propaganda is instantly dismissed on all levels by US Coalition governments, their state media, human rights groups, controlled opposition groups, the Soros funded anti Syria NGO complex, NATO’s finest – the White Helmets, and finally the NATO-aligned think tanks… it is hard to comprehend why a bulwark was needed when a powerful international anti-Syrian state lobby already existed.

The Israeli Endorsement:

It is worth noting that Israel who is a primary beneficiary of the US Coalition war on Syria, according to Dr Bouthaina Shaaban (Media & Political Advisor to President Bashar Al Assad), had a page dedicated to reports from the Aleppo Media Centre on the Times of Israel news website up to the end of March 2015. This is an honour reserved only for those who fit into the narrow framework of the Zionist geopolitical vision of a fractured and fragmented Middle East, especially with its perennial rival in Syria – broken up along imaginary sectarian lines, a policy pursued by Israel and its ever more exposed partner in crime, Saudi Arabia.

The Main Actors

aleppo-zein
Zein Al Rifai. Co-founder of Aleppo Media Centre. Photo: Rozana.fm

One of the co-founders of Aleppo Media Centre is Zein Al Rifai, along with Youcef Seddik. In aninterview with Syria Deeply’, another one of the myriad of newly formed media centres working to foment propaganda against the Syrian state and national army, Al Rifai responds to questions with the now familiar soundbites and outright lies.

“Aleppo was one of the first cities to hold protests, and the demonstrations that took place at Aleppo University were significant, but unfortunately the media did not cover Aleppo at that time and the early protests were not well documented.” says Al Rifai

Perhaps those “early protests” were not documented because they did not happen as described by Aleppo Media Centre founder Zein Al Rifai.

NOTE: Syria Deeply is funded by the Asfari Foundation, headed up by CEO Ayman Asfari who also provided the $300,000 seed funding for ‘Syria Campaign’ who in turn were part of the team creating perhaps the most successful of the NATO’s outreach agents, the White Helmets.

Here is a statement from Dr Tony Sayegh, an eminent surgeon based in West Aleppo, who when asked what ‘Aleppo’ was like before the conflict, responded thus:

In July 2012 everything changed. But it was not the residents of Aleppo who rebelled against the rulers. Parts of the city were invaded by armed groups with fighters from other areas of Syria and from other countries. Tony Sayegh believes that the interests at stake of the invasion was much bigger than the control of a single city.

The attempt to overthrow the government of Syria with weapons and riots had failed. Then they decided to focus on Aleppo, to turn against the whole Syrian economy. The armed groups took over the water utilities and power plants to stop the supplys to the residents, and they focused on the industries. Entire factorys were taken down and driven to Turkey. They stole everything. That was when everything turned upside down and the bad days of Aleppo began.

zein-fb
Photos on Zein Al Rifai’s Facebook page, flying the opposition’s new flag for Syria, leaves no illusions as to where his sympathies lie. Photo: Facebook page

A search on the activities of both Al Rifai and Seddik reveal that both of these anti-Syrian government “citizen journalists” are given easy access around France on a number of promotional speaking tours which is extraordinary considering how virtually impossible it is for the majority of secular, pro-government [or simply anti NATO intervention], normal Syrian citizens to obtain visas thanks to the hardline US and EU sanctions being implemented against the Syrian state, but primarily affecting the Syrian people.

In addition, both men are consistently described, by French press, as “anti-Assad activists,” and ‘journalists’ who have no objections to working alongside terrorist entities like Nusra Front (Al Qaeda affiliate in Syria) provided the common goal is to overthrow President Assad.

We maintain good relationships with most of the opposition factions. We all share the same goal: to liberate Syria from tyranny, but each of us has taken his or her own path to achieve it. We have covered areas controlled by Jabhat al-Nusra in both Aleppo and Idlib. They did not bother us at all.

Zein Al Rifai to Syria Deeply

dr_kodmaniNot only do both men profess their affiliation with an organisation that is responsible for a huge percentage of the atrocities carried out against the majority of the Syrian people and beyond, but one of their regular speaking companions and co-advocates is none other than Hala Kodmani, the sister of ‘Syrian National Council’ opposition leader Basma Kodmani (photo, left).

Basma Kodmani’s credentials as a NATO favoured Syrian opposition candidate and double Bilderberg attendee are examined in detail by writer Charlie Skelton at the Guardian:

“A picture is emerging of Kodmani as a trusted lieutenant of the Anglo-American democracy-promotion industry. Her “province of origin” (according to the SNC website) is Damascus, but she has close and long-standing professional relationships with precisely those powers she’s calling upon to intervene in Syria.”

Conclusions

A very quick search for “Aleppo Media Centre + Omran” demonstrates just how pivotal this western-backed media outlet is to the NATO-aligned media propaganda mill. Virtually every major mainstream media outlet relies upon AMC videos and reports to bolster and maintain their US Coalition stream of anti-Assad chronicles. The Guardian, Channel 4, the BBC, the Telegraph, CNN, Fox News, Time, FT and many more all depend upon AMC to produce the goods that they all use to cook their narrative on Syria.

This is ‘smart power’ in a nutshell – a brave new world where media fat cats, operating from plush London, Paris and Manhattan high rise offices, no longer need to get their hands dirty in a war zone, they have their “activists” and “citizen journalists” to do it for them.

The problem is, in the case of Aleppo Media Centre, by any professional or ethical measure, their reports are neither balanced nor are they objective. They are funded by the French Foreign Office, the EU and the US – all of which are heavily invested in the US Coalition military operation and ‘road map’ for Syria and the eventual regime change prize they all dream of.

What’s worse, the Aleppo Media Center is embedded exclusively with Al Nusra Front, Arar al-Sham and terrorist-controlled areas. In their own words, they work closely with Al Nusra Front provided the regime change objectives are adhered to, regardless of the number of Syrian civilians massacred along the way – which is undoubtedly the case in Aleppo and all over the country too.

They are a crucial cog in a much larger, sinister network of democratization promoters and neocolonialist predators. They are also showcased by Israel, itself a primary beneficiary of perpetual conflict and chaos in Syria and the region.

In the end, they are promoting the idea that to improve Syria – they must first destroy it. Based on all available evidence, western state-sponsored media is working as the PR agency to sell that idea to the deliberately misinformed public.

These same Syrian embedded and satellite mainstream media outlets are liberally bandying around the Hitler label for President Assad, a cheap demonization device that they and theirSMART power teams have regularly employed for other regime change targets – Muamar Gadaffi(Libya), Saddam Hussein (Iraq), Slobodan Milosevic (Yugoslavia/Serbia) to name only a few.

Their ‘Hitlerization’ campaigns have reaped rich imperialist rewards, yet a read of Hitler’s own thesis on propaganda demonsrates very clearly that it is the global north and its mainstream media machine that adheres very closely to the intellectual conceit described in detail by Hitler himself – as being an essential component in controlling the masses and guaranteeing their acceptance of an eternal war.

The art of propaganda lies in understanding the emotional ideas of the great masses and finding, through a psychologically correct form, the way to the attention and thence to the heart of the broad masses

Hitler, Mein Kampf

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur War Propaganda and the ‘Aleppo Media Centre’, Funded By French Foreign Office, EU and US

Radwan Altaweel and his 24 year old son, Basel Altaweel, work at Shop.Altaweel Copper and Brass Designs. Basel’s 30 year old brother is currently in the military, serving with the Syrian Arab Army.  The family name means “tall”, and they are both standing tall against the Western designs to destroy their homeland.

Radwan says that he used to ship his delicately crafted, intricately designed, jewelry, mugs, plates, and assorted pieces of copper and brass, overseas, but that business has been bad since the war started.

“The Syrian military,” says Radwan, is “our people, our families, our sons.” The Altaweel’s both support the Assad government, and they say that Bashar al-Assad is “good for Syria.”

Radwan’s 30 year old son, Basel’s brother, has been fighting in the Syrian Arab Army for about 5 years, and he comes home every month for about a week, while Basel,  currently in school, is studying for his Master’s in Interior design.  “I am happy here,” he says, before adding, “war doesn’t bother me.”  This happiness and defiance, in the face of Western sanctions, Western terrorists, and Western bombs, no doubt frustrates the Western warmongers, who are dedicated to the death and destruction of this ancient and civilized land.

The father offered that, “From war we make peace (from art)” as he proudly showed me a plate that he designed, featuring a Maple Leaf welded to the United Nation’s logo. He was friends with Canadian soldiers when they were Peace Keepers at the Golan Heights.

Chassan Chahine , of  the St. George’s Orthodox church in the Old City of Damascus, made a point of showing us some intricate wood inlaying artwork of the Intarsia style.

Instead of using paint, the intarsia style makes use of different types and colors of wood.

Metaphorically, this style represents the pluralism of Syrian society where different peoples and religions are one and united.  They are Syrians first and foremost.  Religion is a personal matter.

Chahine didn’t mince words when he said that “They (Jews) are in our book,” but that “We are not in their book.”  Syrians accept Jews, but Zionists reject Syria, and all Syrians.

Knowing full well that in Canada, if people question Israeli actions and war crimes, or if they support Boycott Divest Sanction (BDS) measures, they are labelled “anti-semites”, I asked to speak to him privately.  I asked, “Do you think Zionists and the U.S are behind the terrorism?” He replied instantly, “Of course.”

The Western terrorists are violating Syrians and the civilization that they represent each and every time they bomb innocent people.

If the West, including Canada, had any moral fortitude, it would oppose this terrorism rather than support it.

Bombs recently thundered not far from where I am writing this.  I’ll find out soon if anyone was killed, but I just found out what it is like to be a Syrian, not knowing when or where the bombs might fall.

This country is being violated by terrorists who destroy history, and people.  Those who think differently or practice a different religion, or refuse to switch religions, or happen to be in proximity of a mortar bomb, are deemed unimportant.

Recently, protestors were protesting peacefully in a terrorist-occupied area, and the terrorists murdered them.

These are the “rebels”, the “freedom fighters”, the “moderates” that the West supports.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Voices from Syria: « This Country is being Violated by Terrorists who Destroy History, and People »

Heavy clashes resumed in Syria after the truce officially collapsed on September 19. The Jabhtat Fatah al-Sham (formerly Jabhat al-Nusra) terrorist group and its allies launched a full-scale advance against the Syrian army, the National Defense Forces and Hezbollah in southwestern Aleppo.

The Syrian and Russian air forces responded with resuming air strikes on Fatah al-Sham, Fatah Halab and Jaish al-Fatah targets in the areas of Khan Touman, Khalsah, Tal Al-‘Eis and Qarassi and Aleppo’s neighborhoods of Dahret ‘Abd Rabo, Al-Layramoun and Bustan Al-Basha. Pro-government forces report that up to 120 air strikes have been conducted since the collapse of ceasefire.

A Syria Red Crescent Society aid convoy (reportedly 10-20 trucks) was at Urem al-Kubra allegedly destroyed by an air strike in western Aleppo, according to pro-militant sources. There are conflicting reports about the movement of convoy. Western media say that the convoy was heading from the government-controlled western Aleppo while the purpose of such a direction remains unclear.

Other reports indicate that the convoy was heading from the countryside of Idlib to northern Aleppo, carrying weapons and ammunition for terrorists in the area. The confirmed facts are:

  • There are no facts proving that the bombed convoy was authorized and inspected by the Syrian government and the UN.
  • The released video of air strike scene has depicted a number of burning vehicles. Photos, released next morning by pro-militant sources and aimed to prove that this was a humanitarian convoy, do not contain traces of fire situation.

Whether this was a humanitarian convoy or not, this incident indicates a new rung on the escalation ladder and will be used by the US-backed militant groups and Washington to prove that they were not responsible for the collapse of cessation of hostilities in Syria.

If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help: PayPal: [email protected] or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via:https://www.patreon.com/southfront

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Video: Contradictory Reports regarding « Humanitarian Convoy » Destroyed on Road near Aleppo

To paraphrase Mark Twain, everyone complains about inequality, but nobody does anything about it.

What they do is to use “inequality” as a takeoff point to project their own views on how to make society more prosperous and at the same time more equal. These views largely depend on whether they view the One Percent as innovative, smart and creative, making wealth by helping the rest of society – or whether, as the great classical economists wrote, the wealthiest layer of the population consist ofrentiers, making their income and wealth off the 99 Percent as idle landlords, monopolists and predatory bankers.

Economic statistics show fairly worldwide trends in inequality. After peaking in the 1920s, the reforms of the Great Depression helped make income distribution more equitable and stable until 1980. [1]

Then, in the wake of Thatcherism in Britain and Reaganomics in the United States, inequality really took off. And it took off largely by the financial sector (especially as interest rates retreated from their high of 20 percent in 1980, creating the greatest bond market boom in history). Real estate and industry were financialized, that is, debt leveraged.

shutterstock_2603862

Inequality increased steadily until the global financial crash of 2008. Since then, as bankers and bondholders were saved instead of the economy, the top One Percent have pulled even more sharply ahead of the rest of the economy. Meanwhile, the bottom 25 percent of the economy has seen its net worth and relative income deteriorate.

Needless to say, the wealthy have their own public relations agents, backed by the usual phalange of academic useful idiots. Indeed, mainstream economics has become a celebration of the wealthyrentier class for a century now, and as inequality is sharply widening today, celebrators of the One Percent have found a pressing need for their services.

A case in point is the Scottish economist Angus Deaton, author of The Great Escape: Health, Wealth, and the Origins of Inequality. (2013). Elected President of the AEA in 2010, he was given the Nobel Economics Prize in 2015 for analyzing trends in consumption, income distribution, poverty and welfare in ways that cause no offense to the wealthy, and in fact treat the increasingly inequitable status quo as perfectly natural and in its own kind of mathematical equilibrium. (This kind of circular mathematical reasoning is the criterion of good economics today.)

His book treats the movie The Great Escape as a metaphor. He deridingly pointed out that nobody would have called the movie “The prisoners left 2KillingTheHost_Cover_rulebehind.” Describing the escapers as brilliant innovators, he assumes that the wealthiest One Percent likewise have been smart and imaginative enough to break the bonds of conventional thinking to innovate. The founders of Apple, Microsoft and other IT companies are singled out for making everyone’s life richer. And the economy at large has experienced a more or less steady upward climb, above all in public health extending lifespans, conquering disease and pharmaceutical innovation.

I recently was put on the same stage as Mr. Deaton in Berlin, along with my friend David Graeber. We three each have books translated into German to be published this autumn by the wonderful publisher Klett-Cotta, who organized the event at at the Berlin Literaturfestival in mid-September.

In a certain way I find Deaton’s analogy with the movie The Great Escape appropriate. The wealthy have escaped. But the real issue concerns what have they escaped from. They have escaped from regulation, from taxation (thanks to offshore banking enclaves and a rewriting of the tax laws to shift the fiscal burden onto labor and industry). Most of all, Wall Street banksters have escaped from criminal prosecution. There is no need to escape from jail if you can avoid being captured and sentenced in the first place!

A number of recent books – echoed weekly in the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page – attribute the wealthiest One Percent to the assumption that they must be smarter than most other people. At least, smart enough to get into the major business schools and get MBAs to learn how to financialize corporations with zaitech or other debt leveraging, reaping (indeed, “earning”) huge bonuses

The reality is that you don’t have to be smart to make a lot of money. All you need is greed. And that can’t be taught in business schools. In fact, when I went to work as a balance-of-payments analyst at Chase Manhattan in 1964, I was told that the best currency traders came from the Brooklyn or Hong Kong slums. Their entire life was devoted to making money, to rise into the class of the proverbial Babbitts of our time: nouveau riches lacking in real culture or intellectual curiosity.

Of course, for bankers who do venture to “stretch the envelope” (the fraudster’s euphemism for breaking the law, as Citigroup did in 1999when it merged with Travelers’ Insurance prior to the Clinton administration rejecting Glass-Steagall), you do need smart lawyers. But even here, Donald Trump explained the key that he learned from mob lawyer Roy Cohn: what matters is not so much the law, as what judge you have. And the U.S. courts have been privatized by electing judges whose campaign contributors back deregulators and non-prosecutors. So the wealthy escape from being subject to the law.

Although no moviegoers wanted to see the heroes of the Great Escape movie captured and put back in their prison camp, a great many people wish that the Wall Street crooks from Citigroup, Bank of America and other junk-mortgage fraudsters would be sent to jail, along with Angelo Mazilo of Countrywide Financial. Little love is given to their political lobbyists such as Alan Greenspan, Attorney General Eric Holder, Lanny Breuer and their hirees who refused to prosecute financial fraud.

Deaton did cite “rent seekers” – but in the sense that his predecessor Nobel prizewinner Buchanan did, locating rent seeking within government, not real estate, monopolies such as pharmaceuticals and information technology, health insurance, cable companies and high finance. So any blame for poverty falls on either the government or on the debtors, renters, unemployed and not-wellborn who are the main victims of today’s rentier economy.

Deaton’s Great Escape sees some problems, but not in the economic system itself – not debt, not monopoly, not the junk mortgage crisis or financial fraud. He cites global warming as the main problem, but not the political power of the oil industry. He singles out education as the way to raise the 99 Percent – but says nothing about the student loan problem, the travesty of for-profit universities funding junk education with government-guaranteed bank loans.

He measures the great improvement in well-being by GDP (gross domestic product). Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs notoriously described his investment bank’s managers and partners of being the most productive individuals in the United States for earning $20 million annually (not including bonuses) – all of which is recorded as adding to the financial sector’s “output” of GDP. There is no concept at all that this is what economists call a zero-sum activity – that is, that Goldman Sachs’s salaries may be unproductive, parasitic, predatory, and the rest of the economy’s loss or overhead.

Such thoughts do not occur in the happy-face views promoted by the One Percent. Deaton’s praise-hymn to the elites assumes that everyone earns what they get, by playing a productive role, not an extractive one.

An even more blatant denial of rent-seeking is a new book by one of the founders of Bain Capital (Mitt Romney’s firm), Edward Conard,The Upside of Inequality attacking the “demagogues” and “propagandists” who claim that the winnings of the One Percent are largely unearned. Curiously, he does not include Adam Smith, David Ricardo or John Stuart Mill as such “propagandists.” Yet that is what classical free market economics was all about: freeing economies from the unearned rental income and rising land prices that landlords make “in their sleep,” as John Stuart Mill put it. This propaganda book thus misrepresents the program that the major founders of economics urged: public ownership or collection of land rent, natural resource rent, and pubic operation of natural monopolies, headed by the financial sector.

For Conard, the reason for the soaring wealth of the One Percent is not financial, real estate or other monopolistic rent seeking, but the wonders of the information economy. It is Josef Schumpeter’s “creative destruction” of less productive technology, by hard working and dedicated innovators whose creativity raises the level of everyone. So the wealth of the One Percent is a measure of society’s forward march, not a predatory overhead extracted from the economy at large.

Conard’s policy conclusion is that regulation and taxation slows this march of economies toward prosperity as led by the One Percent. As a laudatory Wall Street Journal review of his book summarized his message: “Redistribution – whether achieved through taxation, regulatory restrictions, or social norms – appears,” he asserts, “to have large detrimental effects on risk-taking, innovation, productivity, and growth over the long run, especially in an economy where innovation produced by the entrepreneurial risk-taking of properly trained talent increasingly drives growth.”[2] His solution is to lower taxes on the rich!

My friend Dave Kelley notes the policy message that is being repeatedad nauseum these days: the assertion that “progressive moves like taxation end up hurting the economy rather than helping it. This ‘I would feed you but you might become dependent on food’ theory is central in showing how consumer societies like ours are returning to feudal distributions of wealth.” This seems to be the policy proposal of the three leading candidates for U.S. President – in our modern post-Citizens United world where elections are bought in much the way that consulships were back in the closing days of the Roman Republic.

Notes

[1] Anthony B. Atkinson, author of Inequality: What Can Be Done?coined the phrase “Inequality Turn” to describe when economic inequality began to widen around 1980. He was a mentor of Thomas Piketty, and together they worked with Saez to create an historical database on top incomes.

[2] Richard Epstein, “The Necessity of the Rich,” Wall Street Journal, September 15, 2016. The libertarian reviewer’s only criticism is hilarious: “Mr. Conard overlooks vast numbers of possible reforms. He never, for instance, discusses the weakening of patent law (a real inhibitor of innovation), or the arduous compliance culture that has grown up in the wake of Dodd-Frank and ObamaCare, or how zoning, rent stabilization and affordable-housing laws strangle the housing market. By ignoring the threat that regulation increasingly poses to the economy, his case for the upside of inequality is far weaker than it should be.”

Michael Hudson’s new book, Killing the Host is published in e-format by CounterPunch Books and in print by Islet. He can be reached via his website, [email protected]

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Celebrating the One Percent: Is Inequality Really Good for the Economy?

America’s Worldwide Impunity

septembre 21st, 2016 by Robert Parry

After several years of arming and supporting Syrian rebel groups that often collaborated with Al Qaeda’s Nusra terror affiliate, the United States launched an illegal invasion of Syria two years ago with airstrikes supposedly aimed at Al Qaeda’s Islamic State spin-off, but on Saturday that air war killed scores of Syrian soldiers and aided an Islamic State victory.

Yet, the major American news outlets treat this extraordinary set of circumstances as barely newsworthy, operating with an imperial hubris that holds any U.S. invasion or subversion of another country as simply, ho-hum, the way things are supposed to work.

But the fact that the U.S. and several allies have been routinely violating Syrian sovereign airspace to carry out attacks was not even an issue, nor is it a scandal that the U.S. military and CIA have been arming and training Syrian rebels. In the world of Official Washington, the United States has the right to intervene anywhere, anytime, for whatever reason it chooses.On Monday, The Washington Post dismissed the devastating airstrike at Deir al-Zour killing at least 62 Syrian soldiers as one of several “mishaps” that had occurred over the past week and jeopardized a limited ceasefire, arranged between Russia and the Obama administration.

President Barack Obama even has publicly talked about authorizing military strikes in seven different countries, including Syria, and yet he is deemed “weak” for not invading more countries, at least more decisively.

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton has vowed to engage in a larger invasion of Syria, albeit wrapping the aggression in pretty words like “safe zone” and “no-fly zone,” but it would mean bombing and killing more Syrian soldiers.

As Secretary of State, Clinton used similar language to justify invading Libya and implementing a “regime change” that killed the nation’s leader, Muammar Gaddafi, and unleashed five years of violent political chaos.

If you were living a truly democratic country with a truly professional news media, you would think that this evolution of the United States into a rogue superpower violating pretty much every international law and treaty of the post-World War II era would be a regular topic of debate and criticism.

Those crimes include horrendous acts against people, such as torture and other violations of the Geneva Conventions, as well as acts of aggression, which the Nuremberg Tribunals deemed “the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”

Justifying ‘Regime Change’

Yet, instead of insisting on accountability for American leaders who have committed these crimes, the mainstream U.S. news media spreads pro-war propaganda against any nation or leader that refuses to bend to America’s imperial demands. In other words, the U.S. news media creates the rationalizations and arranges the public acquiescence for U.S. invasions and subversions of other countries.

In particular, The New York Times now reeks of propaganda, especially aimed at two of the current targets, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Russian President Vladimir Putin. With all pretenses of professionalism cast aside, the Times has descended into the status of a crude propaganda organ.

On Sunday, the Times described Assad’s visit to a town recently regained from the rebels this way: “Assad Smiles as Syria Burns, His Grip and Impunity Secure.” That was the headline. The article began:

“On the day after his 51st birthday, Bashar al-Assad, the president of Syria, took a victory lap through the dusty streets of a destroyed and empty rebel town that his forces had starved into submission.

“Smiling, with his shirt open at the collar, he led officials in dark suits past deserted shops and bombed-out buildings before telling a reporter that — despite a cease-fire announced by the United States and Russia — he was committed ‘to taking back all areas from the terrorists.’ When he says terrorists, he means all who oppose him.”

The story by Ben Hubbard continues in that vein, although oddly the accompanying photograph doesn’t show Assad smiling but rather assessing the scene with a rather grim visage.

But let’s unpack the propaganda elements of this front-page story, which is clearly intended to paint Assad as a sadistic monster, rather than a leader fighting a foreign-funded-and-armed rebel movement that includes radical jihadists, including powerful groups linked to Al Qaeda and others forces operating under the banner of the brutal Islamic State.

The reader is supposed to recoil at Assad who “smiles as Syria burns” and who is rejoicing over his “impunity.” Then, there’s the apparent suggestion that his trip to Daraya was part of his birthday celebration so he could take “a victory lap” while “smiling, with his shirt open at the collar,” although why his collar is relevant is hard to understand. Next, there is the argumentative claim that when Assad refers to “terrorists” that “he means all who oppose him.”

As much as the U.S. news media likes to pride itself on its “objectivity,” it is hard to see how this article meets any such standard, especially when the Times takes a far different posture when explaining, excusing or ignoring U.S. forces slaughtering countless civilians in multiple countries for decades and at a rapid clip over the past 15 years. If anyone operates with “impunity,” it has been the leadership of the U.S. government.

Dubious Charge

On Sunday, the Times also asserted as flat fact the dubious charge against Assad that he has “hit civilians with gas attacks” when the most notorious case – the sarin attack outside Damascus on Aug. 21, 2013 – appears now to have been carried out by rebels trying to trick the United States into intervening more directly on their side.

A recent United Nations report blaming Syrian forces for two later attacks involving chlorine was based on slim evidence and produced under great political pressure to reach that conclusion – while ignoring the absence of any logical reason for the Syrian forces to have used such an ineffective weapon and brushing aside testimony about rebels staging other gas attacks.

More often than not, U.N. officials bend to the will of the American superpower, failing to challenge any of the U.S.-sponsored invasions over recent decades, including something as blatantly illegal as the Iraq War. After all, for an aspiring U.N. bureaucrat, it’s clear which side his career bread is buttered.

We find ourselves in a world in which propaganda has come to dominate the foreign policy debates and – despite the belated admissions of lies used to justify the invasions of Iraq and Libya – the U.S. media insists on labeling anyone who questions the latest round of propaganda as a “fill-in-the-blank apologist.”

So, Americans who want to maintain their mainstream status shy away from contesting what the U.S. government and its complicit media assert, despite their proven track record of deceit. This is not just a case of being fooled once; it is being fooled over and over with a seemingly endless willingness to accept dubious assertion after dubious assertion.

In the same Sunday edition which carried the creepy portrayal about Assad, the Times’ Neil MacFarquhar pre-disparaged Russia’s parliamentary elections because the Russian people were showing little support for the Times’ beloved “liberals,” the political descendants of the Russians who collaborated with the U.S.-driven “shock therapy” of the 1990s, a policy that impoverished a vast number of Russians and drastically reduced life expectancy.

Why those Russian “liberals” have such limited support from the populace is a dark mystery to the mainstream U.S. news media, which also can’t figure out why Putin is popular for significantly reversing the “shock therapy” policies and restoring Russian life expectancy to its previous levels. No, it can’t be that Putin delivered for the Russian people; the only answer must be Putin’s “totalitarianism.”

The New York Times and Washington Post have been particularly outraged over Russia’s crackdown on “grassroots” organizations that are funded by the U.S. government or by billionaire financial speculator George Soros, who has publicly urged the overthrow of Putin. So has Carl Gershman, president of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which funnels U.S. government cash to political and media operations abroad.

The Post has decried a Russian legal requirement that political entities taking money from foreign sources must register as “foreign agents” and complains that such a designation discredits these organizations. What the Post doesn’t tell its readers is that the Russian law is modeled after the American “Foreign Agent Registration Act,” which likewise requires people trying to influence policy in favor of a foreign sponsor to register with the Justice Department.

Nor do the Times and Post acknowledge the long history of the U.S. government funding foreign groups, either overtly or covertly, to destabilize targeted regimes. These U.S.-financed groups often do act as “fifth columnists” spreading propaganda designed to underminethe credibility of the leaders, whether that’s Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953 or Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych in 2014.

Imperfect Leaders

That’s not to say that these targeted leaders were or are perfect. They are often far from it. But the essence of propaganda is to apply selective outrage and exaggeration to the leader that is marked for removal. Similar treatment does not apply to U.S.-favored leaders.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Take, for example, the Times’ MacFarquhar describing a pamphlet and speeches from Nikolai Merkushkin, the governor of Russian region of Samara, that MacFarquhar says “cast the blame for Russia’s economic woes not on economic mismanagement or Western sanctions after the annexation of Crimea but on a plot by President Obama and the C.I.A. to undermine Russia.”The pattern of the Times and Post is also to engage in ridicule when someone in a targeted country actually perceives what is going on. The correct perception is then dismissed as some sort of paranoid conspiracy theory.

The Times article continues: “Opposition candidates are a fifth column on the payroll of the State Department and part of the scheme, the pamphlet said, along with the collapse in oil prices and the emergence of the Islamic State. Mr. Putin is on the case, not least by rebuilding the military, the pamphlet said, noting that ‘our country forces others to take it seriously and this is something that American politicians don’t like very much.’”

Yet, despite the Times’ mocking tone, the pamphlet’s perceptions are largely accurate. There can be little doubt that the U.S. government through funding of anti-Putin groups inside Russia and organizing punishing sanctions against Russia, is trying to make the Russian economy scream, destabilize the Russian government and encourage a “regime change” in Moscow.

Further, President Obama has personally bristled at Russia’s attempts to reassert itself as an important world player, demeaning the former Cold War superpower as only a “regional power.” The U.S. government has even tread on that “regional” status by helping to orchestrate the 2014 putsch that overthrew Ukraine’s elected President Yanukovych on Russia’s border.

After quickly calling the coup regime “legitimate,” the U.S. government supported attempts to crush resistance in the south and east which were Yanukovych’s political strongholds. Crimea’s overwhelming decision to secede from Ukraine and rejoin Russia was deemed by The New York Times a Russian “invasion” although the Russian troops that helped protect Crimea’s referendum were already inside Crimea as part of the Sevastopol basing agreement.

The U.S.-backed Kiev regime’s attempt to annihilate resistance from ethnic Russians in the east – through what was called an “Anti-Terrorism Operation” that has slaughtered thousands of eastern Ukrainians – also had American backing. Russian assistance to these rebels is described in the mainstream U.S. media as Russian “aggression.”

Oddly, U.S. news outlets find nothing objectionable about the U.S. government launching military strikes in countries halfway around the world, including the recent massacre of scores of Syrian soldiers, but are outraged that Russia provided military help to ethnic Russians being faced with annihilation on Russia’s border.

Because of the Ukraine crisis, Hillary Clinton likened Vladimir Putin to Adolf Hitler.

Seeing No Coup

For its part, The New York Times concluded that there had been no coup in Ukraine – by ignoring the evidence that there was one, including an intercepted pre-coup telephone call between U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt discussing who should be made the new leaders of Ukraine.

Another stunning case of double standards has been the mainstream U.S. media’s apoplexy about alleged Russian hacking into emails of prominent Americans and then making them public. These blame-Russia articles have failed to present any solid evidence that the Russians were responsible and also fail to note that the United States leads the world in using electronic means to vacuum up personal secrets about foreign leaders as well as average citizens.The evidence of a coup was so clear that George Friedman, founder of the global intelligence firm Stratfor, said in an interview that the overthrow of Yanukovych “really was the most blatant coup in history.” But the Times put protecting the legitimacy of the post-coup regime ahead of its journalistic responsibilities to its readers, as it has done repeatedly regarding Ukraine.

In a number of cases, these secrets appear to have been used to blackmail foreign leaders to get them to comply with U.S. demands, such as the case in 2002-03 of the George W. Bush administration spying on diplomats on the U.N. Security Council to coerce their votes on authorizing the U.S. invasion of Iraq, a ploy that failed.

U.S. intelligence also tapped the cell phone of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, whose cooperation on Ukraine and other issues of the New Cold War is important to Washington. And then there’s the massive collection of data about virtually everybody on the planet, including U.S. citizens, over the past 15 years during the “war on terror.”

Earlier this year, the mainstream U.S. news media congratulated itself over its use of hacked private business data from a Panama-based law firm, material that was said to implicate Putin in some shady business dealings even though his name never showed up in the documents. No one in the mainstream media protested that leak or questioned who did the hacking.

Such mainstream media bias is pervasive. In the case of Sunday’s Russian elections, the Times seems determined to maintain the fiction that the Russian people don’t really support Putin, despite consistent opinion polls showing him with some 80 percent approval.

In the Times’ version of reality, Putin’s popularity must be some kind of trick, a case of totalitarian repression of the Russian people, which would be fixed if only the U.S.-backed “liberals” were allowed to keep getting money from NED and Soros without having to divulge where the funds were coming from.

The fact that Russians, like Americans, will rally around their national leader when they perceive the country to be under assault – think, George W. Bush after the 9/11 attacks – is another reality that the Times can’t tolerate. No, the explanation must be mind control.

The troubling reality is that the Times, Post and other leading American news outlets have glibly applied one set of standards on “enemies” and another on the U.S. government. The Times may charge that Bashar al-Assad has “impunity” for his abuses, but what about the multitude of U.S. leaders – and, yes, journalists – who have their hands covered in the blood of Iraqis, Libyans, Afghans, Yemenis, Syrians, Somalis and other nationalities. Where is their accountability?

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com).

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur America’s Worldwide Impunity

Tens of thousands of police and troops were mobilized across the New York metropolitan area Monday in the wake of Saturday night’s bombing in the Chelsea district of Manhattan, which injured 29 people. A second explosive device was found four blocks from the first and disarmed without incident.

In the first such effort in US history, the New York Police Department effectively commandeered the entire telecommunications network, sending a message to every cellphone in the metropolitan area, to millions of people, with details of the suspect sought for planting the two bombs, Ahmad Khan Rahami.

The 28-year-old Afghan-American was arrested Monday morning after a local bar owner in Linden, New Jersey saw him sleeping in a doorway nearby and called police. Rahami was shot several times during what was described by police as an exchange of gunfire, before he was taken into custody. Two policemen were wounded, in addition to Rahami, but no one’s wounds were life-threatening, officials said.

US counterterrorism agencies told the media that Rahami had not been under surveillance and had no known connections to an overseas terrorist organization, despite having travelled several times to Afghanistan in recent years, as well as to other countries. It is not clear how, given his family’s precarious economic circumstances, he was able to do this.

Police now claim Rahami was responsible for four bomb-related incidents over the weekend. These include an attempted bombing Saturday morning of a charity 5k run in Seaside, New Jersey, about 80 miles south of New York City; the two bombs in Chelsea, one of which did not explode; and the depositing of five unexploded devices in a trash bin in Elizabeth, where they were found Sunday morning.

It is not known whether Rahami had assistance in the attacks, which could have killed dozens of innocent people. The amateurish character of the operation—bombs that did not go off, areas targeted without any political or social significance, no attempt to avoid surveillance cameras at the two Chelsea bomb sites, a broad trail of evidence leading directly to the perpetrator—suggest that the bomber was a disoriented individual, not a trained terrorist.

Rahami came to the US in 1995, at the age of seven, when his family sought refuge from the civil war raging in Afghanistan between rival US-backed Islamist militias, one of which, the Taliban, took power a year later.

The Rahami family appears to have had a difficult struggle as immigrants. They ran a chicken restaurant in Elizabeth, New Jersey, a working-class suburb of New York City, in which the father and many of his sons worked side-by-side. The father filed for bankruptcy at least once, and tried to make ends meet by keeping the restaurant open 24 hours a day, unusual for a family-run business.

Ahmad Rahami graduated from Edison High School and took classes for two years at a local community college, working towards a degree in criminal justice, but did not graduate. According to friends and acquaintances, he seemed completely Americanized, more interested in cars than religion. After a long trip to Afghanistan in 2012, however, he grew a beard, began wearing more traditional clothing and praying more frequently.

Rahami still gave no sign of political or religious radicalization, continuing to work at the family restaurant. He was arrested in 2014 on a domestic violence allegation, but charges were dropped. Other than that, his only recorded encounter with the police involved a traffic ticket.

Even ISIS, which has hailed as “soldiers” such disoriented supporters as the married couple who carried out the workplace massacre in San Bernardino, California, has not made a public claim of responsibility for Rahami’s actions, although it did claim “credit” for the knife attack by a Somali-American man in St. Cloud, Minnesota, Saturday. The difference may be that the St. Cloud attacker was shot to death, while Rahami remains alive and could well supply a different motivation for his alleged actions.

At a Monday afternoon press briefing after Rahami had been taken into custody, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio declared, “There is no other individual we are looking for.” FBI Assistant Director William Sweeney told the same news conference, “I have no indication that there’s a cell operating in the area.”

Nonetheless, de Blasio said that the biggest police-military mobilization in the city’s history would continue because of the arrival of dozens of heads of state and other foreign leaders for the United National General Assembly meetings this week. Over 1,000 New York state police and National Guard troops are supplementing the operations of 36,000 NYPD officers, who have been deployed in force throughout the city. “You should know you will see a very substantial NYPD presence this week—bigger than ever,” de Blasio said.

Whatever the connections between the Chelsea bombing and international terrorism, the two major-party candidates for president, Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton, were quick to seize on the near-tragedy in Manhattan as an opportunity for militaristic posturing and mutual mudslinging.

Trump denounced immigrants and immigration as being responsible for the attacks because of “stupid” leaders who refused to close the borders of the US. In a 30-minute rant Monday morning on “Fox & Friends,” Trump denounced the modest increase in the number of refugees the Obama administration will admit to US, from 85,000 in the 2016 fiscal year to 110,000 in 2017.

Trump rejected the assessment by US counterterrorism agencies that the bombing in New York City was not organized from overseas. “I think there is many foreign connections,” he said. “I think this is one group. You have many, many groups because we’re allowing these people to come into our country and destroy our country and make it unsafe for people.” He also lamented the fact that police were supposedly not allowed to use racial profiling against suspected terrorists.

Clinton, for her part, was less strident but equally reactionary. She suggested that Trump’s proposed ban on Muslims entering the US undermined US military operations in the Middle East, which depend on the collaboration of Muslim allies like Saudi Arabia.

She cited a series of former intelligence and counterterrorism officials who have attacked Trump, and in some cases endorsed her, as a more effective “commander-in-chief” for American imperialism. Trump was doing the work of ISIS, she said. “They are looking to make this into a war against Islam, rather than a war against jihadists, violent terrorists,” she claimed, adding, “The kinds of rhetoric and language Mr. Trump has used is giving aid and comfort to our adversaries.”

Both candidates, and the corporate-controlled parties they represent, have no answer to the downward spiral of war and destruction in the Middle East except more war and more destruction, which will inevitably create the conditions for more terrorist attacks within the US, whether by operatives of groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda, or disoriented individuals like the would-be Chelsea bomber.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Massive Police-Military Mobilization After New York City Bombing

In a front-page article entitled “Errant strike impairs effort to calm Syria,” the New York Times Monday provided an unconditional alibi for the air strikes carried out by US and allied warplanes two days earlier that claimed the lives of some 90 Syrian army soldiers, while leaving over 100 more wounded.

“The United States’ accidental bombing of Syrian troops over the weekend has put it on the defensive, undercutting American efforts to reduce violence in the civil war and open paths for humanitarian relief,” reads the article.

In the second paragraph, readers are told that the “mistaken bombing” had “exposed the White House’s struggle to put together a coherent strategy in a multisided war.”

And in the fourth paragraph, the article states that the “errant bombing” had given “both the Russians and the Syrian government a propaganda bonanza.”

How does the Times know that Saturday’s bombing of the strategic Syrian army position, overlooking the Deir Ezzor Airport near the Syrian-Iraqi border, was “accidental,” “mistaken” and “errant?” It provides no evidence to support this conclusion, citing neither any investigation nor any new facts gleaned from its own reporting.

The air strike was an accident, a mistake and an error because the US government says it was. End of story. That is good enough for the three reporters with bylines on the article. They see no need to include any qualifiers, such as “US officials claimed that the bombing was accidental,” much less seek out any contrary opinions from those who firmly believe it was not.

Nor does the supposed newspaper of record raise the slightest doubt about how the US managed to confuse a military base, which the Syrian army has occupied for years, with an encampment of the Islamic State (ISIS); or, for that matter, why the Pentagon’s sophisticated military satellites and surveillance drones failed to provide accurate images of the intended target.

That ISIS forces were able to use the bombing as air support for their own assault upon, and overrunning of, the Syrian military base is also accepted as merely another “accident.”

The bombing, in which Australian, British and Danish warplanes participated alongside the US Air Force, has served to gravely undermine a week-old cease-fire negotiated by US Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Geneva.

Commenting on this connection, the Times article states: “Many American officials believe that the Russians were never serious about the deal that was sealed in Geneva. The officials argue that the Russians were looking for an excuse that would derail it and keep a status quo in which they have more control over events in Syria than any other power, with the possible exception of Iran. If so, the accidental bombing made that process easier.”

Citing unnamed “American officials,” the Times floats the perverse thesis that the real significance of an unprovoked attack, which killed and wounded nearly 200 Syrian government soldiers, in a country where US imperialism is carrying out military operations in flagrant violation of international law, is that it provided a pretext for Russia to abrogate a ceasefire agreement that Moscow, itself, had proposed. In other words, whatever evidence to the contrary, it is all Putin’s fault.

The Times article itself suggests a far more plausible explanation for Saturday’s bloody events. It notes that the ceasefire deal “faced many skeptics in Washington,” adding that “Chief among them was Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter,” who “feared that the accord would reveal too much to the Russians about American targeting intelligence…”

The article, however, does not indicate the intensity and depth of the Pentagon’s hostility to the ceasefire. It was not just a matter of Carter’s “skepticism.” Top US uniformed commanders openly called into question whether they would abide by an agreement that had been adopted by the president of the United States.

Lt. General Jeffrey Harrigian, commander of the US Air Forces Central Command, told the media in respect to the agreement: “I’m not saying yes or no. It would be premature to say that we’re going to jump right into it.”

Army Gen. Joseph Votel, commander of the US Central Command, expressed similar views, declaring, “We have to see how this goes first of all … see what direction it goes … whether it actually pans out or not, I don’t know.”

Also unreported in the Times article is the fact that on Friday, on the eve of the US bombing, Obama convened a meeting of his security cabinet, including both Kerry and Carter, to discuss the crisis gripping his administration over the Syria ceasefire.

Given these facts, the Times’ parroting of the official US line that the air strike in Deir Ezzor was “accidental” has the unmistakable characteristics of an alibi and a coverup.

The opposition, which borders on insurbordination to the ceasefire within the US military, suggests a more likely scenario: rather than being an accident, the attack was carried out with the deliberate aim of scuttling the agreement, either by the military acting on its own, or following a change in policy reached by the Obama administration, under intense pressure from the US military and intelligence apparatus.

The opposition stemmed, in the first instance, from the immediate practical implications of the agreement in Syria. Washington had committed itself to separating the so-called “moderate opposition,” which it has armed and bankrolled, from the now renamed Al Nusra Front, Al Qaeda’s longtime affiliate in the country. But this is a virtually impossible task, given the integration of the US-backed militias with the Al Qaeda forces, which form the backbone of the US-orchestrated war for regime change in Syria.

More decisively, the predominant layers within the military brass oppose any collaboration with the Russian military because they fear it could compromise US preparations for direct military confrontation with Russia itself, the world’s number two nuclear power.

Moreover, the bombing fits a definite agenda, clearly articulated by top figures in the ruling establishment. Just last month, former acting CIA director Michael Morell advocated bombing Syria to “scare Assad” and “make the Russians pay a price,” by which he meant killing them. Morell is a prominent supporter of Democrat Hillary Clinton’s presidential candidacy.

On a similar note, Human Rights Watch director Kenneth Roth, a proponent of the “human rights” pretexts used by US imperialism to justify its interventions in the Middle East, tweeted his approval of the US bombing raid: “As US kills 80 Syrian soldiers, is it sending Assad a signal for his deadly intransigence?”

In evaluating the alibi crafted by the Times in relation to the Syria bombing, it should be recalled that the newspaper provided nearly identical services a year ago, in the aftermath of the October 3, 2015 US airstrike on the Doctors without Borders (MSF) hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan. In the face of charges by the MSF and survivors of the attack that this was a deliberate slaughter, the Times, working with US government sources, concocted a story that the mass killing stemmed from “mistaken decisions” and inadequate intelligence.

What the response to the Syria bombing so clearly exposes is the degree to which the Times functions as a propaganda organ of the US government and a leading promoter of its militarist policies. The exposure of the newspaper’s complicity in foisting onto the American people the illegal war of aggression against Iraq, prepared by the lying reports of its correspondent Judith Miller on non-existent weapons of mass destruction, has done nothing to change this fact. If anything, the correspondence between government policy and Timescoverage has only grown more seamless.

The concrete nature of this relationship is made evident by a closer examination of the first two bylines on the Times story. The first is that of chief Washington correspondent David E. Sanger. In addition to his 30-year career writing for the Times, Sanger has found time to teach as an adjunct lecturer in public policy at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, an academy for top political and military officials. The faculty has also included figures now playing a key role in executing US policy in Syria, such as Ashton Carter and Washington’s ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power. Sanger is also a member of both the Council on Foreign Relations and the Aspen Strategy Group, think tanks that bring together senior government, military and intelligence officials, along with corporate executives, to discuss US imperialist strategy.

The second byline is that of national security correspondent Mark Mazzetti. In 2011, Mazzetti gained some notoriety by secretly “leaking” a piece on the Osama bin Laden assassination by New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd to the CIA, prior to its publication, along with a note reading, “this didn’t come from me… and please delete after you read. See, nothing to worry about!”

In other words, these are figures completely integrated into the state and trusted defenders of its interests. The conception, dating back to the 18th century bourgeois revolutions, that the press represents a “Fourth Estate,” functioning as a watchdog, with a critical and adversarial attitude toward the government and its officials, is a dead letter within these circles.

Among those presiding over this operation and its steady march to the right is the recently installed editor of the Times editorial page, James Bennet. His connections to the ruling establishment and the top echelons of the Democratic Party include a father who was a former head of USAID, a front for the CIA, and a brother who is the senior senator from Colorado.

Under the direction of such figures, the Times has become the premier conduit for US state disinformation and propaganda, and a key ideological instrument in the preparations for world war.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur New York Times Peddles Alibi for US Bombing in Syria. »Accidental », « Mistaken », « Errant »…

Russia vs. America: Democracy’s Last Chance

septembre 21st, 2016 by Israel Shamir

The Russian parliamentary elections went smooth as a silk dress under the hand. The ruling party, United Russia, has got a big majority of the seats in the Parliament, while the other three parties, the Communists (CPRF), the Nationalists and the Socialists shared the rest. Pro-Western parties did not cross the threshold and remained outside, as before.

The turnout had been low. The official figure pointed to a respectable 48%, but reports in real time indicated it was much lower than that. The last real time figures stood at 20% for Moscow and 16% for St Petersburg. These numbers started to climb inexplicably after 5 pm, and Eduard Limonov, a known writer and a keen observer of the political scene, remained convinced that the turnout had been artificially “improved”.

The new election system (a peculiar combination of majoritarian and proportional systems) had been biased for the benefit of the ruling party. It is hard to say whether the Russian elections were rigged, and if so, to what extent. Surely, if any party can complain about being cheated, it was the communists, not the pro-Western nationalists and liberals. Despite what you perhaps have heard, the Communists present the only real alternative to Putin’s regime, as the pro-Western parties are tiny and exceedingly unpopular. The Communists (as well as the other two parties) are Putin-friendly; they support Putin’s foreign policy, and they would support a more active policy as well. They heartily approved of Crimea’s return to Russian fold, and they spoke in favour of military intervention in the Ukraine.

Putin is the most moderate Russian politician acceptable to the public; every viable democratic alternative would be more radical, and more pro-Communist or Nationalist. All Russian politicians above a certain age were Communist Party members; the Socialists (Fair Russia) is a splinter of the Communist Party established by the Kremlin in order to undermine the CPRF.

In these elections, two alternative Communist Parties has been set up by the Kremlin, and many Russians voted for them mistakenly thinking they were voting for the Communists. If Russian political tricksters were to run Clinton’s campaign, they would flood the ballots with dozens of Trumps hoping that many Trump voters would make a mistake and vote for the wrong Trump.

While agreeing with and supporting Putin’s foreign policy, the Communists, the Socialists and a sizeable minority of the ruling United Russia party disagree with Putin’s liberal economic and financial policies. They would like to suppress the oligarchs, to introduce currency controls, to re-nationalise privatised industries and to strengthen the social state. But they can’t do it: even if they were to gain a clear majority in the elections, Putin would still be entitled to ask, say, liberal Medvedev or arch-liberal Kudrin to form a government.

The problem is that the Russian Parliament’s powers are extremely limited. The constitution was written by the Russian liberals and their American advisers to prevent Russians from ever regaining their assets massively stripped by a few Jewish businessmen. The constitution gave the president a Tsar’s clout, and minimised the powers of Parliament. It was imposed on Russia in 1993, after the previous Parliament impeached then-president Yeltsin; instead of fading away gently, he had sent tanks and shelled the Parliament. Its defenders went to jail; Yeltsin rammed through the new constitution, and it was inherited by Putin.

Our friend the Saker said “These elections were a huge personal victory for Vladimir Putin”. But is it true? The United Russia includes people of widely differing opinions, from pro-Western privatisers to closet communists. Their common platform is their adherence to power. They are equally likely to support Putin or to condemn and impeach Putin. They are similar to the Regions’ Party that ruled Ukraine in the days of President Yanukovych, or to the Soviet Communist Party in the days of Gorbachev. In the time of trouble, they will run away and desert their president.

Putin might get a much better grip on power if he were to allow more freedom and democracy, thereby getting more convicted supporters, real Putinists, instead of careerists. However, Putin prefers pliable careerists. We shall see whether he will have a reason to regret it, as Yanukovych had.

It is not much democracy, you might say, if an impotent parliament is packed by faceless yes-men. Parliament is not a place for discussion, famously said Boris Gryzlov, a United Russia leader and the Parliament Speaker. «It is not a place for political struggle, for ideological battles; it is a place for constructive law-making”, he added. Russian freedom of speech (almost unlimited) is totally disengaged from action, and this is frustrating. Even demonstrations are limited and can lead to arrest. In Gryzlov’s words, “Streets aren’t for political actions and protests, but for festivities”.

If this is the function of parliament, who cares about it? Who can blame the majority of Russian voters for staying away from the city in their countryside villas (“dachas”) in the midst of the glorious Indian summer?

What’s worse, there are fewer and fewer reasons for people to bother to vote, in any country. In Europe, the difference between the parties has practically vanished.

Consider France: what’s the difference between Sarkozy the rightist and Hollande the leftist? Nothing whatsoever. The first blasted Libya and integrated France in NATO, the second wants to blast Syria and fulfils all American orders. There is no difference between parties in Sweden, either. All are for accepting a billion refugees, for condemning racists in their midst, for integrating in NATO and for foaming about the Russian threat. What is the difference between Cameron the Tory and Blair the Labour? Nothing. NATO, bombs, tax breaks for the rich are for both.

The parliaments and people mean very little now in Europe – as little as in Russia. The British people voted for Brexit. Fine! So did it happen? Not at all. The new unelected government of Theresa May just pushed the decision far away into the heap of not-very-urgent business correspondence next to requesting assignment of a budget to a Zoo. Maybe she will deliver it to Brussels in a year or two. Or people will forget about that vote.

In a few months, Mrs May will say as Stephen Daedalus said when asked will he repay the pound he borrowed: “Five months. The molecules all changed. I am an other I now. The other I got the pound.” The other England voted for Brexit, the molecules have all changed. Let us re-vote, or even better just forget it.

Many people I spoke to already repeat, word-perfect, the new post-Brexit-vote mantra: “Only retired old folk and unemployed racists voted for Brexit.” Mrs Clinton provided the name for them: The Deplorables. This American name for perspective Trump voters fits the Brexit voters like a glove. A Deplorable is a person who does not subscribe to the ruling neo-liberal paradigm and its twin sister, identity politics.

Clinton spoke of deplorables at her meeting with the rich perverts of Wall Street, at a hundred thousand dollar a seat. Breaking the banks or providing jobs will not help you, the holy LGBT victims of white male persecution, she said. Sure, but it will help us, the working people. We do not care for unisex lavatories, we do not obsess about female CEOs. We have other worries: how to get a secure job and a decent house and provide for our children. This makes us deplorable in the eyes of rich perverts.

A new generation of parties has sprung up in Europe: the parties of the Deplorables. In Sweden, until now, a Swedish Democrats party, the only party speaking against NATO, against the EU, against the intake of migrants had been excluded from public debate. Two main parties, the Right and the Left, forgot about their long animosity and made a government together, just to keep the SD out, because they are deplorables. The result was paradoxical: more people have moved to support the deplorable party.

French FN or Marine Le Pen is another party of Deplorables. She wants to take France out of EU and out of NATO, and to keep the migrating waves out. The Left and the Right would rather submit to Saudi Arabia and transfer the power to sheikhs than to allow the Deplorables to win, mused Houellebecq in his Submission.

The Deplorable Jeremy Corbyn was almost removed from his chairmanship of the Labour party by the Labour MPs. The MPs preferred to keep their party as a clone of the Conservatives and to leave the electorate without a real choice. But Corbyn fights, and hopefully he will keep his party and proceed to victory.

More power, more money, more control goes to a smaller group of people. We were disenfranchised, without noticing it. The financiers and their new nobility of discourse took over the world as completely as the aristocracy did in 11th century.

Russia with its very limited democracy is still better off: their nobility of discourse polled less than three per cent of the votes in the last elections, though they are still heavily represented in the government.

The last decisive battle for preservation of democracy now takes place in the US. Its unlikely champion, Donald Trump, is hated by the political establishment, by the bought media, by instigated minorities as much as Putin, Corbyn or Le Pen are hated.

The Huffington Post published the following “Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S.”

A man so hated by enemies of democracy is one who deserves our support. When the revolution comes, whoever says “xenophobe, racist, misogynist” to his brother will be lined up against the wall and shot. So it probably won’t be Sanders’ revolution.

I am worried that his enemies will not allow Trump’s inauguration: they will say Putin hacked the voting machines, and send the case to the Supreme Court; or perhaps they will try to assassinate him. But first, let him win.

It is difficult to predict the consequences of his victory. Newsweek noted (while discussing the US aid to Israel): “A Trump victory would introduce a level of uncertainty into the world that Israel fears. Nobody has any idea what Trump might do as president and that is something new in international relations.”

This already sounds enticing enough. Israel fears democracy, fears peace in the Middle East, fears US disobedience, fears the Jews will lose their reserved places at the first class saloon on the upper deck, in the editor’s rooms and the bank manager’s. Let them tremble.

The consequences of Trump’s victory will be far-reaching. Our belief in democracy will be restored. NATO will shrink, money will go to repair the US infrastructure instead of bombing Syria and Libya. Americans will be loved again.

The consequences of Clinton’s victory will be as short-lived as we are, for she will deliver us the living hell of a nuclear war, and eternal dictatorship of the Iron Heel.

This election is like a red pill/blue pill choice given to you. “You take the blue pill, the story ends. You wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.” Providentially, we know what colour stands for Trump, and what for Clinton.

Israel Shamir can be reached at [email protected]

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Russia vs. America: Democracy’s Last Chance

US Media’s Anti-Russian Numbers Game

septembre 21st, 2016 by Caleb Maupin

On Sept. 14th, US Representative Adam Kinzinger of Illinois was invited on CNN’s “The Lead” as an expert on Russia. Without so much as a pause, he stated the following: “Donald Trump says we have to work with Russians in some of the toughest places of the world, but frankly, like in Syria, Russia has responsibility for killing almost half a million people, they are tearing apart Ukraine and Georgia.”

The words “In Syria, Russia has responsibility for killing half a million people” are indefensibly false. The total war dead for the entire conflict, which began in 2011, is estimated at around 470,000, though some estimates are slightly higher or lower.

For Russia to be responsible for anything near 500,000 (half a million) people, Russia would have to be to blamed for nearly every single death in the entire conflict. Though Russia has aligned with the internationally recognized Syrian Arab Republic, Russia’s direct military involvement did not even begin until September 30th, 2015, over 4 years after the war began.

Even if one were to indirectly blame Russia for every death at the hands of the Syrian Arab Army, there is still no way the number could be so high. Kinzinger’s assesses the Syrian conflict as if it has only one side.

Were any Syrians killed by the Al-Nusra front, which has been funded by Saudi Arabia? Were any Syrians killed by ISIS, some of whose members received training within the United States? Were any Syrians killed by the “moderate rebels” being directly supported by the United States?

According to Kinzinger, the CIA’s training camps in Jordan, the constant inflow of foreign fighters, are all somehow irrelevant. In his bizarre fantasy world, the only party that is responsible for any deaths is Russia.

Despite this statement being wildly inaccurate, CNN’s Jake Tapper did not even question it. He simply proceeded with the interview. One must ask, what would Tapper’s response have been if a similar allegation had been made against Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton? Would a wild, extreme allegation against US leaders be simply allowed to pass?

The Numbers Game and Soviet History

Interestingly, numbers and statistics are the basis for a great deal of Anti-Russian propaganda in the United States. For example, the phrase “Stalin was worse than Hitler” was often repeated on American television during the onset of the Ukraine crisis. The phrase served as a passive apology for the US alliance with pro-Hitler elements in the Right Sector and Azov Battalion.

Even if every allegation against Stalin is accepted as absolute fact, the statement has obvious historical flaws.

Hitler is universally known to have rounded up people on the basis of their race or ethnicity, put them on to trains, and transported them to death camps where they were exterminated in homicidal gas chambers. Even Stalin’s harshest critics have never accused him of such a deed.

Those who compare the USSR’s gulags to Hitler’s concentration camps ignore the fact that the gulags did not have gas chambers. In fact, most gulag prisoners were released within a few years and returned to normal life. The rate of incarceration in the USSR during the height of what some historians call the “Great Terror” was much lower than the current rate of imprisonment in the USA.

Furthermore, those who argue that the moving of Soviet citizens on the basis of their nationality during the Second World War amounted to “ethnic cleansing,” have never alleged that any ethnic groups or nationalities were exterminated. The policy of relocating Soviet citizens on the basis of their nationality was arguably very effective in defeating the Nazi invaders, and isolating pro-Nazi insurgents in certain regions. The policy also saved many Soviet Jews from being captured by the Nazi invaders.

The allegation that “Stalin was worse than Hitler” is based on calculated death numbers. The fact that starvation took place throughout the Soviet Union during the early 1930s is said to be responsible for millions of deaths, and these numbers are said to be larger than the number of those who died in Hitler’s concentration camps.

The argument falls to pieces when one recognizes that problematic economic policies are simply not the equivalent of death camps.Prior to the Russian Revolution deaths due to malnutrition occurred on a regular basis. During the early 1920s when the Soviet Union faced an economic blockade from the western countries, there was also mass starvation in the USSR. It wasn’t until the collectivization of agriculture, starting in the early 1930s, that Russia and the surrounding countries developed an effective, modern farm system. Collective Farms sold their produce to the state after the middle class landowners, or “Kulaks” were eliminated from the economy. Many Kulaks violently resisted efforts to adopt a collective farm system. The Red Army was dispatched on many occasions to fight against middle class peasants who took up arms to keep the primitive, ineffective, starvation creating farm system intact.After the collectivization, as Stalin’s Five Year Plans moved forward, ox-drawn plows were replaced with modern tractors across the countryside. During this period the population of the USSR gained universal housing, employment, running water, and electricity. The huts of rural villages were replaced with modern apartment buildings. In Ukraine, the famous Dneiper Dam was constructed, which at the time, was the largest hydro-electric power plant in the world. Stalin ultimately brought Russia out of its primitive agricultural system and transformed it into an industrial power. The chaotic events of the early 1930s resulted in famine and starvation, but the ultimate result was a much stronger and effective agricultural system.

Critics of Stalin claim that he collectivized too rapidly, causing chaos in the countryside which led to a famine. Trotsky’s writings allege that Stalin “zigzagged” between the slogans of “peasant enrich yourself” and “abolish the Kulaks as a class.” Ukrainian Nationalists point out that the Orthodox Church was persecuted in the process, in response to allegations of supporting the Kulaks. Others allege that the Red Army committed atrocities throughout the process of collectivization. Even if all of these allegations are true, they do not make “Stalin worse than Hitler.” To equate “forced collectivization” of agriculture resulting in chaos with death camps and gas chambers is not historical honesty.

The only basis for making this claim so is to compare numbers of deaths in the early 1930s famine with the numbers who perished in Nazi concentration camps. Even this faulty logic has its flaws. There is no universally recognized manner in which the number of deaths that took place during the famines is calculated. Anti-Stalin historians present a variety of figures that are many millions apart, based on many different methods of determining how many people died. Some figures presented by Anti-Stalin historians go as far to include children who were not born because parents did procreate. The equating of Stalin with Hitler is not logical, especially when one takes into account the huge economic achievements that also took place during the 1930s. The life expectancy of the Soviet people nearly doubled. The end result of the collectivization was the creation of an agricultural system that was far more efficient than any that had ever existed in Ukraine, Russia, or any of the surrounding countries. In order to create a new agricultural system, and take solid measures to end starvation, Soviet leaders felt it was necessary expropriate middle class peasants.

When details are presented, even accepting the anti-Stalin assumptions and narrative, this often repeated phrase is revealed to be quite a sweeping generalization. Much like Kinzinger’s fantastic and fictional statistic regarding Syria, the phrase “Stalin was worse than Hitler” has obvious factual weaknesses.

What About Clinton’s Man Made Famine?

Furthermore, if problematic economic policies are the equivalent of genocide, as western media alleges, why is Bill Clinton not considered responsible for a genocide of Russians during the 1990s? From 1992 to 2006, Russia’s population decreased by 6.6 million people, roughly 10 percent.Why did the population decline so rapidly? The policies being pushed on Russia by the unpopular President, Boris Yeltsin, who was backed and funded by the Clinton administration, had catastrophic economic results. According widely respected author Naomi Klein, during the Yeltsin years “more than 80 percent of Russian farms had gone bankrupt and roughly seventy thousand state factories had closed creating an epidemic of unemployment.”

Meanwhile, drug addiction increased by 900%, HIV infection went from a mere 50,000 to millions, and the suicide rate doubled. Under Clinton’s direction, Boris Yeltsin privatized state run industries, eliminated social services and pensions, and made life unlivable for millions of Russians. According to Naomi Klein, only 6% of the Russian population supported these policies, but the Clinton administration financed Yeltsin’s political party and worked to secure his election and re-election as President.The term “Economic Genocide” was used by Russian Vice-President Alexander V. Rutskoi and US economist  Andre Gunder Frank to describe what the Yeltsin administration carried out, at the behest of the United States.

While Russian history books available in the United States are filled with extreme allegations against Stalin, barely any talk about the “Man-Made Famine” of the 1990s. Estimates about how many people died due to the Yeltsin-Clinton policies are not presented. No talk of a “man made famine” caused by Yeltsin and Clinton is raised in western media.

The next time American audiences hear a statistic raised by an anti-Russian politician or pundit, it should be treated with suspicion. The Pentagon’s anti-Russian propaganda numbers game is largely based on extreme assumptions. Frivolous allegations are repeated without any thought or challenge, as the US public is psyched up into a hostile, anti-Russian mood.

Caleb Maupin is a political analyst and activist based in New York. He studied political science at Baldwin-Wallace College and was inspired and involved in the Occupy Wall Street movement, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur US Media’s Anti-Russian Numbers Game

The current situation in Syria may look like a confusing mess, but we think there are enough clues to make some sense of it. It all comes down to a statement UN ambassador Churkin made after his close encounter with Samantha « Kill ’em to save ’em » Power: « Who is in charge in Washington? Is it the White House or the Pentagon? » The Pentagon and CIA are rabidly anti-Assad; they don’t want a ceasefire. Kerry and the State Department appear – at least on the surface – to want the ceasefire to succeed, despite their continued anti-Assad rhetoric. That doesn’t necessarily mean their aims and objectives are the same as Russia’s when it comes to Syria, but if we give them the benefit of the doubt, at the very least they aren’t completely insane like Ash Carter and the rest of the war hawks. What makes us think that?

Unless Kerry and the rest of the negotiating team are complete idiots, they must have known that a simple repeat of the February ceasefire would not work, for the simple reason that the February ceasefire did not work. The lengthy negotiations and the U.S.-requested secrecy of the specific details suggest that the U.S. made major concessions. They could have refused to go forward, blaming Russia for unrealistic demands or some other such nonsense. But they didn’t. And the publicly known goals of the agreement are all agreeable to Syria and Russia and align with their intentions throughout the course of the war for the past year or so: cooperation in the fight against Nusra and Daesh, separation of « moderate » and Nusra elements (i.e., a face-saving way for the U.S. to save some of its Nusra proxies), and humanitarian aid.

These haven’t been U.S. goals in the war, but by agreeing to them, the U.S. can appear to be on the right side of history and morality. What the U.S. really needed was a face-saving way of scaling back their failed strategy without being totally discredited. For the saner factions in Washington, this apparently means scaling back the demands for regime change (Assad’s future was not even mentioned in the agreement), saving some of their proxies (by rebranding some as moderates and hanging others out to dry in joint U.S.-Russian airstrikes), and perhaps leaving open an eventual plan B later down the line in the political process utilizing the remaining « opposition ». Bottom line: the « military » solution isn’t working; the Syrians are steadily winning against all brand of anti-government jihadists. (The real moderates sign truce agreements with the government.)

Before yesterday’s humanitarian aid convoy tragedy (we’ll get to that below), the Syrian government had announced the end of the 7-day ceasefire, as we covered in yesterday’s Snapshot. But they didn’t make any mention of a renewal. In the past week, the Russians and Syrians were the ones to propose both planned ceasefire extensions (on Wednesday, for another two days, and on Friday, for the final three days). The Syrians obviously held up their end of the bargain, U.S. rhetoric notwithstanding; and the U.S.-backed rebels obviously did not. Kerry and his team must know this, but naturally they feel they cannot publicly admit this.

Then came the U.S. military attack on Syrian forces. Kerry doesn’t give airstrike coordinates; this was the Pentagon’s treachery. The Russians and Syrians were naturally incensed, and Russia’s responses were basically a message to Washington: « This is unacceptable. Either get your house in order, make amends, and get serious, or we’re done here. » If the ceasefire were just a total joke for all of Washington, that would be all the excuse they needed to call it over and done with and get back to business and usual. But that’s not what happened. Instead, Washington offered to extend the ceasefire: « We need to see what the Russians say, » Kerry stated when asked if Moscow had responded to Washington’s request to extend the ceasefire. « We need to see where we are, and then we’ll make a judgment. But we don’t have all the facts at this point. »

But for the moment at least, it looks like the ceasefire is off. The Russian and Syrian air forces resumed airstrikes (100+) on jihadist-controlled districts of east Aleppo and in the countryside. Artillery has resumed shelling in southwest Aleppo. Nusra militants ousted Syrian troops and militia from a northern district of Aleppo city, taking control of 1 km of Castello road. But the Syrians retook the area with Russian air cover, killing 40 militants and destroying several infantry fighting vehicles and machine-gun-mounted pickup trucks. The army also destroyed a Nusra unit in the southwest of the city (near the military schools and 1070 apartment quarter), including « four tanks, three infantry combat vehicles, nine pickup truck with heavy machine guns and up to 100 militants. » The army is preparing a massive offensive in northern Hama to recapture all the territory they lost to jihadists earlier in the month.

This might be the Russians’ and Syrians’ answer to Kerry’s offer, at least for now. If so, he had his chance. Neither the rebels nor the Pentagon seem very willing to give up fighting. But since Lavrov has not yet declared the ceasefire dead, that implies that the Russians are still keeping the door open, however unlikely it may be that the U.S. would eat crow and get serious. Kerry for his part says the ceasefire is not dead yet, and the International Syria Support Group has a meeting scheduled for Friday, « on some specific steps » that can be taken.

But if the ceasefire really is dead, the U.S. is left with no other choice than to blame Russia and Syria for the failure. (Not that they care much; they’re used to it and wouldn’t expect anything else.) And now the Americans have the justification they need: the humanitarian convoy they have been so vocal about finally passed over the Turkish border into Aleppo, only to be almost totally destroyed by what was initially reported to be a series of airstrikes. And you can guess who was immediately blamed: Russia and/or Syria.

Aleppo aid convoy attacked – everyone outraged

The joint UN/Syrian Arab Red Crescent convoy had crossed into the Orem area of Aleppo when it came under attack. The first reports were sketchy, saying it was hit by « airstrikes or mortar fire after offloading aid ». SARC spokesman Stephen Ryan told Sputnik: « The situation on the ground is very chaotic at present, and we are still getting details. » RFE/RL quoted « monitors » as saying warplanes attacked the convoy. The one-man British propaganda outfit Syrian Observatory for Human Rights quoted « activists » as saying the attacks were carried out by « Syrian or Russian » aircraft (how would they be able to tell?). One such activist is Ammar al-Selmo, the Aleppo director of the U.S./UK-funded, Nusra-linked pseudo-humanitarian White Helmets group, who released a video in English last night:

« The place turned into hell, and fighter jets were in the sky, » … The [White Helmets] group has headquarters less than a mile from where the convoy was hit.

In other words, an al-Qaeda-linked group was less than a mile away when the convoy was hit.

But the UN insisted it was unclear who carried out the attack, which hit 18 of 31 trucks and a Red Crescent warehouse and left many killed and seriously injured, « including SARC volunteers, as a result of these sickening attacks, » UN relief coordinator Stephen O’Brien said in a statement today. « A SARC warehouse was also hit and a SARC health clinic was also reportedly severely damaged. » He also called for an « immediate, impartial and independent » probe into the attack.

The IFRC has confirmed that « around 20 » civilians and one SARC staff member were killed as they were unloading the trucks. They also said they don’t know who is responsible: « We do not know exactly whom that attack came from. It is not possible for us to know so quickly after the event what the source of the attack was or who was directly involved but what we do know whenever the convoy moves all relevant Military authorities are informed after movement together with the exact plan of what is going to happen. »

This is a major setback. UN aid spokesman Jens Laerke says that the UN had received all the necessary authorizations from the Syrian government (the very thing the U.S. had focused on as their main bone of contention regarding Syria’s « compliance »). Now, the UN is suspending all humanitarian aid work in Aleppo Province for three days in protest of the attack.

Dmitry Peskov said the hope for a renewal of the ceasefire is now « very weak« , adding: « The conditions are very simple. The shooting needs to stop and the terrorists need to stop attacking Syrian troops. And of course it wouldn’t hurt if our American colleagues didn’t accidentally bomb the Syrians. »

The U.S. expressed its « outrage » over the attack, immediately blaming Russia and Syria: « The destination of this convoy was known to the Syrian regime and the Russian federation and yet these aid workers were killed in their attempt to provide relief to the Syrian people… The United States will raise this issue directly with Russia. Given the egregious violation of the Cessation of Hostilities we will reassess the future prospects for cooperation with Russia. » Wouldn’t it be more prudent to wait and see what actually happened? Remember, this is coming from the same people who « mistakenly » bombed the Syrian army just three days ago!

After the airstrike, Russian and U.S. officials held urgent meetings. According to an anonymous U.S. official: « We are also going to be meeting with the Russians at high levels to try to get a sense from them about where they think this [Syrian ceasefire] can go from here. » Kerry and Lavrov met in New York today, but didn’t make any statements to the press. Lavrov also scheduled a meetingwith Syrian FM Walid Muallem, and the Russians met Chinese diplomats to discuss the situation in Syria. Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov explicitly denied any Russian or Syrian involvement in the attack (as did the Syrian military):

« No airstrikes were carried out against a humanitarian aid convoy in a southwestern suburb of Aleppo by Russian or Syrian aviation. Seeing as the convoy’s route lied through the territories controlled by militants, the Russian reconciliation center monitored its passage yesterday via drones. » According to the general, the monitoring finished when all humanitarian aid was delivered at around 10:40 GMT. « Further movements of the convoy were not monitored by the Russian side. Only the militants controlling this area know details of the convoy’s location, » Konashenkov added.

« The examination of the video footage made via drones of the movement of the humanitarian convoy in areas controlled by militants in the province of Aleppo has revealed new details. The video clearly shows how terrorists are redeploying a pickup with a large-caliber mortar on it. »

The examination of video footage reveals no signs of an ammunition strikes on the convoy, he said. « We have carefully studied videos by so-called activists from the site and found no signs of any ammunition striking the convoy. There are no shell holes, cars’ bodies are not damaged and there are no construction faults from the bust wave. All shown on the footage is a direct consequence of the cargo being set on fire. The fire strangely coincided with a major offensive by militants in Aleppo. » The ministry emphasized that the perpetrator of the fire, as well as his goal may be known by members of the « White Helmets » organizationthat has connection to al-Nusra Front terrorists who have « accidentally » been at the right time and in the right place with cameras.

This scenario makes the most sense. The Syrians and Russians have no interest and no incentive to attack humanitarian convoys. They also don’t have a history of such egregious errors. (The Pentagon on the other hand, not only had an interest in striking the Syrian Army this weekend, they have a long history of similar « mistakes ».) So who benefits? Again, the Pentagon and the rebels. And it was predictable, too. This is probably why the Syrian government waited so long to provide authorization for the convoys’ passage. They knew the areas were still held be rebels, they knew the rebels had made statements rejecting the aid, and they knew it was possible that the convoys would be attacked and then blamed on the government. On the other hand, they knew they had to allow the convoys through, otherwise it would appear as if they were deliberately depriving Syrians of aid, which feeds into the mainstream « Assad is an evil dictator » propaganda. Either way, they lose.

So, at this point it’s hard to say exactly what happened, but we’ll provide a scenario: the White Helmets and other Nusra-affiliated rebels waited until the aid was delivered, set fire to the convoys, killed some of the aid workers, then released statements to their media contacts in the West about « jets in the sky ». After that, the Western response is totally predictable.

Meanwhile, the Saudi « Syrian » High Negotiating Committee released their three-phase plan for regime change in Syria: first, a permanent ceasefire; second, Assad must go, followed by a 1.5-year transitional period; third, a temporary government; and only then, elections. These morons are dreaming. Also, members of the National Coalition of Syrian Revolution and Opposition Forces say they’re open to negotiations with Assad whenever he is. And the international Group of Friends of the Syrian People think they could replace Russia and the U.S. as truce mediators in Syria. That doesn’t seem likely. Where do they find all these people?

New Jersey/New York bombing suspect

New details have emerged about the suspect in the series of explosive devices found in New Jersey and New York over the weekend, who has been charged with five counts of attempted murder of a law enforcement officer and two gun charges (federal charges still pending). The suspect Ahmad Khan Rahami’s wife reportedly left the U.S. just a few days before the bombs were discovered, and authorities are working with officials in Pakistan and the UAE to get in touch with her. So far Rahami hasn’t been cooperating with law enforcement.

It’s still unclear if he was working alone. Surveillance video apparently shows him placing down the duffel bag in Manhattan, after which two men take the pressure cooker out of the bag and leave it on the sidewalk, but whether they were involved or were just checking out the bag is unknown. Commissioner O’Neill doesn’t think they were involved. (You can see the video, alleged to be Rahami, here.)

Rahami was not on any terrorist watch lists. Born in Afghanistan, and married to a Pakistani woman, his travels there in 2011 (when he was married), and again to Afghanistan from April 2013 to March 2014 may be benign (he received secondary screening both times upon returning, without any problems).

According to « Maria« , an ex-girlfriend from high school and mother to one of Rahami’s children:

« He would speak often of Western culture and how it was different back home, » she said. « How there weren’t homosexuals in Afghanistan. … He seemed standoffish to American culture, but I never thought he would cross the line, » she added. … « One time, he was watching TV with my daughter and a woman in a [military] uniform came on and he told [their daughter], ‘That’s the bad person,' » she said.

At Edison High School, where Rahami and Maria met, Rahami got along with classmates and was known as the class clown, she said. But he often criticized American culture, comparing it to the strict Islamic code of his homeland. « I never thought he would do something like this, » she said through tears. « I think he was brainwashed. »

… Right before their daughter was born, Rahami was in Afghanistan and had trouble returning because authorities in Afghanistan confiscated his passport for unknown reasons, Maria said. The last time Maria knows that Rahami visited his homeland was nine years ago. He brought back a wife and another child, she said.

Maria did not say what prompted their breakup, and cut the interview short saying she did not want to speak to a reporter. But she did say she did not want Rahami around their daughter, whom she did not name. « I didn’t want him to see my daughter, » she said. « If he loved her, he would have paid child support. My greatest fear is that he would try to take my daughter. »

Rahami apparently showed a change in behavior upon returning from one of his trips to Afghanistan, according to the New York Post:

He became noticeably devout after returning from a visit to his homeland two years ago, friends and law enforcement sources said. « He had changed. He dressed differently, more religiously, the robe and everything, » Flee Jones, 27, a childhood pal of Rahami, told The Post. « I really never expected it from him. He was always this fun loving guy, but now he was all quiet. He had found religion. It’s mind blowing. »

He’s also posted radical Islamic writings on a personal website, sources told DNAInfo.

The Telegraph expands: « It’s like he was a completely different person, » Mr Jones said. « He got serious and completely closed off. » Back to the Post: He didn’t get along with his father, according to his sister, who is shocked and can’t believe that her brother did this, according to a law enforcement source. In 2014, Rahami was arrested for assault after attempting to stab his sister, who dropped the charges (he spent over 2 months in jail – before that, he spent a day in jail in 2012 for violating a restraining order). Regulars at his family’s restaurant provided more impressions:

Regulars at First American Fried Chicken were shocked by Ahmad Rahami’s arrest, describing him as a friendly guy who would sometimes give out free food to cash-strapped customers. He also has fascination with cars — fast ones, several people said. « All this guy ever talks about is his cars, » said Ryan McCann, 33. « He loves fixing cars up and making them fast. All I ever heard him talk about was Honda Civics, Honda Accords, maybe an Acura. He would soup them up. »

A construction worker who lives next to the fried chicken restaurant described the Rahami family as being fiercely private. « They didn’t really talk to anybody, » said Miguel, 41, who declined to give his last name. He said Ahmad Rahami and a couple of other restaurant workers stopped talking to him entirely when his Israeli heritage came up during a conversation three years ago. « The first thing I did after I talked to them is I went to check my car underneath…I went to check for a bomb, » he said.

Former marine Johnathan Wagner, 26, said Mohammad Rahami once showed him a photo from his days as a mujahideen fighter in Afghanistan in the 90s. « He fought off the Russians, » Wagner said. « Ahmad as a person never talked about anything personal, » he added. « He would ask, ‘How is your family doing? Do you need some money?’ He seemed normal. »

Shades of Orlando nightclub shooter, Omar Mateen…

There’s more to the 2014 arrest story, though. According to the New York Times, his father Mohammed says that after the stabbing incident (in this version, it was the brother he stabbed, not the sister) he told FBI agents that he was concerned his son might be involved in terrorism: « But they check almost two months, they say, ‘He’s O.K., he’s clean, he’s not a terrorist.’ I say O.K. » But FBI officials say Mohammed made the comment out of anger and later recanted.

They also report that when Rahami was captured, the authorities found a notebook « pierced with a bullet hold and covered in blood » (presumably that suggests it was on his person, but no explicit indication is given as to where it was found or in what circumstances), in which were expressed « opinions sympathetic to jihadist causes, according to a law enforcement official who agreed to speak about the investigation only on the condition of anonymity. »

In one section of the book, Mr. Rahami wrote of « killing the kuffar, » or unbelievers, the official said. Mr. Rahami also praised Anwar al-Awlaki, Al Qaeda’s leading propagandist, who died in a drone strike in Yemen, as well as the soldier in the Fort Hood shooting, one of the deadliest « lone wolf » attacks inspired by Al Qaeda.

Rahami may not have been on any watch list that we know of, but his « closeness » to the FBI should give cause for concern, given their history of radicalizing young Muslims and manipulating them into carrying out terror attacks. Apparently, similar material was found on the unexploded pressure cooker bomb found in New York: « A handwritten note … contained ramblings, including references to previous terrorists including the Boston bombers, an unnamed law enforcement official told CNN. » Until these materials are produced, or the sources named, take them with a grain of salt.

As for the Minnesota stabber, Adan, the reason he was at the mall was to pick up a new iPhone he had preordered. He was happy when leaving the apartment he shared with his father, before driving the half-mile to the mall. It appears as if he just « snapped »:

« While he was at the mall, the family doesn’t know what happened. But what they know is, between the time he left his home and they knew what he was going to do and going to the mall, in between they don’t know what happened, » Yussuf said. Employees at the T-Mobile store in the mall declined to comment and referred WCCO to national T-Mobile media representatives.

The security firm Securitas issued a statement that Adan had resigned in June of 2016 from his part-time security job with them and that he had been assigned to the St. Cloud company Electrolux Home Products. The family says he was currently working as a security guard at Capital One in downtown St. Cloud and that he was enrolled as a student at St. Cloud State. But St. Cloud State said he had been enrolled between 2014 and the spring of 2016 and was no longer enrolled there. Late Monday, Capital One said that after a review of company records, Adan had never worked there.

Mayor Dave Kleis has seen the security footage that he says shows Adan’s final moments. « He had identified himself as a police officer, he made a command, the suspect went down and then immediately came forward, lunged at him with a knife, » Kleis said. « There must have been more than 20 feet but he covered it in a matter of a second and then the officer fired. » The mayor says the video shows Adan getting him up three times and the officer continuing to fire.

And while we have heard numerous victims say Adan was shouting « God is great » in Arabic and demanding to know if shoppers were Muslim or not, the family told Yussuf he was not particularly religious and that they did not know of any ties he had to ISIS or radical groups.

According to Yussuf the family is going over the security video with authorities to try and determine what happened inside the mall right before the stabbing started.

Newsbites

The Czech Ambassador in Damascus, Eva Filipi, says there was no Syrian revolution in 2012: « what is going on in Syria is a proxy regional and international war ». Thankfully a few politicians out there have a clue (and are willing to publicly admit it)! Virginia State Senator Richard Black is another. After the U.S. attack on the Syrian Army, he wrote to Syrian ambassador Jaafari that he joins the Syrian people in mourning the loss of their soldiers and expresses his hope that the U.S. was not coordinating directly with Daesh (he’s smart enough to know that’s a very real possibility). You can read his letter here.

The Iranian and Cuban presidents met with each other in Havana on Monday to discuss cooperative relations between their countries. President Rouhani described the shared struggle and survival of the two nations during outrageous US pressures: « Iran and Cuba are the symbol of resistance to the most severe sanctions. » Rouhani also emphasized the need for Cuba-Iran relations in all areas. As US influence wanes, the world is seeing a turning point as countries who suffered unjust Western sanctions join together.

The U.S. has set up a coordination center in Tell Abyad, Syria, in preparation for the NDF mission to take Daesh’s de facto capital, Raqqa. Around 50 U.S. soldiers arrived in 15 armored cars. No news as of yet whether these are the same rejects who ran out of al-Rai with their tails between their legs after U.S.-backed rebels told them how much they were appreciated.

In Iraq, the US is sending more troops to the Iraqi air base of Qayara, in a reported move to support a planned joint offensive in Mosul with Iraqi forces. President Obama and the Iraqi semi-puppet PM Abadi discussed their ‘anti-Daesh campaign’ and the start of new operations. In recent months the U.S. has surprised the world by doing some actual fighting against Daesh in Iraq. Perhaps the U.S. is too afraid of Russia helping Iraq, and so it had to clean up just a little of its own mess. Regardless, the offensive against Shirqat, south of Mosul, has begun

On the Saudi front, U.S. Senator Christopher Murphy said that Saudi Arabia has ignored repeated US requests not to bomb targets that caused major civilian casualties in its airstrikes against Houthi rebels in Yemen. Murphy noted that ordinary Yemenis blamed the United States for not restraining the Saudis and their coalition allies, and warned that this attitude was helping extreme Islamist groups win popularity in Yemen. That’s the plan, of course, and has been for decades.

Saudi Airlines jet SVA 872 with 300 passengers aboard was directed to an isolation area upon landing in Manila, Philippines. The crew said the hijack alert button had been activated accidentally, but officials took precautions anyway, as they say it had been pushed twice.

Despite public outcry about Bahrain’s human rights abuses, Prince Charles is joining a tour to « strengthen the United Kingdom’s warm bilateral relations » with the country, which basically amounts to increasing arms trading. Talk about sick!

A prominent anti-Kiev activist from Ukraine, Yevhen Zhylin, was reportedly shot dead in a restaurant near Moscow. The gunman was described as wearing a fake moustache and a panama hat. Yes, really. The Ukrainian spy professionals are apparently watching too many James Bond movies.

The deadly Japanese doomsday cult Aum Shinrikyo has been banned in Russia by the Supreme Court and deemed a terrorist organization. The sect gained notoriety in 1995 for their mass killings using chemical attacks in the Tokyo subway. The Investigative Committee of Russia opened a criminal case against the group in April and conducted raids along with the FSB to find members and confiscate its literature and electronic data.

In the U.S., more athletes are following Colin Kaepernick’s lead by kneeling during the national anthem. Miami Dolphins players Arian Foster, Kenny Stills and Michael Thomas joined the protest during their Sunday game. Just days before, a local police union lashed out against the football players’ right to protest and their freedom of speech. Jeff Bell, president of the Broward County Sheriff’s Office Deputies Association, said, « in certain jobs you give up that right of your freedom of speech (temporarily) while you serve that job or while you play in an NFL game. » Bell not only displays an absence of comprehension of the massive injustices committed against black communities but also seeks to further it by removing these players’ freedom of speech.

George H.W. Bush to vote for Killary

‘Nuff said.

U.S. Air Force names new B-21 stealth bomber « Raider » as tribute to WWII Japan raids

A facepalm moment. What better way to commemorate the indiscriminate firebombing of Japanese cities that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people?

Analysts say Killary’s sickness is causing the peso to lose value

Yes, it may sound odd, but if Killary ever becomes president, expect an overall decline in just about everything, including happiness, puppies, and the number of people living on this planet.

And finally, Trump’s latest gaffe (more tweets here):

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Did U.S. Attack Syrian Aid Convoy Just to Blame Putin and Assad?

The Washington Post and Edward Snowden

septembre 21st, 2016 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

The tensions between those engaged in the dangerous and compromising pursuit of whistleblowing, and those who use the fruit of such efforts has been all too coarsely revealed in the Washington Post stance on Edward Snowden.[1]

Oliver Stone’s Snowden has done a good deal of stirring on its release, suggesting that the pardon powers of the Presidential office should be activated.  A recent petition calling for a pardon of the former National Security Agency contractor has already received signatures from Steve Wozniak, Maggie Gyllenhaal and Jack Dorsey.[2]

The ACLU, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch similarly believe that Snowden should be exempted from the vengeful retribution of the US state for his 2013 revelations of uncontained, indiscriminate mass surveillance by the NSA and its British counterpart, GCHQ.

In taking its boggling stance, the Post’s myopic editorial refuses to deem such interception programs as PRISM threatening to privacy, though it does concede that one all-hoovering metadata program “was a stretch, if not an outright violation, of federal surveillance law, and posed risks to privacy.” (Point to note there: it was The Guardian, rather than the Post, that jumped on that one.)

In rather damnable fashion, the board suggests that these technological nasties were otherwise very much within the remit of the law, blithely ignoring the ACLU suit that yielded a completely different result.  A program such as PRISM should otherwise never have been revealed, and the US Republic could have gone on being unmolested.

With some reluctance, the not-so-wise denizens of US democracy went to work on the Hill to conduct the first extensive overview of intelligence practices in four decades. The effort was an imperfect one, but only took place because of Snowden’s constructively disruptive influence.

This is all minor feed for the editors.  Something they can never forgive Snowden for is how his information revealed “leaked details of basically defensible international operations: cooperation with Scandinavian services against Russia; spying on the wife of an Osama bin Laden associate; and certain cyber operations in China.”

This position, one effectively calling for the prosecution of the paper’s own source, goes totally against the effusive defence of Snowden, run in the same publication, by media columnist Margaret Sullivan.

The Obama administration’s woeful record favouring the prosecution rather than the protection of whistleblowers, argues Sullivan, could be turned “around, not entirely, but in an important way by pardoning the former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden and allowing him to return to the United States from his Russian exile without facing charges.”[3]

The action by the editors is also problematic on another level.  As Glenn Greenwald reminded readers in The Intercept, the move was distinctly peculiar coming from a publication owing “its sources duties of protection, and which – by virtue of accepting the source’s materials and then publishing them – implicitly declares that the source’s information to be in the public interest.”[4]

Various blades were already unsheathed as Stone’s film began doing its magic.  Last week’s flawed House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence committee report went over trodden, and sodden territory, doing its best to cast muck on Snowden’s efforts.[5]  Its bipartisan membership deemed it a “comprehensive review” but could only come up with a mere 36 classified pages of material.  We were left with the crudest of summaries.

In the summary, nothing about the actual damage to US interests was outlined. Much of this remains fantastic at best, unverifiable and speculative at worst.  It fell on the members to focus on the issue of Snowden’s own moral fibre, which somehow compromised his revelations.  Snowden, urges the report members, was, and is “a serial exaggerator and fabricator” with “a pattern of intentional lying.”[6]

What, in fact, is revealed in the report is institutionally sanctioned mendacity on the part of the US security establishment, and its political defenders.  The distortions of fact range from questioning whether Snowden ever “obtained a high school degree equivalent” (which he did) to the “gross exaggeration” about his “senior advisor” role for the CIA. The proof, being very much in the disclosed pudding, suggests that Snowden was certainly doing more than rudimentary filing. Do desk clerks make history?

These tactics go to the modus operandi of those countering the external disclosure of wrong doing within a sclerotic system of information. The assumption, and one made good by prosecutions, is never that a whistleblower is right, but that he or she is presumptively wrong whatever is revealed.  The onus is on guilt in the breach, not innocence in patriotic exposure.

Snowden’s historical role is already well etched.  He exposed a corrosive form of somnambulism in action, of an espionage world gone feral to the dictates of technology.  It was a system that had the connivance, and in some cases, compliance, of some of the highest political figures in the countries of the Five Eyes Agreement.  If treason is to be sought, it will not be falling very far from the tree of governance.

While the debate about Snowden’s pardon will continue to simmer, the verdict for the Post is a dire one. As Daniel Denvir noted with sharp relevance, “There is a special place in journalism hell reserved for The Washington Post editorial board”.[7]

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne.  Email: [email protected]

Notes

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/edward-snowden-doesnt-deserve-a-pardon/2016/09/17/ec04d448-7c2e-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html?utm_term=.95e31082f157
[2] https://pardonsnowden.org/supporters
[3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/as-a-source–and-a-patriot–edward-snowden-deserves-a-presidential-pardon/2016/09/19/dcb3e3f6-7e9c-11e6-8d0c-fb6c00c90481_story.html
[4] https://theintercept.com/2016/09/18/washpost-makes-history-first-paper-to-call-for-prosecution-of-its-own-source-after-accepting-pulitzer/
[5] https://tcf.org/content/commentary/house-intelligence-committees-terrible-horrible-bad-snowden-report/
[6] http://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hpsci_snowden_review_-_unclass_summary_-_final.pdf
[7] http://www.salon.com/2016/09/20/betraying-snowden-theres-a-special-place-in-journalism-hell-for-the-washington-post-editorial-board/

 

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur The Washington Post and Edward Snowden

We have been seeing in Syria in recent days more and more direct involvement in the conflict by Turkey, Israel and the United States. Air raids, bombing and ground troops, albeit in limited numbers, reveal dissatisfaction and evident frustration by these nations hostile to Damascus.

The most recent example, more useful in emphasizing the disappointment that reigns in Washington, concerns the dynamics that accompanied the signing of the cease-fire between Kerry and Lavrov.

With Aleppo besieged and terrorists trapped, the United States and its allies have been forced to apply for a temporary solution to the conflict in order to halt hostilities.

In spite of the previous failure of the ceasefire, Russia, Damascus and Tehran have preferred to negotiate while continuing their military action. Had they refused to negotiate, they would have been painted by the Western media and international institutions as the reason for the intensification of the conflict. This would have easily opened the door to a greater involvement by Washington’s regional allies on account of Moscow’s refusal to negotiate.

Russian diplomacy has managed to transform a position of military strength, but of apparent diplomatic weakness, into an overall win. Washington was forced to request that the final terms of the agreement be kept secret. Moscow of course calls for transparency and has demanded that the agreement be made public.

The fact that the United States is opposed highlights Washington’s ambiguity concerning the fight against terrorism in Syria. The only hypothetical point of agreement made public covers a future joint coordination to hit Al Nusra Front and Daesh; although the day after the meeting between Kerry and Lavrov, US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter promptly denied the agreement, confirming that the US and Russia have different goals in Syria.

The meaning behind this statement leaves little doubt. Washington is unable — or, worse, does not want — to give up on the terrorists it supports in Syria against Assad, and has no intention of abandoning the idea of changing the government of Syria or tearing the country apart.

As evidence of US involvement in Syria on the side of the terrorists, a few days ago an important event occurred in Al-Rai in northern Syria in a town located on the border with Turkey and recently occupied by Ankara with the help of Islamist FSA/l Nusra troops.

A dozen American special forces soldiers present in the Syrian town alongside «moderate rebels» were forced to flee as a result of explicit threats to their lives from their theoretical «allies». A complete short-circuit. The worldview of FSA/Al Nusra does not allow it to fight alongside those whom they clearly define as «infidels» (in reality those who finance and arm them.)

The idea that the whole thing was staged, or a media stunt to distance the most radical elements from US troops, was blown away by the news coming from Deir ez-Zor a few hours later.

In Syria on September 17 at 5 pm local time, 2 Danish F-16s, along with 2 Australian or American A-10s and a British Reaper drone, attacked and struck four times positions of the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) in Deir ez-Zor, killing 62 soldiers and injuring more than 100, also causing considerable material damage. Shortly afterwards, Daesh advanced on the locations attacked in Jabal Al Tahrdah that had previously surrounded the government positions (the town of Deir ez-Zor has been under siege by ISIS for four years).

The immediate response of Moscow and Damascus was to declare Washington a supporter of Daesh terrorists, while sources in the US State Department offered that it was a mistake, there supposedly having never been any intention to deliberately target the SAA.

Whatever reading one gives to this incident, the US was at the very least guilty of not coordinating with Moscow its attacks on Daesh, a charge Russian diplomacy immediately delivered at the United Nations in an emergency meeting requested by them. The hysteria of American diplomacy expressed by Samantha Power, the US ambassador to the United Nations, stands out. Without even being present at the intervention of the Russian representative, she preferred to organize a press conference accusing Moscow of exploiting the dead in Syria on account of «a simple American mistake».

It is clear that the US and its allies have dug a hole out of which they are unable to climb. They have no ability to militarily reverse the course in Syria, and they know it.

They hit towns of no strategic importance, towns in which the SAA and its allies will neither deploy troops nor materiel for a military confrontation. The locations occupied by Turkey in the north of the country do nothing to stop the siege of Aleppo and free the terrorists trapped in the city. Israel’s raids on the Golan Heights do not stop the actions of Hezbollah and the SAA against Al Nusra Front and its affiliates normally protected by Tel Aviv. The attack on the Syrian government troops in Deir ez-Zor did not break down the resistance of a city under siege for four years and defended heroically by the SAA.

As mentioned earlier, the direct involvement of nations opposing Damascus is a sign of weakness and not strength. They reveal their drastically reduced ability to influence events on the ground, leaving them only able to react to facts on the ground. Witness the incident that occurred on the heights near Deir ez-Zor on September 17.

After the recapture of Aleppo and Raqqa, breaking the siege of Deir ez-Zor is one of the pillars of the strategy of Moscow, Damascus and Tehran. The Palmira operations in the past months have been the first step of a broader operation to break the siege of the city.

Deir ez-Zor is located in the east of the country and is nearly at the center of the supply route for ISIS to Raqqa and Mosul in Iraq. With the siege of the Syrian and Russian troops on the transport routes in the north, the terrorists have a huge interest in keeping open the transit lines in the east between Raqqa Deir ez-Zor and Mosul; it is essential that they keep alive the supply chain of aid, weapons and money coming from the Americans, Jordanians, Turks, Saudis and Qataris.

A few days before the American strike, the airport of Deir ez-Zor was used to land and deploy a contingent made up of a thousand newly trained Syrian soldiers and other Iranian groups, ready to engage in the upcoming operations to break the siege.

Facing these facts already achieved on the ground, the United States decided to take reckless and dangerous actions in reaction.

Ignoring all international norms and every principle of common sense, hoping to achieve beneficial results on the battlefield, the International Coalition (IC) decided to send two F-16s, two A-10s, and a drone to hit SAA positions situated on the hills of Jabal al-Thardah. Hitting the government positions in Jabal, the Americans hoped to encourage the advance of Daesh to take control of the strategic hill, which is what promptly occurred.

The hills of Jabal al-Thardah are strategic because they offer a unique view on the airport adjacent Deir ez-Zor under the control of Damascus. American strategists imagined the action would assist ISIS in conquering SAA positions. In this way they would then be able to hit the runways of the airport from the al-Thardah mountains, thereby preventing the SAA from providing reinforcements to liberate the city and from there shut down the terrorists’ communication links between Iraq and Syria.

The hopes and plans of Daesh, shared by the Americans, vanished shortly afterwards following the intervention of Syrian government troops assisted by the Russian Air Force, who quickly regained the abandoned positions.

Washington had yet again reacted violently when faced with an accomplished fact, namely incoming reinforcements for the liberation of the city. It is also interesting to analyze the secondary arguments that probably pushed Washington to put this plan into action. In the minds of strategists in Washington, confused and disheartened by their continuing failures, it continues to attempt to provoke a reaction from Damascus, Tehran or Moscow in the face of such senseless actions.

This explanation also applies to the actions of Israel and Turkey in Syria. The logic behind this reasoning is the following: if Syria, Russia and Iran were ever to react to one of the endless provocations, this would justify an even tougher response, paving the way for an escalation of the conflict. A sterile tactic that does not work and does not bear any fruit, let us remember the attitude of Moscow in the affair in Donbass and Ukraine in particular.

Another reason that may have impelled Washington to engage in direct action against the SAA is the lack of confidence held by terrorists in their «friendly» nations. The expulsion of US Special Forces in northern Syria is symptomatic of frustration that Nusra/Daesh/FSA troops are building up in the face of continuous defeats.

However, the main motivation behind this unprecedented challenge remains the attempt to sabotage the ceasefire agreement signed recently. The United States feels its hand has been forced by terms established elsewhere, namely in Damascus and Moscow.

They feel in a corner and in a deep hole.

They obtained the obligation of confidentiality for the document, but this does nothing but damage their strategy, showing how the White House is concerned not to let its allies and terrorists in the field know the terms of what has been agreed.

The strategic long-term vision of Moscow on the Syrian conflict.

Prevailing as a basis of the Kremlin’s reasoning is a realist and diplomatic approach that endeavors to avoid a direct military confrontation with the United States. At the same time, there is the awareness that such conflict could occur, and so preparations are made for this contingency.

Putin and his advisers would prefer to keep the United States bound by a pact signed and guaranteed by the United Nations. With the US presidential elections approaching, and the possibility of a Clinton presidency, it is easy to assume that the conflict could quickly escalate. With a peace plan and an agreement to stop the hostilities signed by Kerry-Obama, everything would be more complicated for Clinton and the neocons.

They would be forced to find plausible and justifiable grounds to invalidate the deal before the whole world. The consequences would be devastating, with a further loss of credibility and international support (excluding allies), being further proof in the eyes of the world demonstrating US failure to respect any agreements made.

The plan to stop hostilities is a possibility worth exploring by Moscow. Were it to work, it could start a serious discussion on ending the conflict and decreasing the violence.

Anyway, it serves to show Moscow’s effective tactic in revealing the true intent of the United States in Syria, namely to overthrow Assad at any cost and by any method, including terrorism.

In this regard, there is another scenario, much less diplomatic, much more militaristic, which is something that Moscow has always tried to avoid; and that is the prospect of a direct confrontation with the United States.

It is also possible that a red line for Moscow was crossed by Washington’s actions on September 17. An idea is floating around, and has so far only been discussed informally, in regards to the possible creation of a no-fly zone controlled by the Russians and Syrians together, barring from Syrian skies aircraft of the international coalition.

Following recent military and diplomatic developments, Moscow could declare Syrian skies off-limits to the US Air force, denying that precious method of reconnaissance with drones that directly assists friendly terrorists in the field.

With two months to the presidential elections and Obama completely overwhelmed by events, a decision of this significance would shatter American plans and be a strong and clear signal that Russia will no longer tolerate the ambiguity of the United States and would rather consider the US an integral part of the terrorist front, with the attendant consequences.

In such a hypothetical scenario, it would be good that someone close to the POTUS repeat to him a concept. No one knows if Moscow is willing to go as far as declaring Syrian skies a no-go zone for US aircraft, but in the event that this occurs, it is important to know that a violation of this no-fly zone would be met by S-400 batteries, ready to disintegrate enemy aircraft, including American ones.

Does Obama want to be remembered as the president who chose to violate a hypothetical no-fly zone in Syria, sparking apocalyptic scenarios? The choice is his, and hopefully he is still able to put to a stop the possible consequences that millions of US citizens would face stemming from a misstep on his part.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur US Attack in Syria Opens Disturbing and Unpredictable Scenarios. The Danger of « Direct Military Confrontation » between US-NATO and Russia

The war drums of a possible World War Three seem to have gotten considerably louder in the last few days, especially since an American air raid hit a Syrian Arab Army base in Deir ez-Zor on Saturday. And now, a top Russian defense official has accused the United States of “deliberately and thoughtfully” conducting an airstrike against Syrian troops that left 62 servicemen dead and more than a hundred wounded.

Sputnik News reported September 18 that top Russian military officials are questioning the veracity of their American counterparts who claim that the airstrike on the Syrian military base was a mistake. But one Russian official, First Deputy Chairman of the Defense and Security Committee and Federation Council member Franz Klintsevich, told Russian news agency RIA Novosti that he believes the coordinated attack by two F-16 fighter jets and two A10 ground attack aircraft — which originated out of Iraq — was deliberate.

“The US conducted airstrikes on government forces in Syria deliberately and thoughtfully. Any aerial operation is coordinated with commanders on the ground. In this case [the US] used information received from their intelligence units who infiltrated Daesh [derogatory term for ISIS, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria].”

Others have been more restrained in their allegations toward the United States. Russian Defense Ministry spokesman, Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov noted that if the U.S. airstrike was accidental, the incident was “a direct consequence of the US’ unwillingness to coordinate its actions against terrorist groups with Russia.”

Klintsevich pointed out that the airstrike was in line with policymaking in Washington, which takes the position that Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, should be deposed and replaced by the U.S.-backed rebels. He said that the U.S. was acting to “maintain their economic interests” in the area.

Accusations and allegations aside, all agreed that the cease-fire being negotiated between U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Geneva was in jeopardy.

Russia’s United Nations envoy, Vitaly Churkin, stated that he found the timing of the U.S. airstrike “suspicious,” given the ongoing cease-fire negotiations. He said that “some aspects of the situation suggest that it could have well been a provocation.” But, he was quick to add, the attack did not necessarily mean that the ceasefire deal was over.

It is unclear whether or not the U.S. airstrike against the Syrian Army base at Deir ez-Zor had anything to do with the several bombings in late July of a U.S. base in Syria. According to the Wall Street Journal (via Fox News), U.S. defense and intelligence officials reported that Russian aircraft had bombed a base maintained by U.S. and British forces, and had done so again 90 minutes after being warned that it was not to be targeted. The officials said they believed that Russia was attempting to pressure the U.S. into coordinating its air war with the Russian military.

Heightened tensions have only increased fears of an escalation of events in the region to the point of World War 3. Of course, this has been an ongoing concern since Russia entered the multinational fray (September 30, 2015, according to BBC News), ostensibly to join in the fight against ISIS but seen by the world as to act as an ally and prop for the then tottering regime of Bashar al-Assad. Regardless, Russia’s entrance also increased the chances of accidental incidents that could quickly spiral into military confrontations — incidents like Russia bombing a known American base and the U.S. bombing a known Syrian Army base. (Russian officials have also voiced concern over the possibility, after Saturday’s attack, that the U.S. could mistakenly bomb a Russian airbase.)

Similar scenarios of a potential World War Three trigger have been presented before. In a September 2015 article, the Telegraph offered that the advent of World War 3 could very well be a confrontation or accident in Syria’s crowded skies.

“Indeed, the skies over Syria are starting to get dangerously crowded, with Russian jets flying near US planes on bombing runs, and sparring with NATO air defenses in neighboring Turkey.”

For the record, Turkey is also now involved in the war inside Syria. As reported by Al Jazeera, tensions with Russia escalated in November when a Turkish fighter shot down a Russian bomber that was claimed to have entered Turkish airspace and repeatedly warned to depart the area.

The U.S. airstrike against the Syrian Army base is just the latest incident of potential diplomatic and political calamity in an already volatile region of the world. According to the New York Times, American military officials admitted that U.S. pilots had targeted a Syrian Army base, but the pilots had thought they were attacking ISIS facilities in the area. A senior Obama administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told the Times that the United States had stated its regrets to Syria’s government through the Russians for the “unintentional loss of life of Syrian forces” in the ongoing war against ISIS.

Will historians one day look back on the events of the last few months as the precursors to World War Three? Or will they go back further to when Russia entered the conflict? Of course, historians could go even further back to the creation of the caliphate of the Islamic State or even the creation of ISIS. Regardless, for now, World War Three history is only the province of speculation, but the fears of a major multinational conflict, given the historical ease with which other world wars have begun, are founded in realistic potentialities.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur World War Three Starting in Syria? US Accused by Russia of ‘Deliberate’ Deadly Airstrikes on Syrian Troops

A military source refuted the reports circulated by malicious media outlets about the Syrian Arab Army targeting a humanitarian aid convoy in Aleppo countryside.

The source told SANA that there’s no truth to the rumors circulated during the past few hours by some media outlets about the Syrian Arab Army targeting a humanitarian aid convoy in Orkem village in Aleppo’s northern countryside.

Russian Defense Ministry: Russian and Syrian air forces did not target any humanitarian aid convoys in Aleppo

Spokesman for the Russian Defense Ministry Igor Konashenkov asserted that neither the Russian Aerospace Forces nor the Syrian Air Force targeted any UN humanitarian aid convoys southwest of Aleppo.

Konashenkov stressed that video recordings don’t show any indication that the humanitarian convoy in question was hit by shells.

He also said that terrorists from Jabhat al-Nusra carried out a massive attack with heavy support from artillery and rocket launchers in the direction of where the convoy was on Monday at 19:00 Moscow time, adding that the Ministry studied carefully the video published by so-called “activisits” and it showed no sign of any of the convoy’s trucks being hit by military-grade munitions, nor were any craters or signs of damage to the trucks’ structures visible as would be the case had they been struck by air-to-surface explosives.

Konashenkov said that all the video showed was a fire that broke out at the same time as the armed groups were attacking Aleppo, noting that the convoy was passing through an area where armed groups are present, and the Russian Reconciliation Center in Hmeimeem was monitoring it using drones, and at 13:40 Moscow time the convoy arrived successfully at its destination and the Center ceased monitoring it since then, adding that militants in the area were the only side that knew where the convoy was present after that.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Syria, Russia Refute Claims of Targeting Humanitarian Aid Convoy in Aleppo Countryside

Two recent attacks against the Syrian Arab Army in east-Syria point to a U.S. plan to eliminate all Syrian government presence east of Palmyra. This would enable the U.S. and its allies to create a  « Sunni entity » in east-Syria and west-Iraq which would be a permanent thorn in side of Syria and its allies.

A 2012 analysis by the Defense Intelligence Agency said:

THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN REGIME …

Note that the described plan mentions exactly two cities – Hasakah and Deir Ezzor.

On August 18 Kurdish YPK units suddenly attacked Syrian government positions in the center of Hasakah in the north-east of Syria. Before this incident the relations between the two entities had been decent despite some earlier, small clashes. The attacking Kurds were under advice from U.S. special operators. When the Syrian air force intervened the U.S. threatened to down its planes. The Syrian forces had to eventually retreat from populated areas in Hasakah and are now confined to an airport next to the city. They are cut of from supplies and will eventually have to give up.

(For the Kurds these attacks proved to be a political catastrophe. Not only did they lose all support from the Syrian government and Russian side, but Turkey used these clashes to justify its invasion into Syria. This ended the Kurdish national dream of a continues area from Iraq to the Mediterranean.)

On Saturday U.S. airplanes attacked the most important Syrian government position in Deir Ezzor. Nearly a hundred Syrian soldiers were killed and most of the heavy equipment the Deir Ezzor garrison had left was destroyed. Immediately after the attack fighters of the Islamic State occupied the bombed out government positions. These Islamic States fighters now own the heights above the Deir Ezzor airport. A day later the Islamic State shot down a Syrian government plane near Deir Ezzor.

The city and its 150,000+ inhabitants are surrounded by the Islamic State. They had been supplied from Damascus by nightly flights to the airport. As the Islamic State now has fire-control over the airport as well as anti-air weapons those supply flights are no longer possible. The U.S. air attack practically closed down the Syrian government ability to supply the city. If this situation continues the city will fall to the Islamic State.

The U.S. plan is to eventually take Raqqa by using Turkish or Kurdish proxies. It also plans to let the Iraqi army retake Mosul in Iraq. The only major city in Islamic State territory left between those two is Deir Ezzor. Should IS be able to take it away from the isolated Syrian army garrison it has at least a decent base to survive. (Conveniently there are also rich oil wells nearby.) No one, but the hampered Syrian state, would have an immediate interest to remove it from there.

North of that entity would be a Kurdish area with no ambition to expand south. North-west of the Deir Ezzor entity would be the friendly Turkish controlled « Safe Zone » that Erdogan plans to create.

The two recent moves by U.S. forces in east-Syria are consistent with the plan for a « Sunni entity » or « Salafist principality » described in the 2012 DIA document. Such an entity blocks the land connection of the « Shia crescent » which connects Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. This is the « isolation » of Syria foreseen in the DIA analysis. A « Sunni entity » in east-Syria also provides a path for the gas pipeline from Qatar via Turkey to Europe. The Syrian government had rejected the construction of such a line which goes against the fundamental interests of its ally Russia.

At first glance this U.S. policy seems to be shortsighted, There is no way the envisioned « Sunni entity » would ever become stable. Instead it would continue to be a source of terrorism which would hit far beyond the borders of Syria and the surrounding states. But it is exactly the instability of this construct that will allow for further U.S. presence in the area.  A source of insecurity that can be activated, or shut down, whenever convenient.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur The U.S. Deir Ezzor Air Strikes in Support of ISIS-Daesh Enable the « Salafist Principality » As Foreseen In The 2012 Defense Intelligence Agency Analysis

Mohsen Abdelmoumen: Your work focuses essentially on the strategy of the masked war. Can you explain this concept?

Dr. Daniele Ganser: A secret war, a covert war is a war where the attacker does not admit that he is attacking the target country. In 1961 for instance the CIA made an invasion of Cuba and tried to overthrow the government of Fidel Castro. It was a secret operation, and therefore at the United Nations the US ambassador lied and said: We have nothing to do with this.

What is the role of the media in the strategy of the masked war?

Today we have a secret war against Syria. In 2011 the four NATO countries US, Great Britain, France and Turkey attacked Syria, together with Qatar and Saudi Arabia. These six countries want to overthrow the government of President Assad. This is illegal according to the UN Charta. But the media confuse the public. They spread stories that what we have in Syria is a civil war of a brutal dictator against his own population. With this narrative the media hide the international powers who try to make a regime change. But there are always also courageous journalists who try to inform the public about what is really going on. These journalists for instance report how NATO countries cooperate with terrorists in Syria who also want to overthrow Assad. Of course NATO countries then say that they would never cooperate with terrorists like al Nusra, but only with « moderate rebels ». So we are in the middle of an information war.

Your doctoral thesis concerned Gladio. Can you enlighten us about this subject?

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the US-led largest military alliance on the planet, had set up secret armies in all countries of Western Europe after the Second World War. In Italy the secret army was codename Gladio. These networks were armed and trained by the CIA and the MI6. Their original mission was to fight behind enemy lines in case of a Soviet invasion, hence the name stay-behind network. But in some countries like Italy and France and Turkey these secret armies became operative in the total absence of a Soviet invasion, targeted the domestic opposition and became tragically linked to crime and terror.

How is it possible that in the so-called western « democracies », secret armies often linked to the extreme right, act with impunity? Where are the States and their institutions?

In Switzerland, Belgium and Italy there was an investigation into the stay-behind armies, so at least in some countries the local parliaments looked into the delicate affair. But in many other countries including Germany, France and Turkey there was no in depth investigation. Furthermore NATO and CIA refused to comment. It was a big military scandal but US President Bush senior, who was in office in Washington when the existence of the secret armies was revealed in 1990, simply refused to comment. CIA operatives confirmed that the secret armies hat existed but claimed they were designed only to fight against a Soviet invasion. The CIA said the secret Gladio armies had not linked whatsoever with terrorism. The EU parliament in November 1990 protested « vigorously at the assumption by certain US military personnel at SHAPE and in NATO of the right to encourage the establishment in Europe of a clandestine intelligence and operation network » and called for « a full investigation into … these clandestine organizations … and the problem of terrorism in Europe ». But nothing happened, the affair was too delicate and the EU parliament was powerless against NATO and the CIA.

You often base your work on declassified documents from various intelligence agencies, CIA, MI6, etc. Have you obtained easily certain confidential or top secret information?

No, it was always very difficult to find historical documents on secret warfare in general and operation Gladio in particular. I placed a Freedom of Information Request (FOIA) with the CIA, but the CIA refused to hand me the Gladio documents. Also NATO refused access to the relevant documents.

Can we say we are living the continuation of the Cold War, especially with the latent conflict between the EU and the US on one side and Russia on the other, and whose one of epicenters is Ukraine?

Yes, in Ukraine we have a new confrontation between Washington and Moscow, a confrontation between two nuclear powers. On February 20, 2014, the US sponsored a coup d’état in Kiev, the capital of Ukraine, in order to throw out the government of Janukowitsch and install the new and acting government of Poroschenko. The plan of the US is to drag Ukraine into NATO. Poroschenko wants to join NATO. Responsible for the coup d’état in Kiev was Victoria Newland who became famous for her comment „Fuck the EU“, because she did not care what the EU thinks when the US carries out a coup in Ukraine.

But the Russians don’t want that. They don’t want the Ukraine to become a NATO member. So in March Putin reacted and took the Crimea. So right now the Ukraine is split into two parts: one aligned with Washington, the other aligned with Moscow.

The United States will elect a new president and choose between Trump and Clinton. Don’t you think that these two candidates are dangerous for the stability and peace in the world?

Unfortunately both Trump and Clinton are a danger for world peace, they both will serve the military industrial complex, thus the interest of powerful lobby groups in Washington who want more wars and want to sell more weapons.

According to your analysis, leaders fomented plots outside the control of Parliament and their institutions. Some of them are alive like Bush, Blair, Cheney, Sarkozy, etc. Why aren’t they judged? Is it utopian to believe in their trial?

Bush, Blair and Cheney should be brought in front of the International Criminal Court ICC in Den Haag because they attacked Iraq in 2003 that was illegal. Sarkozy should also be brought in front of the ICC because he attacked together with Obama and Cameron Libya in 2011. But these leaders of NATO countries are very powerful. It is very difficult to bring them in front of a court, right now it seems impossible.

According to you, does this strategy of masked war and of creation of tensions aim at monopolizing the natural resources of the countries, or are there other underlying objectives?

Secret wars have always been used to increase the influence of the US empire and aligned NATO countries. So really it’s about the desire to have more power and more money. The so called war on Terror, which started in 2001, is full of lies. Above all the collapse of WTC7 is totally unclear. I think the entire war on terror is not about catching terrorists, but about controlling oil and gas supplies.

Based on your work, the occult groups who commit these attacks and plots are a minority. From where do they hold their influence and does the intelligence agencies are not infiltrated by these groups?

Yes, the people who start all these wars and lie to the public are a minority. But they are powerful and they control the intelligence services like the CIA and the MI6.

We notice an increasing role of the private military companies, as Blackwater now Academi, CACI, etc. Will we see the privatization of sensitive sectors such as Defense and Intelligence? Who is behind these companies?

I know that the influence of Academi and other private military companies is growing. But really I don’t know much about this subject because I have not studied it in detail.

In your opinion, why the occult powers to imperialism service do they feel the need to accuse those who dispute official theses of being conspiracy theorists, and other pejorative terms?

The term conspiracy theory is being used to discredit everybody who criticizes the elite and also the abuse of power by the elite. If you question the terrorist attacks of September 11 you are immediately attacked as a conspiracy theorist. But more and more people start to understand that the entire so called war against terror is full of lies and brutality.

All the information we have about these white collar criminals, their mass murders, State lies, aren’t they a drop in the ocean?

No, this information is important; we must try to understand what is going on.

By manipulating terrorism, don’t the Western countries play with fire?

Indeed, it is very dangerous to manipulate terrorists. The CIA did it by arming Al Qaida in Afghanistan in the 1980s. And now the same happens again in Syria.

You are also an expert in energy, what are your forecasts about this market? Can humanity afford to remain dependent on fossil fuels?

No, we need to move towards renewable energies. We should try to reduce the consumption of oil, gas, coal and nuclear energy and go toward solar energy, wind energy, water energy, and geothermal energy.

Interview realized by Mohsen Abdelmoumen

Who is the Doctor Daniele Ganser?

Daniele Ganser was born in 1972 in Lugano, Switzerland. He is a historian and peace researcher specializing in energy issues, economic history, geo-strategy and international contemporary history since 1945. He is the founder and owner of the Swiss Institute for Peace and Energy Research (SIPER).From 1992 onwards he studied history and international relations at the University of Basel, the University of Amsterdam (UVA) and the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE). He received his licentiate in 1998, summa cum laude, and his PhD in 2001, insigni cum laude. 2001-2003 he conducted research at the think tank Avenir Suisse in Zurich; 2004-2006 he worked for the Center for Security Studies (CSS) at the ETH Zurich. He teaches at the University of St. Gallen (HSG) courses on the history and future of energy systems. At Basel University, he taught in the postgraduate course on conflict analysis with a focus on the global fight over petroleum. He is also on the scientific advisory board of the business association Swisscleantech.

Daniele Ganser holds the German IQ-Award 2015 by Mensa in Deutschland e.V., the association for highly skilled people (www.mensa.de). His book « NATO’s secret armies in Europe » has been translated into ten languages. His book « Europe in the oil rush » was published in September 2012 and describes the global struggle for petroleum. The TOP-10 of his presentations and interviews on Youtube count over 3 million views. Daniele Ganser has a daughter and a son and lives with his family close to Basel.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur The US Strategy of A « Masked War ». US-NATO’s Undeclared « Secret War » against Syria. Both Trump and Clinton are a Danger for World Peace

The Syrian Arab Red Crescent (SARC), the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the International Federation of Red Cross Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) are outraged by last night’s horrific attack on a SARC warehouse and an aid convoy in Orem Al Kubra (Big Orem) in rural Aleppo.

Around twenty civilians and one SARC staff member were killed, as they were unloading trucks carrying vital humanitarian aid. Much of the aid was destroyed. The attack deprives thousands of civilians of much-needed food and medical assistance.

“We’re totally devastated by the deaths of so many people, including one of our colleagues, the director of our sub-branch, Omar Barakat. He was a committed and brave member of our family of committed staff and volunteers, working relentlessly to alleviate the suffering of the Syrian people. It is totally unacceptable that our staff and volunteers continue to pay such a high price because of the ongoing fighting,” said the SARC President, Dr Abdulrahman Attar.

“From what we know of yesterday’s attack, there has been a flagrant violation of International Humanitarian Law (IHL), which is totally unacceptable. Failing to respect and protect humanitarian workers and structures might have serious repercussions on ongoing humanitarian operations in the country, hence depriving millions of people from aid essential to their survival”, said Peter Maurer, the ICRC President.

“Today, the Red Cross and Red Crescent is in mourning. In solidarity with the Syrian Arab Red Crescent, we are calling on the international community to ensure the protection of humanitarian aid workers and volunteers. We are not part of this conflict,” said Tadateru Konoé, the President of the IFRC.

Syria is one of the most dangerous conflicts for humanitarian workers in the world. During the past six years, 54 staff and volunteers of SARC have lost their lives whilst carrying out their duties.

The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement repeats its demand that all parties to the conflict adhere to the rules of international humanitarian law, which includes protecting aid workers.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Syria: Attack on Humanitarian Convoy is an Attack on Humanity. Official Statement of the Syrian Arab Red Crescent

À chaque fois que la situation devient trop angoissante pour les Syriens, Naram Sargon est là pour éclairer en insufflant courage et optimisme. À le lire, on se réjouirait presque que la trêve respectée par la Syrie et la Russie avec, pour la première fois depuis le début de la guerre, des frappes meurtrières de la Coalition internationale menée par les USA sur les positions de l’Armée syrienne à Deir ez-Zor, soit aujourd’hui suspendue [1] jusqu’à nouvel ordre et respect de la parole donnée contraint ou forcé… À savoir que 135 soldats syriens sont tombés depuis le début de cette trêve, sans compter les blessés et les civils [NdT].


Vu toutes les preuves en notre possession, ce serait perdre notre temps que de prêter attention aux déclarations du ministre américain de la Défense, et du commandant en chef de l’Armée américaine, insulter notre intelligence en nous expliquant le pourquoi et le comment de leurs « tirs amis » sur Deir ez-zor.

Ce serait tout aussi inutile que de chercher à convaincre du lien évident entre Daech et le projet américain : Daech, le Front al-Nosra et les islamistes étant les troupes terrestres de l’armée des USA au Moyen-Orient depuis la guerre en Afghanistan ; les Forces aériennes US étant les troupes aériennes de Daech, du Front al-Nosra et des islamistes…

Car la question est : que signifient les frappes aériennes de la Coalition internationale menée par les USA au nord-est de la Syrie, opération manifestement préméditée pour permettre aux troupes de Daech d’avancer et ainsi de mélanger les cartes, tandis que dans le même temps l’Armée de l’air israélienne assurait une couverture aérienne au Front al-Nosra à Quneitra, au sud du pays [2] ?

Et pourquoi cette « bavure aérienne » et ces tirs amis sur Deir ez-Zor et le Golan, après les échecs des tentatives US cherchant à convertir la trêve à Alep en un hiatus militaire et la route du Castello en un cordon secret reliant le chorion turc aux groupes armés du Front al-Nosra ?

Cette opération n’est pas un message ordinaire posté par les USA dans la boîte aux lettres du mont de Tharda, mais le premier aveu indubitable de leur impuissance face à l’Armée syrienne et ses alliés du nord au sud du pays ; leurs propres alliés au sol titubant à Alep, dans la Ghouta de Damas et à Idleb.

Tout indique que l’« Armée islamiste US » n’est plus en mesure de provoquer ses chocs sur le terrain et que Daech n’est plus cette force invincible capable d’avancer sur n’importe quel front, aussi faible soit-il, sans le secours de l’une ou l’autre des grandes puissances parmi les États de la Coalition menée par les USA.

Tout indique que la prétendue bavure US a été exécutée en réponse aux avancées de l’Armée syrienne sur plusieurs fronts à Deir ez-Zor, lesquelles ont démontré la baisse des performances des attaques daechiennes, tout comme le siège des meutes du Front al-Nosra [devenues, par une entourloupe grotesque, Fatah al-Cham pour profiter de la trêve dont il est exclu selon l’accord américano-russe du 9 septembre ; NdT] à Alep, a démontré leur corrosion en dépit de leur mobilisation et de leur surarmement en préparation de la « mère des batailles » depuis plus de deux ans.

En effet, les batailles d’Alep ont révélé les capacités de manœuvres désormais limitées du Front al-Nosra, dont les vagues déferlantes successives ont accumulé des pertes l’ayant transformé en une masse molle telle qu’il n’est plus capable d’exécuter la moindre attaque dans le sud du pays sans l’assistance publique et explicite des Israéliens.

Ce qui signifie que nous sommes entrés dans une étape de ramollissement du noyau dur des forces islamistes terroristes, surgies depuis la guerre US sur l’Afghanistan, et que nous affrontons directement les forces qui se dissimulaient derrière et qui manipulaient, les mains couvertes de leurs gants de terroristes, les marionnettes islamistes sur la scène des prétendus révolutionnaires syriens.

En d’autres termes, Israël et les USA sont sortis des coulisses une fois que les Turcs ont trébuché pour se retrouver face à face avec la Russie, les USA tentant désespérément de couvrir le Front al-Nosra sous l’habit des derviches soufis, pendant que l’armée israélienne lui offrait son gilet de fer [3] pour lui éviter de mourir.

En s’attaquant à Deir ez-Zor, les USA ont avoué ouvertement qu’ils avaient réalisé que la bataille d’Alep ne tournait plus en leur faveur et que toutes leurs tactiques, ou ruses humanitaires, n’exauceraient plus leur espoir de sauver les milices armées sur lesquelles ils ont misé. Et ceci, parce qu’ils les ont entendues jouer leur oraison funèbre et ont compris que leur effondrement à Alep bouleverserait leur projet au nord de la Syrie, s’il était suivi de leur chute probable à Idleb avant celle d’Obama. D’où leur décision de pénétrer l’est du pays sous le prétexte de « tirs amis », juste pour suggérer ce qu’ils sont encore capables de faire et qu’ils referont, peut-être.

Le projet US n’a pas changé. Seule la carte d’approche a été modifiée du fait des difficultés insolubles rencontrées. Si le régime syrien qui tient la « porte de la Méditerranée » ne tombe pas, autant le transformer en un régime inutile à la Russie, à la Chine, à l’Iran et à leur profondeur asiatique, en l’emprisonnant entre la mer Méditerranée et le fleuve Euphrate, ce qui fermerait l’immense corridor entre la porte occidentale et la « porte orientale », autrefois gardée par Saddam Hussein selon la rumeur.

C’est parce que le projet US consiste désormais à ce que l’une de ces deux portes soit hermétiquement fermée par un verrou US, ou que les deux soient séparées par une barrière hostile à l’une des portes, que les États-Unis cherchent clairement à installer n’importe quelle entité fragile entre la Syrie et l’Irak, de sorte que sa frontière naturelle soit l’Euphrate et qu’elle soit peuplée par n’importe quelle organisation ou bloc militaire hostile à l’État syrien dans la région est du pays. D’où, la promotion de l’idée d’une partition inévitable de la Syrie.

Une partition censée se concrétiser par un « arc de combats » allant de Idleb à Abou Kamal via Alep, Raqqa et Deir ez-Zor, lequel arc serait coupé par la ligne horizontale d’une entité kurde, également fragile, créée dans sa partie nord.

C’est ce qui explique que les États-Unis avaient déployé Daech le long du fleuve Euphrate, pendant un court laps de temps, avant de veiller au déploiement du Front al-Nosra sur une ligne allant vers Idleb, lequel a tenté d’atteindre la côte afin d’achever l’enclave géographique projetée, entre la mer et le fleuve.

Pour ceci, les prétendus révolutionnaires, dits « modérés » du Front al-Nosra et apparentés, étaient censés s’approprier Alep, Idleb et la côte, puis se ruer vers Raqqa, Deir ez-Zor et Abou Kamal sous prétexte de les libérer de Daech qui devait docilement reculer vers la région d’Al-Anbar en Irak, sans combat, exactement comme il avait docilement reculé à Jarablus afin de laisser place aux turcs, pour lesquels entrer dans la place Taksim, à Istanbul, fût beaucoup plus difficile et plus coûteux que d’entrer dans Jarablus massivement occupée par les Daechiens et les terroristes suicidaires.

Mais ce énième projet, destiné à compenser l’échec de la mainmise US sur toute la Syrie, puis la moitié de la Syrie, a échoué à son tour, à cause de la résistance de Deir ez-Zor et de la ville de Hassaké où l’Armée syrienne veillait.

De ce fait, il était donc très clair que l’Armée syrienne n’abandonnerait pas Deir ez-Zor, devenue la Stalingrad de l’Euphrate, et que la libération prochaine d’Alep signifiait que l’arc de combats, dessiné par les planificateurs US et leurs complices, allait partir en miettes, les Forces syriennes étant susceptibles d’avancer à grande vitesse d’Alep libérée vers Raqqa et Deir ez-Zor ; un trajet tactique plus avantageux que celui allant de Raqqa libérée vers Alep.

Or, les USA ont tout tenté pour empêcher l’avancée de l’Armée syrienne selon la ligne Alep libérée-Raqqa-Deir ez-Zor, notamment en poussant les Kurdes et lesdites Forces Démocratiques Syriennes [FDS] à s’étendre pour contrôler « l’arc de combats » de l’Euphrate jusque Raqqa.

Mais les Kurdes ont rechigné à descendre vers le sud avant d’avancer vers l’ouest, vu qu’ils se seraient confrontés à un environnement hostile à leur idéologie et à leur psychologie ; ce qui a fini par réveiller le monstre démographique kurde du sud-est de l’Anatolie craint par les Turcs, lesquels ont menacé de se retirer du projet.

Entretemps, n’ayant pas réussi à libérer le Front al-Nosra assiégé à Alep par l’Armée syrienne, par la création d’une brèche sur la route de Ramoussé au sud de la ville, la route nord du Castello étant fermée à toute subvention venue de Turquie, les USA ont décidé de braver les Russes et les Syriens en éliminant la barrière de Deir ez-Zor par cette opération ignoble d’une prétendue bavure, aidés en cela par les Turcs qui se sont généreusement proposés pour « libérer » Raqqa aux côtés de la Coalition internationale, comme nous les avons tous entendus l’expliquer récemment.

Ils ont donc lancé leurs « tirs amis », suivis immédiatement par les assauts de Daech sur Deir ez-Zor, lequel Daech n’a même pas eu peur du regard inquisiteur de l’aviation US censée frapper tout ce qui bouge à l’ouest de ses bases irakiennes. N’y voyez surtout aucun paradoxe !

Selon ce plan, si Deir ez-Zor tombait, les Turcs se rueraient vers Raqqa et Deir ez-Zor, tandis que Daech se retirerait selon le même scénario qu’à Jarablus, sous prétexte de l’énorme pression militaire ; les Turcs ayant convenu avec les USA que la ligne de l’Euphrate serait une région internationale neutre du fait que c’est une zone de guerre contre Daech, lequel risque de la reprendre si la Coalition internationale se retirait. Il faudra donc que Daech reste assiégé en Irak, pour empêcher son expansion.

Et c’est ainsi que la Turquie briserait les reins des Kurdes en les coupant en deux moitiés assiégées au nord de la Syrie. C’est ainsi que les USA couperaient la Syrie en deux moitiés de part et d’autre de l’Euphrate, lequel deviendrait la frontière d’une entité quelconque née du fait accompli comme, peut-être, celle qui s’édifierait autour des sbires de Al-Joulani [fondateur du Front al-Nosra et actuel chef de Fatah al-Cham] après lavage de sa barbe ruisselante du sang des Syriens. C’est ainsi que l’immense corridor vers l’Asie serait coupé entre  la porte de la Méditerranée et la porte orientale à la frontière de l’Irak.

C’est pour toutes ces raisons que ces « tirs amis » étaient dirigés contre la Russie et la Syrie à la fois, pour imposer le point de vue des USA concernant Alep, c’est-à-dire l’ouverture de la route de Ramoussé conformément à leurs conditions de passage des convois « humanitaires » librement et sans inspection. Ce qui serait revenu à vider l’exploit militaire de l’encerclement du Front al-Nosra de tout bénéfice et à contourner le contenu de l’accord américano-russe sur Alep, étant donné que cet accord leur a imposé de reconnaître cette organisation terroriste comme « l’ennemi commun » au même titre que Daech.

Mais malgré ce coup terriblement douloureux à Deir ez-Zor, en comprendre les raisons amène à découvrir que le projet US titube, tout autant que ses armées islamistes terroristes, et que les USA sont désormais convaincus que le peuple syrien et ses alliés pourraient bien être la raison qui démolirait leurs projets et leurs armées…

Naram Sargon

Écrivain syrien résidant en Syrie

19/09/2016

 

Sources : Al-Thawra [Syrie]

http://www.thawraonline.sy/index.php/selected-articles-list/108150-2016-09-19-08-39-11

Traduction de l’arabe par Mouna Alno-Nakhal pour Mondialisation.ca

 

Notes :

[1] Le Commandement général de l’armée : Expiration du régime de calme en Syrie

http://sana.sy/fr/?p=70224

[2] U.S. aircrafts target Syrian Army position in Deir Ezzor paving way for ISIS attack, while the Zionist entity targets position in Quneitra

https://syrianfreepress.wordpress.com/2016/09/17/usa-terrorists-kill-62-saa/

[3 ] Tsahal utilise le système de défense ‘Dôme de Fer’ dans le Golan

http://koide9enisrael.blogspot.fr/2016/09/tsahal-utilise-le-systeme-de-defense.html

 

  • Posted in Francais @fr
  • Commentaires fermés sur Syrie / Les raisons de la prétendue bavure US à Deir ez-Zor

Dr. Vandana Shiva scientifique, écologiste et auteure.

L’Inde est embourbée dans une controverse artificielle créé par Monsanto à propos de la première culture génétiquement modifiée, censée avoir reçu le feu vert pour sa commercialisation. Impliquée dans des litiges sur plusieurs fronts, Monsanto tente de contourner nos lois sur les brevets, la loi de protection de la variété végétale, celles sur les droits des agriculteurs, sur les produits de base et sur la concurrence. Elle se comporte comme s’il n’y avait, en Inde, aucun parlement, aucune démocratie, aucune loi souveraine  à laquelle elle devrait obéir. Ou tout simplement, elle s’en moque.

Sur un autre terrain, Monsanto et Bayer sont en train de fusionner. Elles ont déjà dans le passé formé une seule entité appelée MoBay (MonsantoBayer), digne héritière du cartel d’empoisonneurs IG Farben. Les participations majoritaires de ces deux entreprises étaient entre les mains des mêmes sociétés d’investissement privées. Le domaine d’expertise de ces firmes, c’est la guerre. IG Farben, moteur économique d’Adolf Hitler et principale source de devises étrangères de l’Allemagne d’avant guerre, était également une machine de renseignements étrangers. Hermann Schmitz était le président d’IG Farben, son neveu Max Ilgner était un directeur d’IG Farben, tandis que le frère de Max, Rudolph Ilgner, dirigeait la branche new-yorkaise comme vice-président de Chemnyco.

Paul Warburg, frère de Max Warburg (du conseil d’administration d’IG Farben), fonda le système de réserve fédéral des USA. Max Warburg et Hermann Schmitz ont joué un rôle central dans l’empire IG Farben. Carl Bosch, Fritz ter Meer, Kurt Oppenheim et George von Schnitzler étaient d’autres dirigeants de l’entreprise. Tous, sauf Paul Warburg, furent jugés et condamnés comme criminels de guerre à  Nuremberg.

Les accusés d'IG Farben à Nuremberg

Les accusés d’IG Farben à Nuremberg

Monsanto et Bayer ont une longue histoire. Elles fabriquaient des explosifs et des gaz toxiques mortels à l’aide de technologies partagées et les vendaient aux deux camps des deux guerres mondiales. Les mêmes produits chimiques étaient achetés par les Alliés et les forces de l’Axe, aux mêmes fabricants, avec de l’argent emprunté à la même banque.

MoBay fournissait les ingrédients de l’Agent orange (acide 2,4,5-T aux dioxines) durant la guerre du Vietnam. Près de 75 millions de litres de défoliants et d’herbicides MoBay furent pulvérisés sur le Sud-Vietnam. Des enfants naissent encore avec des malformations congénitales, des adultes ont des maladies chroniques et des cancers à cause de l’exposition aux produits chimiques de MoBay. La résistance de l’agent orange cobreveté par Bayer et Monsanto a été codéveloppée pendant des décennies. Des guerres étaient menées, des vies perdues, des nations ciselées en terres promises — avec des frontières artificielles profitant à la colonisation et au pillage des ressources — tandis que Bayer et Monsanto vendaient des produits chimiques sous forme de bombes et de poisons, et que leurs frères fournissaient les prêts pour acheter ces bombes.

Plus récemment, Bayer CropScience AG et Monsanto auraient engagé un partenariat à long terme. Ce qui leur donne accès aux herbicides de l’un et de l’autre et donc à une double technologie de résistance aux herbicides. À travers des accords de licences croisées, des fusions et des acquisitions, l’industrie de la biotechnologie devient l’IG Farben de notre temps, avec Monsanto aux commandes.

L’industrie mondiale des produits chimiques et des OGM — Bayer, Dow Agro, DuPont Pioneer, Mahyco, Monsanto et Syngenta — s’est syndiquée sous forme de Fédération de l’Industrie semencière d’ Inde (FSII) afin d’augmenter son pouvoir de nuisance sur les paysans indiens, sur l’environnement et les lois démocratiquement élaborées qui protègent le public et l’intérêt national. Ceci en plus de l’Association des Entreprises de Biotechnologie (ABLE), qui a tenté de s’attaquer au contrôle des prix des  semences en Inde mis en place par la loi sur les produits de base n faisant appel à la Haute Cour de  justice du Karnakata à Bangalore, qui a rejeté la plainte.

Ce nouveau groupe n’a rien à voir avec « l’industrie semencière », il ne produit pas de semences. Il tente d’étendre le principe du brevet aux produits chimiques afin d’obtenir la propriété de semences, même dans des pays où les brevets sur les semences et les plantes ne sont pas autorisés. Comme en Inde, en Argentine, au Brésil, au Mexique et dans beaucoup d’autres pays.

Toutes les affaires Monsanto, en Inde sont liées à sa revendication non-scientifique, illégale et de brevets sur les  semences, au mépris des lois indiennes, et à sa tentative d’extorquer des redevances à l’industrie semencière indienne et aux agriculteurs. La FSII est une « réunion de famille séculaire d’IG Farben », un rassemblement d’entités indépendantes et autonomes.

Le cartel chimique familial d’IG Farben aété responsable de l’extermination de gens dans des camps de concentration. Il représente un siècle d’écocide et de génocide, entrepris au nom de l’expérimentation scientifique et de l’innovation. Aujourd’hui, ce cartel d’empoisonneurs porte des habits d’ingénieur génétique et répète ad nauseam le mantra de l’innovation. Les camps de concentration d’Hitler furent une « innovation » dans le domaine du meurtre ; et presque un siècle après, la famille Farben est en train de mener la même extermination, silencieusement, mondialement et efficacement.

L’innovation de Monsanto consistant à extorquer des royalties illégales et à pousser des paysans indiens au suicide est aussi une innovation dans la manière de tuer ni vu ni connu et indirectement. La nouveauté de la méthode d’assassinat ne rend pas le meurtre plus juste. « L’innovation », comme toutes les activités humaines, a ses limites — définies par l’éthique, par la justice, par la démocratie, les droits des personnes et de la nature.

IG Farben a été jugée à Nuremberg. Nous avons des lois nationales pour protéger les personnes, leur droit à la vie et à la santé, ainsi que l’environnement. Les lois indiennes sur les brevets et la biosécurité, ainsi que celle sur la variété végétale visent à contrôler les propriétaires voraces d’entreprises historiquement coupables de crimes contre la nature et l’humanité.

L’industrie se prépare à lancer son nouveau « gène », la moutarde GM (DMH-11). La moutarde GM, promue comme une « innovation » du secteur public, se base sur le système de gènes barnase/barstar pour créer des plantes mâles stériles et sur un gène bar pour la résistance au glufosinate. En 2002, la demande d’approbation par pro-Agro (Bayer) de plantation commerciale de moutarde GM basée sur le même système avait été rejetée.

Bien que bannie en Inde, Bayer trouve les moyens de vendre du glufosinate illégalement aux plantations de thé d’Assam et aux pommeraies d’Himachal Pradesh, dans le nord-ouest de l’Inde. Des revendeurs font passer la vente de glufosinate dans la catégorie « autres » pour contourner la loi. Ces produits chimiques se fraient un chemin jusqu’aux corps de nos enfants sans l’accord du gouvernement. Essentiellement, tous les brevets clés liés au gène bar sont détenus par Bayer CropScience, qui a acquis Aventis Cropscience, elle-même créé à partir des départements de génie génétique de Schering, Rhône-Poulenc et Hoechst. Puis Bayer a fait l’acquisition de Plant Genetic Systems, et a passé un accord de coopération avec Evogene, qui détient des brevets dans le secteur de la cartographie génomique.

Avant qu’une autorisation soit accordée à la moutarde modifiée génétiquement, le problème des limites de la brevetabilité doit être résolu sur la base des lois indiennes, et les brevets sur les plantes, les semences et les méthodes agricoles ne doivent pas être autorisés. Deepak Pental, un professeur à la retraite et développeur d’OGM ne commercialisera pas la semence de moutarde GM. Ses donneurs d’ordre de Bayer/Monsanto/MoBay le feront.

Au vu de notre expérience avec le coton GM, le ministère de l’Environnement et des Forêts envisage d’établir des directives pour l’évaluation socio-économique des variétés OGM proposées, prenant en compte des facteurs comme l’économie, la santé, l’environnement, la société et la culture.

http://m.thehindubusinessline.com

Au cœur de cette évaluation socio-économique, on retrouve le problème des monopoles et des cartels, et de leur impact sur les petits agriculteurs. Bien que les brevets sur les semences ne soient pas autorisés, pendant plus de 15 ans, Monsanto a illégalement extorqué des redevances aux paysans indiens, les piégeant par la dette, et déclenchant ainsi une épidémie de suicides. La guerre de Monsanto contre la piétaille de l’Inde — les paysans — est une guerre menée par la famille IG Farben contre notre famille la Terre.

Vandana Shiva

 Voir la vidéo :

Fusion Bayer-Monsanto : Vandana Shiva s’inquiète des conséquences en Inde

Article original en anglais :

Vandana Shiva

Monsanto Merges with Bayer, “Their Expertise is War”. Shady Historical Origins, IG Farben, Part of Hitler’s Chemical Genetic Engineering Cartel, publié le 18 septembre 2016

Traduction : partage-le.com

  • Posted in Francais @fr
  • Commentaires fermés sur Monsanto+Bayer=MoBay : le cartel des empoisonneurs contre la planète

Introduction

The history of Uzbekistan after the break-up of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s is replete with ethnic division, civil strife and Islamic militancy. It is widely acknowledged that only the successful, yet often repressive leadership of one man, Islam Karimov, has been able to keep the nation together. Islam Karimov ruled the nation for over 26 years, and his death on September 2nd, 2016 now casts doubt on any potential successor’s ability to keep the nation from fragmenting along ethnic, religious and geographic lines.

The Fergana Valley, a fertile valley that is also a major strategic gateway in Central Asia that straddles the old Silk Road, has been a hotbed of Islamic militancy and ethnic strife for generations. A number of Islamic terrorist organizations have found their genesis in this region since 1991, including the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU). The IMU has been active in the neighboring countries of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kirghizstan, and Tajikistan. The IMU has splintered into pro-ISIS and pro-Taliban factions over the past decade, and continues to pose a destabilizing force to the future of Uzbekistan and all of Central Asia.

The Fergana valley is a hotbed of Islamic fundamentalist activity and a strategically important crossroads for all of Central Asia. This fertile valley is densely populated in comparison to the surrounding dry and arid Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan that surround it, as well as the bottleneck of land that connects it to the rest of Uzbekistan to the West.

The coming months will witness whether or not the Uzbek political bureaucracy, the armed forces and internal security apparatus possess the leadership and capability to keep the nation together and in a state of peace. Although rather small and reliant on soviet era weapons and equipment, the Uzbekistan Armed Forces have been able to provide security to the nation. More importantly, the National Security Services (SNB), which has received far more investment and attention under the Karimov regime than the armed forces, will most likely bear the brunt of countering any internal or foreign attempts to foment unrest. The coming year will test the capabilities of the SNB on many fronts.

Brief History

The Republic of Uzbekistan became an independent nation in 1991. Islam Karimov had been the leader of the Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic prior to the dissolving of the Soviet Union, assuming the post in 1989, and continued on as its president upon independence in 1991. Often criticized in the west as a post-Soviet dictator, Karimov actually had moved to improve relations with the U.S. and NATO following the events of September 11th, 2001. Karimov allowed NATO the use of the Karshi-Khanabad airbase to aid efforts in invading and occupying Afghanistan during Operation Enduring Freedom. The airbase would prove a key logistics asset in pursuit of U.S. efforts.

In his ongoing struggle to maintain the nation as an Islamic, yet secular state, Karimov found himself often at odds with a devout Islamic population, powerful tribal infighting, and the harmful, yet ever present influence of Islamic fundamentalism. These forces all coalesced, culminating in 2005 with a fateful tragedy in the city of Andijan. A general uprising in the city was crushed by the SBN and Army troops when they opened fire on allegedly unarmed protesters. Official reports state that 187 protesters were killed, but the actual number (according to some media reports) may have exceeded 1,000 dead. The United States responded to the incident with strong criticism in bilateral communications and through the United Nations. Karimov interpreted the U.S. actions as a stab in the back, and demanded that the U.S. led NATO forces vacate the Karshi-Khanabad airbase within 6 months. All NATO forces left the base by November, 2005.

U.S. and NATO military assets were based at Karshi-Khanabad airbase (dubbed K2) for a period of approximately four years in support of NATO operations in Afghanistan. They departed the base in November of 2005.

Karimov may have come to the realization at that point, that the United States was not interested in aiding secular governments against Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East and Central Asia. To the contrary, the U.S. was fueling and instigating Islamic radical movements, both directly and indirectly, all over the region. Karimov turned toward Russia and President Putin in finding a more reliable partner in his struggle to maintain the stabilizing influence of a secular government for Uzbekistan. Russia had been fighting a war against U.S. and Gulf State sponsored Islamic insurgents in its Southern Caucasus Republics for over a decade. This partnership would eventually lead to the Russian Federation and the Republic of Uzbekistan signing a mutual defense treaty in 2005, and Uzbekistan becoming a member of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) from 2006 to 2012. Uzbekistan had already become a member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) in 2001, of which Russia is also a member, and remains in the organization at present.

Islamic Fundamentalism

Uzbekistan has been plagued by the specter of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorist organizations since its independence. Although Islamic fundamentalism existed prior to independence, it did not gain much traction until just before the fall of the USSR and the turbulent years that followed. In the turbulent 1990s, a number of notable Islamic groups that desired the overthrow of the secular state and the establishment of a greater “Turkestan” Islamic Caliphate in Central Asia were established. Most notable are the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) and the Islamic Jihad Union (IJU). Both groups have perpetrated attacks against the government of Uzbekistan and have found sanctuary in neighboring countries.

The Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan is an internationally recognized terrorist organization that has been in a state of flux since its inception. Plagued by infighting and fractious loyalties in recent years, it is still very much a threat in light of the power vacuum that may come in the wake of Islam Karimov’s death. Karimov fought the IMU, and used it as an excuse to persecute anyone that threatened government control of religion, for the entire 27 years he was in power. The movement attempted to assassinate him in 1999, amongst a host of other terrorist bombings, including suicide bombings, over the past twenty seven years. Karimov’s strong man rulership kept the lid on the radical Islamist bottle, and for most of his presidency, the IMU has been forced to find refuge in neighboring states, most notably Afghanistan and Pakistan, while launching attacks sporadically across the border.

Uzbekistan lies in the center of Central Asia, and along the East-West transit corridor between China and Europe.

In recent years, the IMU has faced setbacks and a culling of leadership after the organization splintered amongst membership that declared allegiance to the Islamic State and those that maintained ties with the Taliban. The IMU’s Taliban allies did not take the declaration of allegiance to ISIS lightly. This exacerbated a long running feud that dates back to the death of Mullah Omar. In November of 2015, Taliban forces loyal to Mullah Omar largely destroyed an IMU group fighting alongside a Taliban splinter group in Afghanistan. Many IMU members are now fighting alongside ISIS and al-Nusra in Syria. Other than Uzbeks, the IMU is largely made up Tajiks, Kyrgyz, Uyghurs, Chechens, and Arabs.

IMU leader Usmon Ghazi declaring allegiance to Islamic State in August, 2015. This fractured the IMU once again, and has led to much infighting and bloodshed between the Taliban, IMU and IS in Afghanistan.

IMU leader Usmon Ghazi declaring allegiance to Islamic State in August, 2015. This fractured the IMU once again, and has led to much infighting and bloodshed between the Taliban, IMU and IS in Afghanistan.

The Islamic Jihad Union (IJU) is actually a splinter group of the IMU that desires to create a pan-national Islamic state. The IJU was established in 2002, and was based in Waziristan, in northwest Pakistan. The group was connected to foiled terrorist plots targeting civilian targets in Europe in 2007, but has largely been active in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Syria. Due to a high percentage of Turkish membership, the organization has largely sent fighters to Syria in recent years.

There is no doubt that Islamic fundamentalist groups such as the IMU and IJU will attempt to take advantage of any power vacuum or internal struggle created in the wake of President Karimov’s death. Many members of these terrorist groups have been fighting in Afghanistan and Syria over the past decade and a half, and have been battle hardened and further pushed down the road of Islamic fundamentalism and zealotry. International intelligence services and independent analysts are all in agreement that the security services of Uzbekistan are going to be challenged by these groups, as well as a number of other possible indigenous and foreign based threats, in a challenge to the long standing political power structure and social cohesion of the state in the coming year.

The Armed Forces

Although larger and better equipped than most of its neighbors, the Armed Forces of the Republic of Uzbekistan are far from a modern, well-oiled military machine. Is the Uzbek military up to the task of providing for the security of the state against both internal and external threats? The answer is yes, and no. The Uzbek armed forces can defend the nation against any regional conventional force most likely to threaten the sovereignty of the state; however, the most likely threats to the state in the near future will not come from neighboring governments, and will be anything but conventional.

5-uzbekistan-regional-divisions

The Armed Forces of the republic are comprised of Army, Air Defense and Air Force elements. The nation is comprised of five military districts, as per old Soviet practice, and units are allocated to these military districts according to the level of possible threats (internal and external) and according to established tactical doctrine. There are a number of permanently assigned units, as well as a number of independent motorized rifle brigades and an air assault/airborne brigade. In addition, there are at least three Special Forces (Spetsnaz) battalions which come under the direct command of the SNB.

The Uzbek Armed Forces are primarily comprised of Soviet-patterned Motorized Rifle Brigades supported by independent Artillery Brigades, a number of airborne units, including one Air Assault/Airborne Brigade. These are supplemented by an unknown number of independent motorized units, Border Guard forces, as well as the three SBN controlled Spetsnaz battalions.

Tashkent Military District

Possibly one Artillery Brigade comprising of BM-21 Grad and BM-27 Uragan rocket artillery are assigned to the district. Tashkent is the capital of Uzbekistan, and the Tashkent HQ most likely relies more on Spetnaz and SBN forces for security and national defense concerns. Uzbekistan maintains a number of 2S7 Pion 203mm self-propelled guns and Tokcha ballistic missile launchers in its active TO&E, and these units are likely to fall under the command of Tashkent HQ.

Central Military District

One Motorized Rifle Brigade and one Artillery Brigade. As well as guarding the nation against any immediate incursion from the nations of Afghanistan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan, the units of the Central Military District cover the confluence of national borders (most volatile of which is the border with Afghanistan) and serve as a strategic reserve to the Eastern Military District.

Eastern Military District

One Motorized Rifle Brigade, one Air Assault/Airborne Brigade and one Artillery Brigade. Without a doubt the most precarious region of the nation to defend and the most prone to internal strife and possible invasion, due to the strategic importance of the Fergana Valley. The military units responsible for defending the Eastern Military District are reinforced with a number of Border Guard units and SNB reinforcement.

Northwest Military District

One Motorized Rifle Brigade. Afforded the natural barrier of the Aral Sea and only one nation on its northwestern border, the Northwest Military District is the most secure.

Southwest Military District

One Motorized Rifle Brigade. Bordering Turkmenistan to the south, and supporting the Central Military District. It is important to note that this border is perhaps the most prone to illicit drug traffic originating in Afghanistan.

Uzbekistan Air Force maintenance personnel tow an Uzbekistan Air Force Su-24 Fencer fighter aircraft at Karshi-Khanabad Air Base, Uzbekistan, on Feb. 14, 2005, during Operation Enduring Freedom. (U.S. Air Force Photo by Tech. Sgt. Scott T. Sturkol) (Released)

The air assets afforded the armed forces are predominantly of Russian manufacture. The Uzbek Air Force relies on Su-27 and Mig-29 air superiority fighters to secure national airspace. Focusing on internal security and counter-insurgency, the air force has largely focused on maintaining a small air attack component of Su-25 fixed wing aircraft and a large number of Mi-24 Hind attack helicopters. A sizeable number of M1-8/Mi-17 transport/assault helicopters provide air assault capabilities and high mobility for quick reaction forces. These rotary wing aircraft are invaluable in providing high mobility and rapid deployment in the vast and open desert of the frontier, as well as the rugged Fergana valley.

National Security Services

Though the Republic of Uzbekistan Armed Forces are perhaps one of the most capable in the region in real terms (total personnel, equipment, etc.), President Karimov directed far more funding, training and political focus toward the internal security apparatus of the state. Foremost among these assets is the National Security Service (NSS or SNB). Subordinated to the Interior Ministry since 2005, the SNB fills a similar function to the state as the CIA or the FSB. Much like the FSB, the SNB controls a number of Spetsnaz units, which it can utilize in a number of roles, including counter-insurgency, counter-terrorism, drug interdiction and a whole host of intelligence and paramilitary activities.

There are three Spetsnaz battalions under the jurisdiction of the SNB; AlfaBars and Scorpion. These units have been utilized by the SNB to interdict drug traffickers illegally entering Uzbekistan from neighboring countries, and more importantly, to raid and destroy Islamic militant strongholds and safe houses within the country and along the frontier. The Spetsnaz battalions are organized along Russian lines, their organization and equipment being quite similar. These units provide the SNB with a viable tool to strike at IMU and IJU militants before they are able to conduct terrorist operations.

Although mostly embracing Soviet era and modern Russian arms and equipment, the Uzbekistan Army and SNB have adopted some Western equipment. Most notable are the U.S. manufactured M-ATV, over 300 of which are supposed to be donated (although still in negotiation) to the Uzbekistan government.  It is also apparent, despite German attempts to hide the fact, that Airbus has signed a contract with the government of Uzbekistan to deliver rotary and fixed wing aircraft. Uzbekistan military promotional videos released this year have shown both AS332 Super Puma transport helicopters and C295W transport planes in use. Airbus had been in negotiations with the Uzbekistan government to deliver 14 helicopters, both AS332 Super Pumas and AS350 Ecureils, since 2014. It is unclear whether the German government finally acquiesced to the deal (there had been an export ban on weapons since the 2005 Andijan massacre, although lifted in 2009), or if a new deal has been signed.

Although the United States and other Western nations have chastised the often heavy-handed tactics of the SNB in its never ending struggle to insulate the state from Islamic militancy, both internally and externally, there is no doubt that these tactics have been successful over the past 27 years. President Islam Karimov relied on a close circle of trusted leaders, mostly from the “Tashkent Clan”, and a strong SNB, to rule over the ethnically divided and religiously charged nation. Many analysts believe that the most likely successors to Islam Karimov are Prime Minister Shavkat Mirziyoyev, or the head of the SNB, Rustam Inoyatov. Always a power behind the scenes, and extremely secretive Rustam Inoyatov will most likely decide to remain out of the spotlight, letting someone else appear as the public head of state. He will continue to wield a great deal of power regardless.

Stability or Anarchy

The future of Uzbekistan, whether it holds the promise of continued stability or explodes into anarchy, largely depends upon the ability of the national leadership to maintain a strong sense of national identity among all Uzbeks, regardless of ethnicity, and to minimize the influence of Islamic militant groups within the country. The very fact that approximately 500 to 600 Uzbek militants are fighting with a number of groups in Syria, including with Islamic State and Imam Bukhari Jamaat, does not bode well for the long term stability of Uzbekistan. There is no getting around this problem, and it will have to be addressed in the near future. This is a shared reality for most Central Asian nations.

Syria has provided Islamic militants from Central Asia with a perfect training ground where they can gain combat experience, learn and perfect the manufacture and utilization of explosives, and to establish a more extensive international support network. In such a zealous environment, where Islamic radical groups from around the world are free to practice the most violent and corrupt version of Islam, these fighters will continue further along the road of radicalization. Regardless of the outcome in Syria, there is no doubt that the internal security forces and the military of Uzbekistan will have to contend with the return of a large number of increasingly radicalized terrorist cells. It is just a matter of when. If an injection of such radical forces coincides with a power vacuum arising from President Karimov’s death, the SNB will be faced with a very dire scenario.

In the immediate future, Uzbekistan is likely to experience increased government repression and total intolerance for any form of civil protests. The SNB is already increasing its counter intelligence and anti-terrorism activities, and is undoubtedly increasing surveillance of Islamic fundamentalists and separatists of all stripes within the nation and abroad. Any bloody confrontation reminiscent of the Andijan Massacre will be seized upon by the IMU and like-minded groups to foment unrest in the general population, and will lead to a renewed call to jihad. After years of fierce fighting in Syria, Uzbekistan may seem a soft target to many such Islamic terrorist groups.

Kyrgyzstan security forces intervene to stop clashes between Kyrgyz and Uzbek groups in Osh, on the border between the two nations on the eastern edge of the Fergana valley. Ethnic conflict in the region is a constant threat to stability.

Conclusion

The Republic of Uzbekistan stands at a crossroad. Either the nation embraces the stability of a secular government, and subordinates ethnic differences and religious life from public governance, or the people of the nation embrace the fragmentation of the state along ethnic and theocratic divisions. Regardless, the full force of Inoyatov’s SNB will be harnessed to insulate the state from the growing threat of Islamic fundamentalism. Ironically, Uzbekistan now stands threatened by the radical forces that it deposed and deported years ago. The IMU and its many factions and offshoots have only grown in number and capability in the intervening years. Now they are poised to return home, emboldened and empowered.

The fate of Uzbekistan may seem inconsequential to many. It is a poor country in the middle of Central Asia; however, in many ways it stands out as a singularly important domino, poised to be tipped over. The threat of Islamic Fundamentalism has been growing in Central Asia, held back by a multi-faceted defense strategy that utilizes many conventional and asymmetric components. The pivotal battle that is being waged in Syria will have a profound effect on the future of the entire region and the world. If the national leadership falters and the citizens of Uzbekistan fall to the destructive and murderous siren call of Islamic fundamentalism, all of Central Asia could descend into chaos.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Afghanistan 2.0. Will Uzbekistan Survive the Death of President Islam Karimov?

Members of one of the main Palestinian parties in the Israeli parliament have accused authorities of seeking to criminalise their political activity following the arrest of more than two dozen party officials.

Senior Balad members including secretary general Awad Abdel Fattah were among those detained by police in dawn raids on their homes on Sunday. Computers and documents were also seized.

Balad is one of four Palestinian-dominated parties that make up the Joint List, the third largest faction in Israel’s parliament, or Knesset, which represents the fifth of Israel’s population who are Palestinian.

Police said the Balad officials were suspected of involvement in irregular political funding, including the concealment of donors, some reportedly from overseas. Reports in the Israeli media suggested the party had been receiving undeclared donations from Qatar.

The party denies those allegations.

Jamal Zahalka, leader of Balad’s parliamentary faction and one of the party’s three members of the Knesset (MKs), accused Israeli authorities of targeting the party because of its political activities on behalf of Palestinians in Israel.

“This is a political move, not a legal one,” Zahalka told Middle East Eye.

“It is part of a long-running campaign of persecution and efforts to criminalise political activity among Palestinians in Israel.”

Thorn in side

Neither Zahalka nor his two fellow Balad MKs were among those arrested.

Zahalka tied the arrests to the outlawing late last year of the popular northern wing of the Islamic Movement, an extra-parliamentary faction led by Sheikh Raed Salah.

The Islamic Movement, which offers extensive welfare services to Israel’s Palestinian minority, had become a thorn in Israel’s side by opposing policies designed to severely limit access by Palestinians to the al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem.

Both Salah and a former Balad MK, Said Nafa, are currently serving jail terms. Salah was found guilty of using a sermon to incite against Israel, while Nafa was convicted of meeting a “foreign agent” during a visit to Syria.

At a press conference in Nazareth on Sunday, leaders of the Palestinian minority defended Balad.

Mohammed Barakeh, head of the Follow-Up Committee, an umbrella body representing the minority’s national and local leaderships, said that, if the Balad arrests were justified, police should have first raided the official residence of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Netanyahu has faced a series of corruption investigations over the past two years, but is yet to be questioned by police.

“The suspicions [against him] are much more serious and harsh,” he said.

Under scrutiny

Balad’s main political platform has long infuriated the Israeli authorities. It demands that Israel be reformed from a Jewish state into a “state of all its citizens”, or a liberal democracy.

Balad also calls for educational and cultural autonomy for Palestinian citizens, and favours setting up an elected decision-making body to represent the minority’s interests. Israeli officials are vehemently opposed to such moves.

Ahmed Saadi, a politics professor who has researched Israeli surveillance of Palestinian citizens, said the arrests were the latest step against a party whose leaders have been under near-constant scrutiny and attack for more than a decade.

He noted that Balad’s original leader, Azmi Bishara, had been living in exile in Qatar since 2007, under threat of arrest if he returns.

Bishara was accused of treason for assisting the Lebanese militia Hezbollah during Israel’s attack on Lebanon the previous year – an allegation that has been widely disputed.

“The goal is to weaken the party by constantly harassing, arresting, fining and punishing its leaders,” Saadi told Middle East Eye.

“Smear campaigns and character assassination in the Israeli media are intended to create a public atmosphere hostile to the party and to intimidate and frighten its supporters.”

Earlier this year, more than 150 Balad officials and activists were questioned by the police as part of the current investigation.

Bid to oust MK

Zahalka said the crackdown on the party had intensified in recent months.

In July, the Knesset passed a so-called Expulsion Law, sponsored by Netanyahu, that allows a three-quarter parliamentary majority to expel a sitting MP. The legislation’s barely veiled intent is to oust Haneen Zoabi, viewed as Balad’s most outspoken legislator.

A month earlier, Zoabi was saved by Knesset guards from being mobbed by fellow MPs as she made a speech in the chamber. She had referred to the “murder” of 10 humanitarian activists by Israeli commandos during an attack in 2010 on an aid ship to Gaza, the Mavi Marmara.

In February, the Knesset’s ethics committee suspended all three Balad MPs from the parliament for several months after they met Palestinian families in Jerusalem to help them retrieve their sons’ bodies for burial. Israel has held on to many of the bodies of Palestinians killed during stabbing or shooting attacks or during clashes with security services.

Over the past 13 years, Balad candidates have faced repeated decisions from the Central Elections Committee, a body dominated by Israel’s main Zionist parties, blocking them from standing for election. Israel’s supreme court has overturned the bans.

The Shin Bet, Israel’s domestic intelligence service, has in the past referred to an “inherent threat” in Balad’s ideology rejecting Israel as a Jewish state.

It has also vowed to “thwart” lawful political activity by Palestinian parties if it challenges Israel’s Jewish character.

Range of allegations

Saadi said his study of Israel’s archives showed a long tradition of the authorities using a narrow range of charges against Palestinian leaders in Israel to discredit their political activity.

“Allegations such as corruption, meeting a foreign agent, incitement, and using violence against the police are regularly exploited,” he said.

“Israel wants a Palestinian population without leadership, without political organisation, without a political vision, and without demands. It believes the clock can be turned back to the state’s earliest years when we were treated only as religious and tribal groups.”

Jafar Farah, head of Mossawa, an advocacy group for Palestinian citizens, said the current campaign of persecution against the political leadership had started in the late 1990s, during Netanyahu’s first government.

Supporters of the right, said Farah, were incensed that the previous government, under Yitzhak Rabin, had relied on Palestinian legislators to help push the Oslo accords through the Knesset, in defiance of rightwing opposition.

“This is a process that is nearly two decades old and aims to place all the parties under suspicion,” Farah told MEE.

“Almost daily we receive reports of young political activists being called in for interrogation by the Shin Bet,” he said. “They are questioned about who they know and warned off with threats. They are told, ‘We are watching you’ and ‘Take care, this could damage your career prospects’.”

Farah said, given the current international political climate, it had been relatively straightforward for Netanyahu to ban the northern Islamic Movement last November, using the pretext of links to Hamas and “terrorism”.

Netanyahu did so despite a report in the Haaretz newspaper revealing that cabinet ministers had admitted the Shin Bet was unable to find any ties to terror.

“Weakening Balad is more complicated because it is secular,” said Farah. “So Israel is pursuing a more complicated process to make its actions [against Balad] look credible.”

Influence minimised

The current police investigation against Balad follows a lengthy financial audit conducted by a government-appointed watchdog known as the State Comptroller back in 2013.

Zahalka said the comptroller’s officials had pored over the party’s documents and accounts for six months “from morning till night”.

Zahalka said the donations in question were intended for “completely legitimate purposes”.

There have been mounting indications, in addition to the Expulsion Law, that the Israeli right wishes to minimise the influence of Palestinian parties in the Knesset.

A Threshold Law was passed in 2014 raising the proportion of votes needed to win a place in the Knesset too high for the Palestinian parties to clear it. In response, they formed the Joint List.

On the eve of the 2015 election, Netanyahu issued a much-criticised video warning that “Arabs are coming out in droves to the polls”. It appeared to swing many extra votes behind him at the last moment.

Zehava Galon, leader of the small Zionist left party Meretz, criticised other Jewish parties last month for collaborating on legislation to allow absentee voting in Knesset elections to “reduce the influence of Israel’s Arab citizens on the results”.

There are estimated to be hundreds of thousands of Israeli Jews living abroad who would be enfranchised by the proposal.

And last week, Avigdor Lieberman, for the first time since he was appointed defence minister, called for several Palestinian communities in Israel to be transferred to the West Bank. He said the move was necessary because Palestinian citizens “demand more and more autonomy”.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Palestinians in Israel Warn of Bid to ‘Criminalise’ Political Activity
Isis financé par les USA

Obama is Protecting the Terrorists, America to the Rescue of ISIS-ISIL-Daesh. Testimonies of Syrian Soldiers Who Witnessed the US Airstrikes

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, September 19 2016

These testimonies by Syrian soldiers who are fighting the Islamic State rebels (ISIS-Daesh) confirm what we already know. The United States of America is not fighting the terrorists in Syria. The Obama administration, with the support of its allies including Turkey and Saudi Arabia, is supporting the Islamic State (ISIS Daesh). Obama’s counterterrorism campaign in Syria and Iraq is bogus.

gm mustardGenetically Modified Seeds, Global Agribusiness and the Destruction of Farming: Is India about to Make a Catastrophic Mistake with GM Mustard?

By Colin Todhunter, September 20 2016

Global oilseed, agribusiness and biotech corporations are engaged in a long-term attack on India’s local cooking oil producers. In just 20 years, they have reduced India from self-sufficiency in cooking oil to importing half its needs. Now the government’s attempts to impose GM mustard seed threaten to wipe out a crop at the root of Indian food and farming traditions.

obamaTrade Wars and Food Wars: Obama and the Agribusiness Monopolies

By Prof. James Petras, September 20 2016

The concentration and centralization of the agro-business multi-nationals advances with gigantic strides: A quarter of a trillion dollars worth of mergers and acquisitions is poised to concentrate control of global agriculture prices, profits and markets in four directorates. Parallel to the corporate capitalist drive for world domination, the White House has embarked on a full-scale trade and maritime war against China.

Nadia-Shoufani-1-Photo-CIJnews

Canada and the Rights of Palestinians: The CBC and the Crucifixion of Nadia Shoufani, On Behalf of Israeli Interests…

By Karin Brothers, September 20 2016

The Canadian Broadcasting Company is paid for by Canadian taxpayers and is touted as the main institution promoting national cultural unity. The CBC’s treatment of a Canadian activist, however, demonstrates its prioritization of Israeli interests.

United-States-US-Military-Bases-Asia-1

America in Asia: Arrogant, Unapologetic, and Ready for More Conflict

By Tony Cartalucci, September 20 2016

The United States exists an entire ocean away from Asia, yet its policymakers, politicians, and even Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter have declared America’s “primacy” over the region, vowing to assert itself and its interests above all nations actually located in Asia.

russia-us

Will Russia Surrender?

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, September 19 2016

The Russian government’s sincere and diligent effort to prevent chaos in Syria and additional massive refugee flow into Europe, all the while avoiding conflict with Washington and its vassals, has been brought to an end by Washington’s intentional attack on a known Syrian army position, thus wrecking the cease fire agreement that Russia sacrificed so much to achieve.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Selected Articles: Obama is Protecting the Terrorists, America to the Rescue of ISIS-ISIL-Daesh

Elections : La farce est prête

septembre 20th, 2016 by Bruno Guigue

Le mouvement des idées a toujours un train de retard sur le mouvement des choses, disait Marx. Conquête révolutionnaire, le suffrage universel a été vidé de sa substance. Que l’élu du 8 novembre, par exemple, soit le candidat qui aura dépensé le plus pour sa campagne électorale est une loi d’airain de la « démocratie américaine ». Elle se vérifie pour toutes les élections présidentielles depuis les années 50. On peut toujours voter, mais à quoi bon, puisque les dollars vont couler à flots, décidant à l’avance du résultat ?

La Cour suprême, en 2010, a déplafonné les dons pour les campagnes électorales. Avec cette incitation à la générosité, Obama avait déjà dépensé un milliard de dollars en 2012. On imagine quel nouveau pas de géant la démocratie va accomplir en 2016 ! L’issue du scrutin ne dépendra pas de la volonté majoritaire du peuple américain, mais du rapport de forces au sein d’une oligarchie mondialisée trans-partisane. Donner la parole au peuple sur son propre avenir, appliquer la souveraineté populaire ? Ne cherchez plus cette idée saugrenue. Elle a été retirée du marché, c’est le cas de le dire.

La démocratie, si elle existe, signifie le pouvoir du peuple. Mais pour que le peuple exerce le pouvoir, il faut réunir les conditions d’un débat démocratique. Or la concentration capitaliste dans les médias a précisément pour finalité de supprimer ces conditions. Rendre la parole au peuple est une bonne idée, mais où la prendra-t-il, cette parole ? Le verrouillage de l’espace médiatique le lui interdit, il sape la délibération collective. Cet espace est livré à la pensée unique, il est saturé de bêtise, crétinisé à l’extrême. La télévision française, par exemple, atteint des sommets de veulerie, et ses journalistes feraient rougir des tapineuses. Querelle débile sur un maillot de bain, exégèse du dernier vomi de Zemmour : tout ce qu’elle sait faire, c’est jouer son rôle de machine à décerveler.

La démocratie, pour les élites mondialisées, n’est qu’une foire d’empoigne destinée à faire croire au bon peuple qu’il a son mot à dire. Sous le régime clownesque exigé par la domination des marchés, le peuple est une chambre d’enregistrement. Il est convoqué, périodiquement, pour dire amen au candidat de l’oligarchie. Il ne décide de rien, il avalise docilement. Le peuple, d’ailleurs, ne sait pas ce qui est bon pour lui. Tenté par le populisme, c’est un géant sourd et aveugle que des élites, éclairées à la lueur de leur compte en banque, sauront guider dans l’obscurité.

Si le jeu démocratique est une pitrerie, c’est parce que le capital mondialisé maîtrise totalement le processus électoral et les médias qui en parlent. Aux USA, où la presse est moins monolithique, c’est l’avalanche de dollars déversée par les donateurs qui décide de l’élection. En France, c’est la presse phagocytée par neuf milliardaires qui nous dit pour qui voter. Si DSK n’avait pas tenté de saillir le personnel d’un établissement hôtelier, il serait à la place d’Alain Juppé : les médias au service de l’oligarchie l’avaient déjà choisi.

Pour les élections à venir, la farce est prête. il ne reste plus qu’à l’enfourner. Mais pour les dindons, inutile de chercher : c’est nous. Le dispositif est au complet : la corruption des partis d’un côté, l’assommoir médiatique de l’autre. Ce double tour de serrure garantit que rien de périlleux pour l’ordre établi ne sortira du scrutin. On aura beau dire que la démocratie bourgeoise est une démocratie frelatée. On aura beau constater que la souveraineté populaire a été sacrifiée sur l’autel d’une monnaie. On aura beau rappeler qu’aucune transformation sociale n’est jamais sortie d’une élection. Cela ne sert à rien. Inutile, non plus, de bourrer les urnes, les dindons s’en chargeront.

Bruno Guigue

17 septembre 2016

guigue

 

Bruno Guigue, ex-haut fonctionnaire, analyste politique et chargé de cours à l’Université de La Réunion. Il est l’auteur de cinq ouvrages, dont Aux origines du conflit israélo-arabe, L’invisible remords de l’Occident, L’Harmattan, 2002, et de centaines d’articles.

  • Posted in Francais @fr
  • Commentaires fermés sur Elections : La farce est prête

Dix-sept soldats indiens sont morts et au moins 20 ont été grièvement blessés dimanche quand des combattants ont attaqué une base militaire indienne à Uri, près de la Ligne de Contrôle (LoC), la frontière de fait entre l’Inde et le Pakistan dans la région contestée du Cachemire

Les combats ont duré entre 5h30 et 8h30, les quatre assaillants seraient tous morts. Les autorités indiennes ont répondu par « l’intensification » du dispositif des forces de sécurité déjà massive dans la vallée du Cachemire.

L’attaque accroît le danger d’une guerre en une Asie déjà déstabilisée par la stratégie des États-Unis de faire de l’Inde un poste d’avant-garde dans ses préparatifs pour faire la guerre à la Chine, ainsi que par les troubles sociaux et politiques au Cachemire lui-même.

Pour l’instant, aucune organisation n’a revendiqué l’attaque à Uri. Cependant, l’Inde a immédiatement accusé le Pakistan et promis de venger la mort de ses soldats.

Selon l’armée indienne, les assaillants décédés à Uri apparetiennent au groupe islamiste Jaish-e-Muhammad (JeM) pro-pakistanais. L’armée a affirmé que les combattants du JeM avaient traversé la LoC et lancé leur attaque sur la base du côté le plus éloigné de la ligne de contrôle LoC, et vraisemblablement le moins bien défendu.

« Selon les premières informations, les terroristes tués appartiendraient à Jaish-e-Muhammad Tanzeem», a dit le directeur général des Opérations militaires indiennes, le lieutenant-général Ranbir Singh. « Quatre fusils AK-47 et quatre lance-grenades, ainsi que des provisions de guerre ont été récupérées d’eux. »

Les responsables civils indiens, des officiers actifs et retraités, et la presse ont réagi à l’attaque par des menaces belliqueuses.

« J’assure la nation que les commanditaires de cette attaque ignoble ne resteront pas impunis,» a juré le Premier ministre Modi, alors que son ministre de l’Intérieur Rajnath Singh tweetait, « Le Pakistan est un Etat terroriste et doit être identifié et isolé en tant que tel. »

De nombreuses déclarations de personnalités en vue démontrent qu’un point tournant a été atteint. Shekar Gupta, l’ancien rédacteur en chef de l’Indian Express: « Si le Pakistan pense que [l’]attaque d’Uri provoquera la non-réponse indienne habituelle, c’est une illusion. L’Inde actuelle a abandonné sa vieille retenue stratégique ».

L’élite militaro-sécuritaire indienne et les groupes suprémacistes hindous qui constituent une base essentielle au BJP dirigeant, ont longtemps préconisé que l’Inde réagisse à une attaque depuis le Pakistan par la force. Islamabad a signalé qu’il considérerait une telle action comme un acte de guerre. Ceci soulève la possibilité que des «représailles» indiennes pourraient rapidement dégénérer en une guerre entre deux Etats rivaux disposant d’armes nucléaires.

Parmi le flot de déclarations belliqueuses, le lieutenant-général Ranbir Singh a déclaré que l’armée était prête à donner « une réponse digne» à «tout mauvais desseins de l’adversaire. »

Des liens existent depuis longtemps entre les groupes islamistes au Cachemire, dont le JeM, et le renseignement pakistanais. Toutefois, le Pakistan a rejeté les accusations indiennes. « L’Inde tient immédiatement le Pakistan comme responsable sans mener une enquête. Nous rejetons cela », a dit le porte-parole du ministère des Affaires étrangères Nafees Zakaria. t

L’armée pakistanaise a déclaré que les allégations sont « sans fondement et prématurées», réitérant sa position que le Pakistan ne permet plus aux insurgés cachemiris d’infiltrer le Cachemire depuis son côté de la ligne de contrôle.

Washington a condamné l’attaque d’Uri et réaffirmé son partenariat stratégique avec l’Inde, tout en évitant un commentaire sur l’accusation de New Delhi que le Pakistan est responsable. Le porte-parole du département d’Etat américain John Kirby a déclaré que Washington condamne « fermement » l’attaque. «Nous adressons nos condoléances aux victimes et à leurs familles.» «Les États-Unis», a ajouté Kirby, « sont attachés à notre partenariat solide avec le gouvernement indien pour combattre le terrorisme. »

L’attaque souligne le rôle réactionnaire des diverses milices islamistes pro-pakistanaises qui exploitent la colère sociale de masse au Cachemire indien, et la réponse belliqueuse du gouvernement indien lui-même. Les conflits qui en résultent approfondissent les tensions communautaires et régionales dans le sous-continent indien, et augmentent le danger d’une guerre entre deux puissances nucléaires, le Pakistan et l’Inde, ainsi que leurs alliés, la Chine et les Etats-Unis.

L’Inde et le Pakistan se sont affrontés au Cachemire à trois reprises après le premier conflit en 1947- 48, peu après la partition de l’ancien Empire britannique en un Pakistan à majorité musulmane et l’Inde à majorité hindoue.

One traite parfois la région de « poudrière nucléaire» en raison du caractère toxique de la rivalité entre les bourgeoisies indiennes et du Pakistan, qui se sont dotées d’armes nucléaires, quand même s’ils sont incapables de pourvoir aux besoins les plus élémentaires à des masses.

Le Cachemire a une importance croissante pour la Chine. Pékin construit une pipeline et des autoroutes qui relient l’ouest de la Chine et le Cachemire pakistanais au port de Gwadar sur l’Océan indien. Cette route a une grande valeur stratégique pour Pékin. En cas de guerre, elle lui permettrait de contourner partiellement un blocus américain qui contrôlerait les goulots d’étranglement du commerce chinois dans l’Océan Indien et en mer de Chine méridionale.

L’agitation de masse au Cachemire

L’attaque à Uri est intervenu alors que les forces de sécurité indiennes réprimaient violemment des manifestations de masse contre l’administration indienne du Cachemire.

Le Cachemire indien est en proie à des troubles violents depuis plus de deux mois. Il y a des protestations et des affrontements presque quotidiennement avec les forces de l’ordre. Plus de 85 personnes son tmortes dans des manifestations anti-indiennes, et un couvre-feu illimité a été décrété suite à l’assassinat par les forces de l’ordre indiennes le 8 juillet de Burhan Wani, un chef de file de la milice islamiste propakistanaise Hizbul Mujahideen.

Samedi, des milliers ont défié le couvre-feu pour assister aux funérailles d’un écolier de onze ans, Nasir Shafi, dont le corps a été retrouvé criblé de plombs de fusil. La police aurait tiré des gaz lacrymogènes sur les personnes en deuil.

Une unité paramilitaire indienne, a déclaré au à la Haute Cour de Jammu et Cachemire qu’elle avait tiré 1,3 millions de plombs de fusil en 32 jours.

« C’est la première fois que je vois autant de gens blessés. La chevrotine a également été utilisée lors des troubles de 2010, mais cette fois [les forces gouvernementales] l’utilisent à grande échelle », a fait savoir un médecin anonyme à Al Jazeera. «Nous recevons, presque tous les jours, les personnes blessées par des plombs de fusil ; la plupart des patients perdent la vue. »

Un autre médecin dans un hôpital de la capitale du Cachemire indien, Srinagar, a déclaré que 756 personnes ont été touchées aux yeux au cours des 72 derniers jours.

Dans ce contexte explosif, l’attaque à Uri accentue les tensions militaires régionales et mondiales. Alors que Washington affronte agressivement Pékin dans les mers de Chine méridionale et orientale, il renforce également l’Inde pour servir de contrepoids à la Chine.

Le mois dernier, l’Inde a signé un accord donnant l’accès régulier des ses ports et bases militaires aux forces américaines. Washington, pour sa part, a reconnu l’Inde comme « partenaire majeur de la Défense », et elle peut maintenant acheter des armements américains avancés.

Le Pakistan, dans un langage de plus en plus strident, a averti que l’alliance indo-américaine a renversé l’équilibre des forces en Asie du Sud, alimentant ainsi une course aux armements conventionnels et nucléaires. Mais Washington a allègrement ignoré ces préoccupations.

Confronté par l’alliance stratégique indo-américain en plein essor, le Pakistan et la Chine se rapprochent de plus en plus. Le conflit entre l’Inde et le Pakistan est ainsi devenu empêtré avec la confrontation sino-américaine, en ajoutant à chacun une nouvelle charge massive et hautement explosive.

V. Grana

Article paru en anglais, WSWS, le 19 septembre 2016

  • Posted in Francais @fr
  • Commentaires fermés sur L’Inde accuse le Pakistan d’avoir monté l’attaque sur sa base au Cachemire

Simulacre de paix

septembre 20th, 2016 by Thierry Meyssan

Alors que le cessez-le-feu en Syrie, conclu par le secrétaire d’État états-unien et son homologue russe, semblait tenir —hormis la tentative israélienne du premier jour—, le Pentagone a attaqué pour la seconde fois l’Armée arabe syrienne. Il assure qu’il s’agit d’une erreur, mais la réaction de l’ambassadrice à l’Onu laisse au contraire penser à l’exécution d’un plan. À quoi joue Washington ?

En négociant un cessez-le-feu avec les États-Unis, la Russie savait qu’ils ne le respecteraient pas plus que les précédents. Mais Moscou espérait avancer sur la voie de la reconnaissance d’un monde multipolaire. Washington, de son côté, mettait en avant la fin de la présidence Obama pour justifier souscrire à un accord de la dernière chance.

Laissons de côté la tentative israélienne de profiter de la trêve pour attaquer Damas et le Golan. Tel-Aviv a dû essuyer des tirs de missiles de nouvelle génération, a perdu un avion et doit en réparer un second. Il semble que la Syrie soit désormais en mesure de contester la domination aérienne régionale d’Israël.

Laissons également de côté les chefs d’État et de gouvernement européens qui ont applaudi cet accord sans en connaître le contenu et se sont ainsi couverts de ridicule.

Venons en au fait : en définitive, le convoi humanitaire de l’Onu a été bourré d’armes et de munitions. Il attend toujours à la frontière turque, officiellement parce que la route n’est pas sûre, officieusement parce que la Syrie demande à pouvoir le fouiller avant de le laisser passer. Cette manière de faire des Nations unies correspond aux révélations du chef de l’antiterrorisme turc, Ahmet Sait Yayla, qui vient de faire défection : le Pentagone et la Turquie utilisent les convois humanitaires pour armer les jihadistes.

Puis, le Pentagone a attaqué une position statique syrienne à Deir ez-Zor. Il s’est arrêté lorsque la Russie l’a prévenu de sa « méprise ». Et il a laissé les jihadistes poursuivre l’attaque sur la voie qu’il leur avait ouverte.

Au plan stratégique, empêcher l’armée arabe syrienne de libérer l’ensemble du gouvernorat de Deir ez-Zor, c’est maintenir Daesh dans son rôle d’obstacle sur la route Damas-Bagdad-Téhéran. Par le passé, le Pentagone avait laissé Daesh s’installer à Palmyre, l’étape historique de la « route de la soie ». Aujourd’hui, la route est toujours coupée côté irakien par les jihadistes, mais pourrait être contournée par Deir ez-Zor si les Irakiens libèrent Mossoul.

D’un point de vue états-unien, l’accord était uniquement un moyen de gagner du temps, d’approvisionner les jihadistes et de reprendre la guerre. Renversant la situation au plan diplomatique, la Russie a convoqué une réunion d’urgence du Conseil de sécurité, provoquant l’affolement à Washington. En effet, cette période ne correspond pas uniquement à la fin du mandat Obama, mais aussi à la tenue de l’Assemblée générale des Nations unies.

Manifestement inquiète, l’ambassadrice US au Conseil de sécurité, Samantha Power, a quitté la salle du Conseil en pleine séance pour s’adresser aux journalistes. Elle espérait ainsi que les premières dépêches d’agence ne traiteraient que le point de vue états-unien. Elle a donc ironisé sur la « mise en scène » russe autour de ce qui ne serait qu’un simple « incident » de tir (62 morts et une centaine de blessés !). Puis, elle s’est lancée dans une diatribe sur les crimes autrement plus graves du régime de Damas. Alerté de la manipulation, l’ambassadeur russe, Vitali Tchourkine, a alors quitté à son tour la salle du conseil pour venir donner son point de vue. Prudents, les journalistes, auxquels la Chambre britannique des Communes vient de rappeler les mensonges de Madame Power à propos des supposés crimes de Mouamar Kadhafi, ont rendu compte des deux interventions.

Désormais, la Russie va pousser son avantage diplomatique : les États-Unis ont été pris en flagrant délit de traîtrise. Moscou pourrait donc utiliser l’Assemblée générale pour annoncer sa volonté d’en finir avec les jihadistes. La manipulation US se retournerait contre ceux qui l’ont imaginée. Washington n’aurait plus que deux options : soit s’engager dans une confrontation ouverte dont il ne veut pas, soit accepter que ses protégés perdent la partie.

Thierry Meyssan

Source : Al-Watan (Syrie)

Publié par le Réseau Voltaire

 

Documents joints

  • Posted in Francais @fr
  • Commentaires fermés sur Simulacre de paix

Au moins soixante-deux soldats syriens sont morts et 100 ont été blessés samedi lorsque l’aviation américaine a bombardé une base sur la montagne Al-Tharda, près de Deir ez-Zor. Fait remarquable, le Commandement central américain n’a toujours pas présenté d’excuses, bien que ce bombardement ait permis à la milice Etat islamique (EI) d’attaquer la base et de la capturer peu après.

Ce massacre est un acte flagrant de guerre qui menace de faire dégénérer le conflit syrien en une guerre totale opposant l’OTAN à la Syrie et ses alliés, dont la Russie. Tout porte à croire que l’attaque, commise quelques jours après le début d’un cessez-le-feu américano-russe en Syrie ouvertement critiqué la semaine dernière par les généraux américains, a été délibérément commise par des factions du gouvernement américain hostiles à la trêve.

Le refus du Pentagone de présenter des excuses officielles est téméraire. Les troupes syriennes combattant l’opposition islamiste luttent à côté d’unités iraniennes, chinoises, et russes. Le Pentagone signale à ces pays, qui non seulement ont des forces puissantes en Syrie, mais, dans le cas de la Chine et de la Russie, possèdent leurs propres armes nucléaires, que leurs troupes peuvent à tout moment devenir des cibles des USA, car elles opèrent aux côtés des forces syriennes.

Les responsables syriens et russes ont dénoncé le bombardement, le qualifiant d’aide à l’EI ; Moscou a convoqué une réunion d’urgence du Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU pour exiger des explications. Le ministère syrien des Affaires étrangères a déclaré: «À 17h00, le 17 septembre, 2016, cinq avions américains ont lancé des frappes aériennes féroces sur les positions de l’armée syrienne sur la montagne al-Tharda dans les environs de l’Aéroport de Deir ez-Zor. L’attaque a duré une heure ».

Il a accusé Washington de complicité avec l’EI: « L’attaque lancée par les terroristes EI sur le même site, en prenant le contrôle d’elle … met en évidence la coordination entre cette organisation terroriste et les Etats-Unis ».

Ce qui ressort des récits contradictoires du bombardement fournis par les factions de la machine militaire américaine est qu’on a préparé et exécuté le massacre de sang-froid.

Des hauts responsables américains anonymes ont déclaré que le gouvernement Obama avait exprimé ses regrets pour la « mort involontaire de forces syriennes » à Damas via Moscou. Cependant, le commandement central (Centcom), responsable des opérations du Pentagone au Moyen-Orient, a publié une déclaration de pure forme sans faire d’excuses à l’armée syrienne.

« La coalition a immédiatement mis fin à l’attaque aérienne lorsque des responsables russes ont fait savoir aux responsables de la coalition que les personnels et les véhicules ciblés faisaient partie de l’armée syrienne », a-t-il déclaré, ajoutant que « La Syrie est en une situation complexe avec de différentes forces militaires et milices à proximité les unes des autres, mais la coalition ne frapperait pas intentionnellement une unité militaire syrienne connue … La coalition examinera cette attaque et les circonstances qui l’entourent pour voir si on peut en tirer des leçons ».

Ces affirmations américaines selon lesquelles les chasseurs américains ne savaient pas qui ils bombardaient ne sont pas crédibles, elles et sont carrément contredites par d’autres rapports.

Un responsable anonyme de Centcom a dit au New York Times que leurs avions de surveillance avaient suivi les unités syriennes « « endant plusieurs jours » avant le bombardement. « L’attaque a duré environ 20 minutes, pendant lesquelles les avions ont détruit des véhicules et abattu des dizaines de personnes en plein désert », a-t-il dit. « Peu après, un appel urgent est arrivé au centre de commandement militaire américain au Qatar … C’était un responsable russe qui a dit que les avions américains bombardaient les troupes syriennes et qu’il fallait cesser d’attaquer immédiatement ».

Toutefois, l’aviation américaine a continué à bombarder la base pendant plusieurs minutes avant de mettre fin à l’attaque, selon le responsable de Centcom.

Cette attaque montre que Washington et ses alliés ne cherchent pas un cessez-le-feu, et la paix encore moins. Ils poursuivent la même stratégie en Syrie depuis 2011: le changement de régime, mené par des milices islamistes comme l’EI ou Al Nosra contre le régime du président syrien Bachar al-Assad. La dernière attaque montre que, même après que l’EI a monté des attaques terroristes en Europe et aux États-Unis, une collaboration existe encore entre les Etats-Unis et les forces de l’EI.

Après l’attaque de samedi, des responsables des groupes de réflexion américains sont rapidement montés au créneau pour tenter de limiter les dégats. Aaron David Miller du Wilson Center a averti le New York Times que les frappes aériennes « nourriraient les théories du complot selon lesquelles Washington est de mèche avec l’EI».

C’est de la propagande cynique. Les hauts fonctionnaires et journalistes américains ont soutenu les milices terroristes islamistes en Syrie en connaissance de cuase. Le journaliste du Times, C. J. Chivers a dédié une vidéo amicale de 2012 à la milice des Lions de Tawhid, qui faisaient exploser des camions piégés dans les villes syriennes. Des dizaines de milices d’opposition ont commis des atrocités à travers la Syrie, y compris l’EI, dont les opérations en Syrie n’ont commencé à être ciblées que l’année dernière, après qu’ils ont mené des attentats terroristes répétés en Europe.

Les factions dominantes à Washinton veulent la guerre ; la stratégie de Moscou de négocier de trêves avec les USA, et de soutenir Assad tout en acceptant les opérations américaines en Syrie, a échoué. Hostile envers le sentiment anti-guerre de la classes ouvrière, surtout aux Etats-Unis, le Kremlin cherche à faire face à aux ardeurs belliqueuses de Washington par le biais de pourparlers. Cette stratégie a échoué face l’opposition au cessez-le-feu de l’armée américaine.

Après la réunion d’urgence du Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU convoquée par Moscou, l’ambassadeur russe à l’ONU, Vitaly Churkin, a chargé que l’attaque américaine était une tentative délibérée de faire dérailler le cessez-le-feu américano-russe, en montrant le timing « très suspect » de l’attaque.

« C’est tout à fait significatif et nullement accidentel, le fait que cela soit arrivé seulement deux jours avant que les arrangements russo-américains fussent censés entrer pleinement en vigueur, » a-t-il dit. « Le début des travaux du Groupe conjoint de mise en œuvre était censé être le 19 septembre. Donc, si les États-Unis voulaient mener une attaque efficace sur Al Nusra ou l’EI, à Deir ez-Zor ou ailleurs, ils pourraient attendre deux jours et coordonner avec nos militaires et être sûr qu’ils frappent les bonnes personnes … au lieu de cela ils ont choisi de mener cette opération téméraire ».

«Il faut conclure que la frappe aérienne a été menée afin de faire dérailler le fonctionnement du Groupe conjoint et effectivement de l’empêcher d’être démarré », a ajouté M. Churkin.

Cette évaluation a été reprise par la publication DEBKA File, étroitement liée au renseignement israélien : « Le Pentagone et l’armée américain ne suivent pas les ordres de leur commandant en chef Barack Obama dans l’exécution de l’accord de coopération militaire en Syrie conclu par le secrétaire d’Etat américain John Kerry et le ministre russe des Affaires étrangères Sergueï Lavrov à Genève le 12 septembre ».

Les responsables militaires américains se seraient inquiétés que le cessez-le-feu permettrait à la Russie « d’étudier les méthodes et les tactiques des forces aériennes et de la marine américaines, dans des réelles conditions du champ de bataille». Le Pentagone s’y oppose donc : « Des sources de Washington rapportent que secrétaire à la Défense Carter soutient qu’il ne peut pas agir contre une loi adoptée par le Congrès. Il évoquait ainsi la loi qui interdit toute relation directe entre l’armée américaine et la russe suite à l’annexion de Moscou de la Crimée, en Ukraine « .

Alex Lantier

Article paru en anglais, WSWS, le 19 septembre 2016

  • Posted in Francais @fr
  • Commentaires fermés sur Washington bombarde l’armée syrienne à Deir ez-Zor : 62 morts, 100 blessés

Os explosivos e-mails de Hillary Clinton

septembre 20th, 2016 by Manlio Dinucci

De tempos em tempos, para fazer um pouco de “limpeza moral” com objetivos político-midiáticos, o Ocidente tira alguns esqueletos do armário.

Uma comissão do parlamento britânico criticou David Cameron pela intervenção militar na Líbia quando ele era premiê em 2011: não o criticou, porém, pela guerra de agressão que demoliu um Estado soberano, mas porque foi desencadeada sem uma adequada “inteligência”, nem um plano para a “reconstrução”.

O presidente Obama fez o mesmo quando, em abril passado, declarou ter cometido na Líbia o seu “pior erro”, não por tê-la destruído com as forças da Otan sob comando estadunidense, mas por não ter planificado o “day after”.

Ao mesmo tempo, Obama reafirmou seu apoio a Hillary Clinton, hoje candidata à presidência: a mesma que, na condição de secretária de Estado, convenceu Obama a autorizar uma operação clandestina na Líbia ( inclusive o envio de forças especiais e o armamento de grupos terroristas), na preparação do ataque aeronaval dos EUA /Otan.

Os e-mails de Hillary Clinton, que vieram sucessivamente à luz, provam qual era o verdadeiro escopo da guerra: bloquear o plano de Kadafi de usar o fundo soberano líbio para criar organismos financeiros autônomos da União Africana e uma moeda africana em alternativa ao dólar e ao franco CFA.

Logo depois de ter demolido o Estado líbio, os EUA e a Otan iniciaram, juntamente com monarquias do Golfo, a operação secreta para demolir o Estado sírio, infiltrando nele forças especiais e grupos terroristas que deram vida ao chamado Estado Islâmico (EI). Uma mensagem de e-mail de Hillary, uma das tantas que o Departamento de Estado desarquivou depois do clamor suscitado pelas revelações do Wikileaks, demonstra qual é um dos escopos fundamentais da operação ainda em curso.

Na mensagem, desarquivada como “case number F-2014-20439, Doc No. C05794498”, a secretária de Estado Hillary Clinton escreve em 31 de dezembro de 2012: “É a relação estratégica entre o Irã e o regime de Bashar Assad que permite ao Irã minar a segurança de Israel, não através de um ataque direto mas por meio de seus aliados no Líbano, como o Hezbolá”. Sublinha, portanto, que “a melhor maneira de ajudar Israel é ajudar a rebelião na Síria que já dura mais de um ano”, ou seja desde 2011, sustentando que para dobrar Bashar Assad, é necessário “o uso da força”, a fim de “pôr em risco a sua vida e a da sua família”.

E Hillary Clinton conclui: “A derrubada de Assad constituiria não só um imenso benefício para a segurança de Israel, mas também faria diminuir o compreensível temor israelense de perder o monopólio nuclerar”. A então secretária de Estado admite, portanto, o que é oficialmente silenciado: o fato de que Israel é o único país do Oriente Médio a possuir armas nucleares.

O apoio da administração Obama a Israel, para além de alguns dissensos mais formais do que substanciais, foi confirmado pelo acordo, assinado em 14 de setembro em Washington, com o qual os Estados Unidos se comprometem a fornecer a Israel os mais modernos armamentos por um valor de 38 bilhões de dólares em dez anos, por meio de um financiamento anual de 3,3 bilhões de dólares, mais meio milhão para a “defesa de mísseis”.

Enquanto isso, depois que a intervenção russa bloqueou o plano de destruir a Síria por dentro com a guerra, os Estados Unidos obtêm uma “trégua” (imediatamente por eles violada), lançando ao mesmo tempo uma nova ofensiva na Líbia, camuflada de operação humanitária na qual a Itália participa com seus “paramédicos”. Enquanto Israel, na sombra, reforça o seu monopólio nuclear tão caro a Hillary Clinton.

Manlio Dinucci

Artigo original em italiano :

Hillary e-mail

Esplosive mail della Clinton

Publicado em Il Manifesto

Traduzido por José Reinaldo Carvalho, editor de Resistência

  • Posted in Português
  • Commentaires fermés sur Os explosivos e-mails de Hillary Clinton

Esplosive mail della Clinton

septembre 20th, 2016 by Manlio Dinucci

Ogni tanto, per fare un po’ di «pulizia morale» a scopo politico-mediatico, l’Occidente tira fuori qualche scheletro dall’armadio.

Una commissione del parlamento britannico ha criticato David Cameron per l’intervento militare in Libia quando era premier nel 2011: non lo ha però criticato per la guerra di aggressione che ha demolito uno stato sovrano, ma perché è stata lanciata senza una adeguata «intelligence» né un piano per la «ricostruzione».

Lo stesso ha fatto il presidente Obama quando, lo scorso aprile, ha dichiarato di aver commesso sulla Libia il «peggiore errore», non per averla demolita con le forze Nato sotto comando Usa, ma per non aver pianificato «the day after». Obama ha ribadito contemporaneamente il suo appoggio a Hillary Clinton, oggi candidata alla presidenza: la stessa che, in veste di segretaria di stato, convinse Obama ad autorizzare una operazione coperta in Libia (compreso l’invio di forze speciali e l’armamento di gruppi terroristi) in preparazione dell’attacco aeronavale Usa/Nato.

Le mail della Clinton, venute successivamente alla luce, provano quale fosse il vero scopo della guerra:  bloccare il piano di Gheddafi di usare i fondi sovrani libici per creare organismi finanziari autonomi dell’Unione Africana e una moneta africana in alternativa al dollaro e al franco Cfa.

Subito dopo aver demolito lo stato libico, gli Usa e la Nato hanno iniziato, insieme alle monarchie del Golfo, l’operazione coperta per demolire lo stato siriano, infiltrando al suo interno forze speciali e gruppi terroristi che hanno dato vita all’Isis.

Una mail della Clinton, una delle tante che il Dipartimento di stato ha dovuto declassificare dopo il clamore suscitato dalle rivelazioni di Wikileaks, dimostra qual è uno degli scopi fondamentali dell’operazione ancora in corso. Nella mail, declassificata come «case number F-2014-20439, Doc No. C05794498», la segretaria di stato Hillary Clinton scrive il 31 dicembre 2012: «È la relazione strategica tra l’Iran e il regime di Bashar Assad che permette all’Iran di minare la sicurezza di Israele, non attraverso un attacco diretto ma attraverso i suoi alleati in Libano, come gli Hezbollah». Sottolinea quindi che «il miglior modo di aiutare Israele è aiutare la ribellione in Siria che ormai dura da oltre un anno», ossia dal 2011, sostenendo che per piegare Bashar Assad, occorre «l’uso della forza» così da «mettere a rischio la sua vita e quella della sua famiglia». Conclude la Clinton: «Il rovesciamento di Assad costituirebbe non solo un immenso beneficio per la sicurezza di Israele, ma farebbe anche diminuire il comprensibile timore israeliano di perdere il monopolio nucleare».

La allora segretaria di stato ammette quindi ciò che ufficialmente viene taciuto: il fatto che Israele è l’unico paese in Medio Oriente a possedere armi nucleari. Il sostegno dell’amministrazione Obama a Israele, al di là di alcuni dissensi più formali che sostanziali, è confermato dall’accordo, firmato il 14 settembre a Washington, con cui gli Stati uniti si impegnano a fornire a Israele i più moderni armamenti per un valore di 38 miliardi di dollari in dieci anni, tramite un finanziamento annuo di 3,3 miliardi di dollari più mezzo milione per la «difesa missilistica».

Intanto, dopo che l’intervento russo ha bloccato il piano di demolire la Siria  dall’interno con la guerra, gli Usa ottengono una «tregua» (da loro subito violata), lanciando allo stesso tempo una nuova offensiva in Libia, camuffata da operazione umanitaria a cui l’Italia partecipa con i suoi «parà-medici».

Mentre Israele, nell’ombra, rafforza il suo monopolio nucleare tanto caro alla Clinton.

Manlio Dinucci

  • Posted in Italiano
  • Commentaires fermés sur Esplosive mail della Clinton

E-mails explosifs de la Clinton

septembre 20th, 2016 by Manlio Dinucci

De temps en temps, pour faire un peu de « propreté morale » à but politico-médiatique, l’Occident sort quelques squelettes du placard.

Une commission du parlement britannique a critiqué David Cameron pour l’intervention militaire en Libye quand il était premier ministre en 2011 : elle ne l’a cependant pas critiqué pour la guerre d’agression qui a démoli un état souverain, mais parce que cette guerre a été lancée sans une « intelligence » adéquate ni un plan pour la « reconstruction ».

C’est la même chose qu’a fait Obama quand, en avril dernier, il a déclaré avoir commis sur la Libye la « pire erreur », non pas pour l’avoir démolie avec les forces Otan sous commandement étasunien, mais pour n’avoir pas planifié « the day after ». Au même moment Obama a réaffirmé son appui à Hillary Clinton, aujourd’hui candidate à la présidence : celle-là même qui, en habit de secrétaire d’Etat, persuada Obama d’autoriser une opération secrète en Libye (y compris l’envoi de forces spéciales et l’armement de groupes terroristes) en préparation de l’attaque aéronavale USA/Otan.

Les mails de la Clinton, ensuite mis en lumière, prouvent quel était le véritable objectif de la guerre : bloquer le plan de Kadhafi d’utiliser les fonds souverains libyens pour créer des organismes financiers autonomes de l’Union Africaine et une monnaie africaine alternative au dollar et au franc Cfa.

Immédiatement après avoir démoli l’état libyen, les USA et l’Otan, avec les monarchies du Golfe, ont commencé l’opération secrète pour démolir l’état syrien, en infiltrant à l’intérieur de celui-ci des forces spéciales et des groupes terroristes qui ont donné naissance à l’EI.

Un mail de Clinton, un des nombreux que le Département d’Etat a dû déclassifier après les clameurs suscitées par les révélations de Wikileaks, démontre quel est un des objectifs fondamentaux de l’opération encore en cours. Dans l’e-mail, déclassifié comme  « case number F-2014-20439, Doc No. C05794498», la secrétaire d’Etat Hillary Clinton écrit le 31 décembre  2012 : « C’est la relation stratégique entre l’Iran et le régime de Bashar Assad qui permet à l’Iran de miner la sécurité d’Israël, non pas à travers une attaque directe mais à travers ses alliés au Liban, comme le Hezbollah ». Elle souligne alors que « la meilleure façon d’aider Israël est d’aider la rébellion en Syrie qui dure désormais depuis plus d’un an », c’est-à-dire depuis 2011, en soutenant que pour faire plier Bashar al Assad, il faut « l’usage de la force » afin de « mettre en péril sa vie et celle de sa famille ». Clinton conclut  : « Le renversement d’Assad constituerait non seulement un immense bénéfice pour la sécurité d’Israël, mais ferait aussi diminuer la crainte israélienne compréhensible de perdre le monopole nucléaire». L’alors secrétaire d’Etat admet donc ce qui est officiellement tu : le fait qu’Israël est l’unique pays au Moyen-Orient qui possède des armes nucléaires.

Le soutien de l’administration Obama à Israël, au-delà de quelques dissensions plus formelles que substantielles, est confirmé par l’accord, signé le 14 septembre à Washington, par lequel les Etats-Unis s’engagent à fournir à Israël les armements les plus modernes pour une valeur de 38 milliards de dollars en dix ans, par un financement annuel de 3,3 milliards de dollars plus un demi million pour la « défense de missiles ».

En attendant, après que l’intervention russe a bloqué le plan de démolir la Syrie de l’intérieur avec la guerre, les USA obtiennent une « trêve » (immédiatement violée par eux), lançant en même temps une nouvelle offensive en Libye, camouflée en opération humanitaire à laquelle l’Italie participe avec ses « paras-médecins ».

Tandis qu’Israël, dans l’ombre, renforce son monopole nucléaire si cher à la Clinton.

 Manlio Dinucci

Edition de mardi 20 septembre 2016 de il manifesto

http://ilmanifesto.info/le-esplosive-mail-di-hillary-clinton/

Traduit de l’italien par Marie-Ange Patrizio

NdT :

Le texte original de M. Dinucci a été modifié par la rédaction de il manifesto qui a écrit « Hillary Clinton » au lieu de « la Clinton » dans le titre et à la fin de la rubrique. Après consultation de l’auteur, la version française conserve les termes originaux.

  • Posted in Francais @fr
  • Commentaires fermés sur E-mails explosifs de la Clinton

US-China Relations and the North Korean Nuclear Crisis

septembre 20th, 2016 by Christine Hong

North Korea’s nuclear test of September 9, 2016, the fifth and largest measuring twice the force of previous blasts, prompted a predictable round of condemnations by the United States and its allies along with calls for China to step up its enforcement of sanctions on North Korea. Yet few “expert” analyses suggest that China will risk destabilizing North Korea or that further United Nations resolutions and international sanctions will succeed in deterring North Korea from pursuing its nuclear weapons and missile programs.

The Obama administration’s reliance on China to rein in North Korea is at odds with its efforts to contain China’s influence in Asia, a quixotic goal in itself. It reflects an unrealistic desire for China to be influential just enough to do the bidding of the United States but not powerful enough to act in its own interests.

North Korea is, after all, China’s strategic ally in the region, and it is in South Korea that the United States plans to deploy THAAD, a defense system with radar capable of tracking incoming missiles from China. It is simply not in China’s interest to risk losing an ally on its border only to have it replaced by a U.S.-backed state hosting missile-tracking systems and other military forces targeting it. And China knows it is not the target of North Korea’s nukes. If the United States cannot punt the problem of North Korea’s nuclear weapons to China it must deal with North Korea directly.

Indeed, in response to U.S. Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter’s recent condemnation of China’s “role” and “responsibility” in failing to restrain North Korea’s nuclear pursuits, the Chinese Foreign Ministry issued a statement calling on the United States to take a long hard look at its own foreign policy:

The cause and crux of the Korean nuclear issue rest with the US rather than China. The core of the issue is the conflict between the DPRK and the US. It is the US who should reflect upon how the situation has become what it is today, and search for an effective solution. It is better for the doer to undo what he has done. The US should shoulder its due responsibilities.[1]

In equally unmincing terms, the Global Times, an offshoot of the People’s Daily, charged the United States with “refusing to sign a peace treaty with Pyongyang” in a September 11, 2016 editorial. Alluding to a long history of U.S. nuclear threats against North Korea, the editorial elaborated: “The Americans have given no consideration to the origin and the evolution of North Korea’s nuclear issue or the negative role Washington has been playing over the years.” It further clarified: “Without the reckless military threat from the US and South Korea and the US’s brutal overthrow of regimes in some small countries, Pyongyang may not have developed such a firm intent to develop nuclear weapons as now.”[2]

Despite President Barack Obama’s efforts over his two terms in office to “pivot” or “rebalance” U.S. foreign policy to Asia and the Pacific and his repeated identification of the United States as a Pacific power, the memory of nuclear ruin in the region is shadowed by the history of the United States as a first-user of atomic weapons against civilian populations in Japan at the close of World War II and as a tester of devastating nuclear technology, including human radiation experiments, in the Marshall Islands during the Cold War. Moreover, it has not gone unnoticed that President Obama, despite his professed commitment to nuclear de-escalation, has refused to issue an “unequivocal no-first-use pledge.”[3]

In Korea, the one place on the planet where nuclear conflagration is most likely to erupt, given the current state of affairs, President Obama can still end the threat of nuclear warfare. This would require what few in his administration appear to have entertained, namely, the elimination of the demand for North Korea to agree to irreversible denuclearization as a precondition for bilateral talks. This rigid goal makes it virtually impossible for the United States to respond positively to any overture from North Korea short of a fantastic offer by that country to surrender all its nuclear weapons. The premise that the denuclearization of North Korea is necessary to ensure peace and stability on the Korean peninsula needs to be shelved, and all possibilities for finding common ground upon which to negotiate the cessation of hostilities on the Korean peninsula should be explored.

It should be recalled that possibly no country, including Japan, has greater fear of overbearing Chinese influence than North Korea. Arguing for the relevance of past U.S. negotiations with North Korea, Stanford scholar Robert Carlin points out that North Korea in 1996 opposed President Clinton’s notion of Four-Party talks involving China because they “went counter to a basic Pyongyang policy goal; that is, to limit Chinese influence by improving U.S.-DPRK relations.”[4] More recently, former CNN journalist Mike Chinoy, similarly observed: “[North Koreans] hate the idea that the Chinese can come in and tell them what to do. And the reality is the Chinese can’t.”[5]

At this juncture, given the demonstrated failure of President Obama’s “strategic patience” or non-negotiation policy with North Korea, the unthinkable must be seriously considered. Could an alliance between the United States and North Korea preserve U.S. influence in the region, albeit along avowedly peaceful lines, provide North Korea with a hedge against infringement of its sovereignty by China and eliminate the rationale for deploying THAAD in South Korea, thus alleviating a major sore point between China and the U.S.-South Korea alliance?

Let us also recall that North Korea offered to halt testing of its nuclear weapons if the United States agreed to put an end to the annual U.S.-South Korea war games.[6] Combining live artillery drills and virtual exercises, these war games, as of this year, implemented OPLAN 5015, a new operational war plan that puts into motion a preemptive U.S. nuclear strike against North Korea and the “decapitation” of its leadership. Unsurprisingly, North Korea considers this updated operational plan to be a rehearsal for Libya-style regime change. In January of this year, the United States turned down North Korea’s offer before the start of the spring U.S.-South Korea war games, and did so again in April.[7] The United States has thus twice this year dismissed the prospect of halting North Korea’s advance towards miniaturizing a nuclear bomb and fitting it atop an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capable of reaching the continental United States ostensibly because North Korea refused to entertain U.S. insistence on its complete denuclearization as part of the package.

President Obama should prioritize any and all possibilities for achieving a halt to North Korea’s nuclear programs by diplomacy, over the goal of achieving an illusory agreement for complete denuclearization. As an achievement, halting North Korea’s nuclear advances is far short of the peace treaty needed to bring an end to the Korean War and a lasting peace to Korea. It is far short of creating international conditions for the Korean people to achieve the peaceful reunification of their country. And it is a far cry from achieving nuclear disarmament on a global scale. Yet, as a redirection of U.S. policy towards engagement with North Korea, it would be the greatest achievement in U.S. Korea policy of the last fifteen years, and a concrete step towards achieving denuclearization in the region, and worldwide.

Notes.

[1] “Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hua Chunying’s Regular Press Conference on September 12, 2016,” Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China, 12 September 2016, available online athttp://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/xwfw_665399/s2510_665401/t1396892.shtml.

[2] “Carter Wrong to Blame China for NK Nuke Issue,” Global Times, 11 September 2016, available online athttp://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1005942.shtml.

[3] David E. Sanger and William J. Broad, “Obama Unlikely to Vow No First Use of Nuclear Weapons,” The New York Times, 5 September 2016, available online athttp://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/06/science/obama-unlikely-to-vow-no-first-use-of-nuclear-weapons.html.

[4] Robert Carlin, “Negotiating with North Korea: Lessons Learned and Forgotten,” Korea Yearbook: Politics, Economy and Society, eds. Rüdiger Frank et al. (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2008), 241.

[5] Qtd. in James Griffiths, “What Can China Do about Nuclear North Korea,” CNN, 7 January 2016, available online athttp://www.cnn.com/2016/01/07/asia/north-korea-china-nuclear-test/.

[6] See “North Korea Says Peace Treaty, Halt to Exercises, Would End Nuclear Tests,” Reuters, 16 January 2016, available online athttp://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-nuclear-usa-idUSKCN0UT201.

[7] See “Obama Rejects North Korea’s Offer to Ease Nuclear Tests if U.S. Stops War Exercises with South,” Association Press,24 April 2016, available online athttp://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/obama-rejects-north-koreas-offer-to-cease-nuclear-tests-if-u-s-stops-war-exercises-with-south.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur US-China Relations and the North Korean Nuclear Crisis

The Canadian Broadcasting Company is paid for by Canadian taxpayers and is touted as the main institution promoting national cultural unity.  The CBC’s treatment of a Canadian activist, however, demonstrates its prioritization of Israeli interests.

Speakers of all faiths are featured at the annual Al Quds Day (“Jerusalem”) events, an international commemoration of the Palestinian situation that started in Iran.  Nadia Shoufani, of Palestinian descent, was one of the Christian speakers on July 2nd ; speaking on her own behalf, she passionately described* the horrific treatment that Palestinians are facing, noted their legal right to resist the brutal Israeli military occupation, and called on listeners to support Palestinian resistance in any way they were able to, including by breaking the silence on this issue and by boycotting Israeli products.  She mentioned two famous men whose lives were destroyed by Israel, the revered cultural icon Ghassan Kanafani, and Georges Ibrahim Abdallah, still imprisoned after 30 years in France because of American pressure — a cause célèbre.

Shoufani’s address was legitimate: her description of the Palestinian situation was accurate and backed up by official Canadian foreign policy which recognizes the illegality of the Israeli settlements and occupation.  Palestinians are asking for the application of the international laws which are supposed to guarantee their basic rights.  Shoufani was within her rights calling for the economic pressure that worked in apartheid South Africa.

B’nai Brith Canada, one of the groups invested in defending Israel’s apartheid and ongoing crimes against humanity, has tried to have Al Quds events banned by the Ontario legislature.  Speakers at these events can expect ugly repercussions.  The United Church of Canada was pressured into publicly “repudiating” one of its members (who had given a bland talk) because they had been unwittingly introduced as “from the United Church”; someone even complained personally to their minister about their appearance at that event.

Shoufani’s address was electric, and Israel’s defenders sprang into action.  They discovered that she was a teacher, where she taught, what she taught, what school board she worked for and private Facebook posts to her family and close friends; they saw that she was vulnerable.  They found that at some point, the men she had referenced had been connected to the PFLP, a Palestinian resistance group that Canada put on its “terror list” in 2003.  B’nai Brith Canada and the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center lodged complaints to the police and Shoufani’s school board alleging that she had publicly supported violence and terrorism.  B’nai Brith then came out with a news release announcing that she was being investigated by the police and the Dufferin Peel Catholic District School Board.

 

The news release “came to the attention” of a CBC news producer and reporter, and on July 13th, Murial Draaisma wrote an article that repeated B’nai Brith’s accusations against Shoufani.  It claimed that Kanafani and Abdallah were linked to the PFLP, and Draaisma gratuitously added two paragraphs describing PFLP terrorism as if that were relevant to Shoufani.  She included a B’nai Brith comment that teachers who had such opinions should not be allowed in classrooms.

Draaisma had neglected to contact Shoufani to get her side of the story, and she had also neglected to do any fact-checking.  Kanafani, along with his niece, had been murdered (by Israeli agents) in 1972, 30 years before the PFLP was on the “terror list”; Abdallah had not been a PFLP member since 1979, two decades before that designation.  The article that linked Nadia Shoufani to the PFLP was libelous.

Many groups and individuals quickly contacted the CBC Ombudsman Esther Enkin and the news producer to correct the CBC’s linking of Shoufani to the PFLP.  Enkin’s response of August 3rd, however, not only rationalized Draaisma’s lack of balance but repeated the defamation and claimed that Shoufani’s support of the men was a legitimate cause for Canadian concern. A follow-up letter by CBC Toronto Executive Producer Pras Rajagopalan noted that, « … in an effort to provide better context, we have also undertaken to follow the story closely and report further developments. On Aug. 10 we posted a second story. » 

Despite the correct information that the CBC had received, that article, « Mississauga teacher suspended following school board probe into appearance at pro-Palestinian rallyNadia Shoufani appears in video praising 2 men linked to what Canada considers a terror group«  by « CBC News », reiterates the factually untrue and deceitful statement that [the men] « are linked to the PFLP ».

The Dufferin Peel Catholic District School Board’s public treatment of Nadia Shoufani was unusual; it normally kept investigations private until issues were resolved.  Shoufani’s suspension from her job by a religious, educational body that should support freedoms of speech and belief — particularly of its employees — is a betrayal that begs the question of their motive.  Why are they succumbing to the apparent bullying of the pro-Israel lobby that would endanger the reputation and livelihood of a loyal employee?

  • Would they have suspended a non-Arab teacher under these circumstances?
  • Would they have publicized it?
  • Are they cowed by B’nai Brith’s insinuation that only those who support Israel should be allowed to teach?
  • Will they informally vet future teachers’ political perspectives?

While it’s to be expected that those who are invested in defending the State of Israel would attack those calling for a resolution based on international law, why are elected officials, community leaders and even faith-based organizations capitulating to bullying that violates the rights of Canadians?

The loyalties of all of those involved in such bullying situations should be challenged.  Israel’s lobbyists choose to call such challenges to their loyalties “anti-Semitic”, yet they continue to make demands that damage Canadian interests in order to benefit Israel.

The actions of the CBC are a case in point. After having been notified that its article on Nadia Shoufani was spurious and defamatory, why did the CBC insist on reiterating libel that would humiliate her, destroy her reputation, threaten her livelihood and chill Canadian freedom of speech on this issue?  Who benefits from the CBC’s actions?

Canadians exercising their rights should not be threatened by Canadians representing the interests of any foreign state.  Those who are concerned about the CBC’s treatment of Nadia Shoufani should demand of CBC President Hubert Lacroix and The Honourable Mélanie Joly, Minister of Canadian Heritage, as well as their Members of Parliament, that the CBC stop placing the interests of those invested in Israel over the interests of their own country.

Karin Brothers is a freelance writer.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Canada and the Rights of Palestinians: The CBC and the Crucifixion of Nadia Shoufani, On Behalf of Israeli Interests…

One knows to be on one’s guard immediately one hears that the USA and the European Union are negotiating some ‘big deal’ on transatlantic trade. Sure, big deal – in trading terms – typically means big power, big money and big mess. But when one also hears that it’s all being done in secret, then one has to add ‘big scam’ too.

The designers of the trade agreements claim that they will bring greater GDP and more jobs at both ends; a view which has been widely challenged by those likely to be on the receiving end.

So let’s spell it out: TTIP stands for Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. It’s Big Brother brokering new trade deals between the USA and the European Union. CETA stands for Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement. It is pretty much the same deal, but is being brokered by Canada and the European Union. And lastly there’s TISA, for Trade in Services Agreement, also involving the USA and EU, with some other countries in on the act. Here, it is ‘services’ that are under the spotlight.

Common to all of these is the fact that ‘we the people’ are being kept entirely out of the picture. All negotiations are being hidden from public scrutiny, with special ‘secret courts’ being established in off-shore venues, where national governments can be sued if they are accused of protecting the right to prohibit certain imports or maintain trade tariffs.

For example, the majority of countries in the EU do not allow most varieties of genetically modified seeds and plants that the US seeks to export. This would raise an immediate dispute under the protocol of TTIP.

Such a position will be re-scrutinized under the terms of these new trade agreements. US hormone-enriched beef and chlorine-washed chickens are another example of products currently blocked by the EU, and for good reason. There are many such controversies that all find their place in a negotiating time-table designed to get a comprehensive new trade package into law as soon as possible, with no parliamentary intervention and no public vote.

Pause for breath. Just what is going on here? Let’s call a spade a spade: it’s a massive and fraudulent attempt by multinational corporations to wrest a further degree of control over global trading, thereby undermining the ability of nation states to administer their own trading laws.

TTIP, CETA and TISA can, for the sake of this summary, all be seen through the same lens. In each case, multinationals’ extensive role in creating new regulations opens the door to a race to the bottom in standards of quality set for foods, the environment and public services. In the case of TISA, governments are being pushed into accepting a mandatory privatization of public services – an overt way of giving big business the say-so in all matters of public interest.

In the UK, the National Health Service would be particularly vulnerable. But so would thousands of government backed, or supported, social enterprises throughout Europe.

Under TTIP/CETA we would see the end of such individual delights as the Cumberland sausage and the Cornish pasty. The Parmigiano-Reggiano, Black Forest Gateau and Alsace Grand Cru. No domain names would be allowed in this free trade free-for-all.

Fighting to save these products will be an uphill task. The defenders would need to familiarize themselves with ‘ISDS’ (Investor State Dispute Settlement) procedures. Procedures that will not be heard in normal courts of law, but under TTIP are slated to be heard by a jury composed of corporate lawyers and specialist international ‘experts’, deliberating their cases in secret courts. In other words, a neat bypassing of any recognised legal system. A complete scam by any standards.

THE GOOD NEWS

The TTIP negotiating process has been ongoing for a number of years now. However, it is presently bogged down by disputes at both ends and looks close to collapse. France has recently called for an end to negotiations and dropping the entire process. Other European countries are joining this call, with Germany’s economy minister Sigmar Gabriel stating “The negotiations with the USA have de facto failed, even though nobody is really admitting it.”

CETA and TISA are still in process, with CETA being the closest to ratification by Canadian authorities. It will then move on for ratification to the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament. It appears that this agreement contains less contentious trading terms, as France is broadly accepting the current outline. However, it still smacks of a regime that will go over the heads of the people and simply fuel the coffers of the canniest exploiters of the global market place.

What both the EU and US actually need is the antithesis of these monster ‘free trade’ agreements. They need to reinvest in local and regional forms of production and consumption, carried out on a genuine human scale. Work as though people mattered. We have seen quite enough destruction at the hands of multinational and transnational corporations busting their way into foreign countries and ruining their internal trading patterns.

In the end it’s just another type of war. Who needs it? The planet is already saturated with irrational violence.

Julian Rose is an early pioneer of UK organic farming, and an international activist, holistic thinker and writer. He is President of The International Coalition to Protect the Polish Countryside, and is the author of two books with some very powerful perspectives: Changing Course for Life and In Defence of Life.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur The Three Ugly Sisters of Transatlantic Trade: TTIP, CETA and TISA

The Burkini and France’s Imperialist Mindset

septembre 20th, 2016 by Andre Vltchek

In Europe, oppression is never really called by its true ugly name. It is constantly concealed by lofty slogans such as culture, even tolerance. Repression, discrimination and harassment are administered in order for the ‘entire society to be free’.

Or so at least the official narrative goes.

In France, recent and ugly row over so-called burkinis, a swimsuit used by many Muslim women all over the world, has demonstrated how little tolerance there really is in today’s Europe for other cultures and for different ways of life.

Recently, France’s highest administrative court has ruled that “burkini bans” being enforced on the country’s beaches are illegal and a violation of fundamental liberties. Still, more than 90 percent of French people are supporting the ban, which is thoroughly illogical and philosophically as well as ethically indefensible.

*

What is suddenly so shocking about a woman wearing a wetsuit on some French beach? And let’s face it: burkinis are nothing else but a wetsuit, which is commonly used on countless beaches of California, Australia, and Europe, in fact all over the world, by surfers and other water sport enthusiasts.

Just compare these images and these. Can you really tell much of a difference?

According to Wikipedia, a wetsuit is:

… A garment, usually made of foamed neoprene, which is worn by surfers, divers, windsurfers, canoeists, and others engaged in water sports, providing thermal insulation, abrasion resistance and buoyancy.

If courts manage to resurrect the ban (and actually some municipalities have already declared that they will uphold it no matter what), are the French police going to interrogate women on public beaches, while trying to determine whether they are wearing these plastic garments simply because they are planning to go surfing, or because of their religious beliefs? Would the first reason be allowed, while the other one forbidden?

Are we heading towards an era when people will be forced to confess to the authorities, why they are choosing to cover their bellies and shoulders? And is this going to re-define the meaning of ‘freedom’?

*

Who would be free to cover and who would not? Would the French state be permitted to decide what is the legitimate menace from which a woman should be allowed to protect herself from?

For instance, would the cold be ok? Imagine Paris, in January or February; 100 degrees Celsius below zero… Most of the women you pass on the streets (Christian, Muslim and atheist) are “fully covered”, aren’t they? What can you see of them? Nothing, almost nothing! Their entire bodies are covered; their heads are covered, even their feet and hands are covered (unlike the hands and feet of women wearing burkinis). You travel to Grenoble in the winter, and the chances are that women will even be covering their faces with scarves. You know why, right? Because they are cold! Is this reason OK, or should the French authorities demand that they expose their bellybuttons or shoulders or legs, in order to prove how “European”, how “French” they are?

Fine, so covering yourself up from the cold is most likely admissible; it is not ‘un-European’.

But what about the heat; is it OK to protect yourself from sun? In almost the entire Southeast Asia, but also in some parts of Latin America and the Sub-Continent, women want to be as white as possible. Unlike Western women, they hate suntan. I used to live in Vietnam and in Indonesia, as well as in many parts of Latin America, so I know… In the summer in Hanoi, you spot those (mainly secular, I emphasize it here!) elegant ladies on designer scooters, covered from head to toe: their feet are covered; they wear gloves, long dresses (áo dài) or pants, most likely a helmet and underneath one more layer of headwear, plus sun glasses. Sometimes their mouth and nose is ‘protected’ by some fabric as well. While French women are fighting against the cold during the cold winters, hundreds of millions of women all over the world are covering themselves up because they are fighting against the sun. Could that be tolerated in France? Or is it unacceptable; just more evidence of how badly foreigners are ‘integrating’?

But back to the beach… Would wetsuits or burkinis or whatever they are called by, be out-rightly banned, or only when a woman decides to go into the water? And as we know, when we go diving, we all, men and women, have to ‘cover ourselves up’ fully. So even if a woman would not be allowed to enter the water unless she exposes herself, could she still be covered if she would intend to go diving, surfing, or kayaking? Would there be some ‘benevolent set of exceptions’?

And one more question: ‘If all women were to be required to expose themselves (by the new French law), then how much has to be actually shown?’ Could 60% of their skin be covered, or would only 40% be tolerated? Is there going to be some new and precise measuring device supplied to the police, calculating whether the law has actually been broken?

And what about the punishment? Should women be fined? Should they be arrested, or even deported? Should they be forced to show their legs? Should police simply kick them out of the beaches? I really want to know.

Does it all sound absurd? But of course! But sadly, it is also real. To ban or not to ban burkini is one of the most passionately debated topics in Europe today!

*

That Europe is a ‘beacon of freedom’ is something that only Europeans (and far from all of them) truly believe. While anti-immigrant bigots are protesting against those relatively few migrants arriving at the EU doors every year, Europe annually literally regurgitates millions of its citizens, those who cannot stand living in what they see as a sad, oppressive and deteriorating continent. Legal and illegal European migrants are heading for North and South America, for Southeast Asia, China, even Sub-Continent and parts of Africa. Annually, they are entering millions of arranged marriages in order to secure local residency permits; others are crisscrossing Asia during their ‘visa runs’.

Many of the European migrants living abroad are very far from being ‘culturally sensitive’. Those who have plenty of money are buying off entire coastal areas of Asia and Africa. Entire nations like Thailand, Cambodia or Kenya are getting culturally ruined.

It is hardly ever debated in Europe: what is actually more damaging to local cultures – those Muslim women covering their bodies and hair on the streets and the beaches of Europe, or those literally millions of European potbellied, drunk, and half naked men in their sixties and seventies, promenading themselves publicly with their local teen female or male ‘acquisitions’ all over the Asian and African cities, villages and beaches?

And what about the European women, with their exposed breasts, wearing hardly detectable bikinis on the beaches of the once conservative Muslim communities of Indonesian Lombok or Southern Thailand?

I hate to write about this topic fleetingly, in such a short essay. I have lived, for many years, in Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Middle East. The destruction of local cultures and entire communities by European migrants amounts to an extremely disturbing and painful topic, worthy of in-depth analyses. I mainly address these issues in my novels.

But this absurd anti-burkini outburst in France suddenly forced me to react, as it is thoroughly one-sided and hypocritical.

*

My ability to cope with today’s Europe is quickly evaporating. I still go there, perhaps 4 times a year, to meet my translators and publishers, to show my films, to give a speech here and there, or to see my mother who married a German around a quarter of century ago. I plan to stay for a week, but mostly I escape after 2-3 days.

The continent rubs me up the wrong way. I feel terribly un-free there. I’m forced to eat lunches and dinners at particular designated hours (as if Europe does not have tens of millions of doctors, pilots, writers, sex workers, firefighters, train operators and others who are on totally different schedules). In September I cannot buy a windbreaker that I forgot to pack, as only clothes for cold weather are now available in all department stores. I stopped renting cars in Europe, as even passing the speed limits by 5km/h kept getting me endless (electronically processed) fines. Unlike in China or in Cuba, I am not allowed to film or photograph at European train stations or at some ‘sensitive areas’. I was even stopped and chased away when I filmed the ice skating ring in front of the Municipality building in Paris! Surveillance cameras keep watching me from almost every corner, and the mainstream media feels ridiculously censored and submissive to the regime. A few months ago, when I travelled from Lebanon to Germany on Air France via Paris, both my suitcases were cut open by a saw, and then delivered to the final destination in plastic bags. “For security reasons they were ‘checked’ at Charles de Gaulle Airport in Paris, as your bags were travelling from the Middle East,” I was told.

Of course I have a choice to stay for a while or to leave. And mostly, I leave. I frankly dislike 21st Century Europe, so why should I stay for longer than is necessary.

But many foreigners do not have this luxury. Their countries were raped, plundered and destabilized by the West, by NATO, by the US and by Europe. They are trying to survive, somehow. Surprisingly, only very few come to Europe! Very, very few compared to the millions of Europeans who are annually shutting the door behind their backs and leaving – leaving permanently, for distant shores.

Other ‘foreigners’ were born in Europe, but were never accepted. Were they to be born in Brazil or modern day South Africa, no one would even blink. They are Muslims, so what? They want to cover themselves on the public beaches? Well, it is hot and unusual, but illegal! How could it be illegal?

Europe is not at peace with itself. It robbed all over the world, it became rich because of colonialist and neo-colonialist plunder, but there is no joy behind its walls. Whenever I speak to Greeks, French, Germans, Italians, Czechs or Danes, I clearly feel it. Most Europeans do realize that their continent is in decline.

When one does not like his or her home, why not to re-think its concept, and rebuild it? Why not bring in totally new, even foreign ideas? Why stick to what makes it so oppressive?

But again, European ‘logic’ is quite different! The more dissatisfied people become, the more conservative and inward looking they get. Foreigners irritate them, or they even horrify and infuriate them. Unless they totally ‘adopt’ (abandon their culture), the majority of Europeans want them out.

In reality, Muslim women wearing burkinis is not about burkinis at all. At the beginning of this essay, we already illustrated how absurd the anti-burkini laws and regulations really are.

It is about something else. It is about the globally disliked culture of colonialist oppression and exceptionalism, flexing its muscles once again, at home and abroad. It is actually much more terrible than it looks. The movement to ban burkinis has its roots in a horrible past, when entire nations and cultures were annihilated by European barbaric expansionism.

So read between the lines:

You can wear any wetsuit, but not a burkini. It is exactly the same thing, but the wetsuit is our own invention (and therefore it is right), while the ‘burkini’ was designed by and for ‘the others’ (therefore it is clearly wrong). Remember, only our definitions are allowed on this Planet.

We are not religious or cultural fundamentalists (because only ‘the others’ can be), but we will protect our right and freedom to tell the world what can be believed, thought or even worn. Amen!

This is the iron, unapologetic logic of the imperialism.

Therefore, poor burkinis should be defended! Let’s all buy them, even us, men. After all, when you look at those old black and white photos depicting European swimming pools and beaches, many dudes were wearing almost identical all-covering stuff, and so were the women. Just see it here!

Andre Vltchek is philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist, he’s a creator of Vltchek’s World an a dedicated Twitter user, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur The Burkini and France’s Imperialist Mindset