The mass deaths of refugees in the Mediterranean Sea has reached a new, grim record over the first five months of 2016. According to the UN’s refugee agency (UNHCR), at least 2,510 refugees drowned between January and May during their attempts to cross to Europe. The European governments and European Union bear full responsibility for turning the Mediterranean into a mass graveyard for refugees.

By questioning the survivors of recent accidents, the UNHCR estimated the number of victims. According to this, 880 refugees lost their lives in the Mediterranean in the last week of May alone. The International Organisation for Migration (IOM) even suggests there could have been more than a thousand drowned refugees.

Previous estimates put the number at 700 victims from three capsized boats, but refugees reported many more were confined in the holds of the boats. In addition, 47 refugees are missing after a lifeboat with at least 125 on board deflated and capsized.

“For so many deaths to have occurred just in a matter of days and months is shocking and shows just how truly perilous these journeys are,” said UN High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandi. Compared to the same period last year, when 1,855 refugees lost their lives in the Mediterranean, the number of deaths has increased by 35 percent.

According to UNHCR figures, 203,981 refugees have been registered after successfully surviving the crossing to Europe to seek protection there. Of these, 46,714 came to Italy, about the same number as last year.

Particularly in the months January to March, the overwhelming majority came via Turkey through Greece. In the process, 376 people drowned. But since the so-called Balkan route has been closed by means of the dirty deal between the EU and Turkey to ruthlessly deport refugees, the numbers of deaths on the much longer and riskier route from Libya to Italy has risen dramatically.

“The North Africa-Italy route is dramatically more dangerous: 2,119 of the deaths reported so far this year are among people making this journey, making for odds of dying as high as one in 23,” explained UNHCR spokesman William Spindler.

In other words, out of every 100 refugees starting their journey in Africa, four die in the attempt. The Mediterranean, directly adjacent to the rich countries of Europe and a popular tourist destination, is thus by far the most dangerous sea route for refugees in the world. According to official estimates, at least 30,000 refugees have drowned there in the last fifteen years.

The EU has responded with indifference to the rapidly rising number of victims. When the refugee assistance organisation SeaWatch, which supports rescue efforts in the Mediterranean, recently published a picture of a volunteer holding a dead baby in his arms, it provoked no outrage about the European governments’ inhumane policy of sealing off Europe’s borders.

When in September 2015 the picture of the drowned Syrian boy Aylan Kurdi lying on a Turkish beach was prominent in the media, empty promises and hypocritical phrases of sympathy were heard from Berlin and Brussels. However, the latest refugee tragedies in the Mediterranean have been virtually ignored. “The mass deaths of refugees on Europe’s borders are being accepted as collateral damage,” wrote Spiegel Online.

The deaths in the Mediterranean are part of the logic of the EU’s refugee policy, calculated to act as a deterrent. When, on October 3, 2013, 366 refugees horrifically drowned off the coast of the Italian island of Lampedusa, then Italian Prime Minister Enrico Letta launched Operation Mare Nostrum. Originally intended as a mechanism to force boats back to the Libyan coast, it was unwillingly transformed into a sea rescue mission, since the rescue of people from shipwrecks is a central tenet of international law. Almost 150,000 refugees were thus saved from drowning.

But the rescue of refugees was an irritant for the EU, and above all for the German government. With the absurd argument that Mare Nostrum was encouraging more refugees to set off for Europe, German interior minister Thomas de Maiziere called a halt to it. Instead, on November 1, 2014 the EU adopted the much smaller Operation Triton, which was concentrated on a limited coastal area of sea, and led to the resumption of the mass deaths in the Mediterranean.

In early 2015 almost 1,500 refugees died within a few weeks, as the EU and its border protection agency Frontex looked on. “It is not enough to cry in front of the television in the evening when refugees are drowning in the Mediterranean, and hold a moment of silence in council the next morning,” EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said at the time. The EU’s response consisted in the militarisation of the Mediterranean.

Since then, two dozen warships from the European states have been patrolling the Mediterranean between Libya and Italy as part of Eunavfor Med (European Naval Force—Mediterranean) Sophia. But their goal is not the rescuing of shipwrecked passengers, but rather the combatting of smugglers, whose boats are to be captured and destroyed. The mission has just been extended for a further year and is to be stepped up along the Libyan coast.

In order to obtain a mandate from the UN, the Libyan puppet government of Fayez al-Sarraj imposed by the US and European powers has requested support in building up the coastguard and the combatting of the arms trade. In truth, the al-Sarraj government has no power in the North African country, and is merely in place to follow the orders of the western powers and sign off on a new NATO intervention.

Since the NATO war of 2011 to topple the Gaddafi government, Libya has been destroyed and is engaged in a bloody civil war. Hundreds of thousands of people were either slaughtered or driven from their homes. The countless refugees from African countries to the south were treated arbitrarily and are now confined to internment camps, where they have been tortured and abused.

Despite this, the EU is pushing for close cooperation with Libya to prevent refugees from travelling to Europe. “Now the task before us is to agree such a cooperation with Libya,” said German Chancellor Angela Merkel in March, following the conclusion of the deportation agreement with Turkey.

The European Union has no qualms about working together with despotic regimes in Africa. The Eritrean government, which tramples human rights underfoot, received €200 million from the EU to detain refugees. Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, who has been charged by the International Criminal Court in The Hague with genocide and crimes against humanity, has received technical equipment for border surveillance from the EU.

In addition, the EU is supporting the construction of refugee camps in Sudan. The regimes in Egypt and Morocco are also being provided by European arms concerns with border surveillance and military equipment. The goal of the EU’s policy is to prevent refugees from reaching the Mediterranean coastline at any price and to detain refugees in far off camps in Africa and Asia.

More than 14 million refugees are already confined to camps in Jordan, Turkey, Pakistan, Kenya, Tanzania, Ethiopia and Lebanon. They are victims twice over of the criminal policies of the imperialist powers. The top ten list of countries with the highest number of refugees is practically identical with a list of the countries that have been the victim of a military intervention, proxy war or orchestrated regime change operation which have been initiated over the last twenty years by the US and its European allies.

The list includes Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Central African Republic and Iraq. More than 60 million people around the world are refugees, and half of these are under 18.

In Africa, an additional factor driving hundreds of thousands to flee is the brutal neocolonial policy of the EU, which ruthlessly exploits the continent’s natural resources and completely destroys the standard of living of the populations by structural adjustment programmes and dictated trade regulations. These people place all their hopes in finding work in Europe.

But Europe hermetically seals itself off from the wave of refugees it has itself produced, and allows them to drown miserably in the Mediterranean, vegetate in huge refugee camps under outrageous conditions, and be shot on the Turkish-Syrian border, where the Turkish government has allegedly established automatic firing posts. As the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitungreported, “intelligent” surveillance towers are involved, with heat-sensing cameras and machine guns, in the regions of Hatay, Gaziantep, Sanliurfa and Marden.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur More Than 2,500 Refugees Drowned in Mediterranean So Far This Year

Wall Street Behind Brazil Coup d’Etat

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, June 01 2016

(Image) Wall Street Mastermind Henrique de Campos Meirelles, Interim Minister of Finance Control over monetary policy and macro-economic reform was the ultimate objective of the Coup d’Etat. The key appointments from Wall Street’s standpoint are the Central Bank, which dominates…


Barack Obama’s Meager Legacy: Incomplete Accomplishments and Provoked Wars: What Happened?

By Prof Rodrigue Tremblay, June 01 2016

“The evil that men do lives after them.” — William Shakespeare (1564-1616), ‘Julius Caesar’ The Constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war and most prone to…


An Ex-CIA Agent Blows the Whistle on Torture and Secret Prisons

By Edu Montesanti, June 02 2016

A former CIA agent, John Kiriakou spent two years in prison for blowing the whistle about the Intelligence Agency torture program against prisoners, “obsessed with the idea that al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden would launch another attack against the United…


Dreams of Control: Israel, Global Censorship, and the Internet

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, June 02 2016

“Under the cover of darkness, there is no limit to the expansion of Big Brother.” Ilan Gilon, Meretz Party (Israel), Times of Israel, Feb 4, 2016 While Israel’s central justification for its often reactionary policies is couched in hyper-exceptionalist rhetoric,…

National Urban League

“State of Black America”: National Urban League Report Says African Americans Remain ‘Locked Out’

By Abayomi Azikiwe, June 02 2016

In its annual report on the “State of Black America”, one of the oldest research organizations in the African American community documents the continuing levels of national oppression and economic exploitation. This report for 2016 represents the fortieth anniversary of…


Provoking Moscow: NATO Needs Enemies to Justify Its Existence

By Stephen Lendman, June 02 2016

NATO was always more about offense than defense, about America controlling the policies of Alliance members, increasing their numbers, pressuring them to stress militarism more than they’d chose otherwise – and selling them lots of US weapons. When founded in…

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Selected Articles: Obama’s Meager Legacy, Wall Street Behind Brazil Coup d’Etat

On Friday 3 June, African citizens, organisations and unions will disrupt the shareholder meeting of the Bolloré group at its headquarters in Puteaux, just outside of Paris, France. The protestors represent a movement composed of thousands of farmers who have been displaced from their lands by industrial oil palm and rubber plantations. Since Wednesday, this movement has also been occupying factories and plantations in Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Liberia and Sierra Leone.

The representatives of the African diaspora—who will gather on 3 June at 9:00am at Bolloré Tower, 21-32 quai de Dion Bouton in Puteaux—come bearing the following message: « Since we no longer have access to our lands, we will prevent you from accessing your meeting”. The protestors have organised a sit-in and a non-violent blockade to stop the shareholders’ meeting from taking place. They also demand that Vincent Bolloré explain why the company Socfin (of which Bolloré owns a 38.7% share) has failed to comply with 2013 and 2014 commitments intended to resolve conflicts between local communities and Socfin plantations. Bolloré, who is also the head of the Paris-based media company Vivendi, will face a broad coalition including African organisations, NGOs, the French farmers’ union Confédération Paysanne and the activist group Attac. Parallel to this action in France, affected communities will carry out demonstrations and blockades at the facilities of Socfin subsidiaries in West Africa: Socapalm in Cameroon, SOGB in Côte d’Ivoire, LAC in Liberia and SAC in Sierra Leone.

Since 2008, these plantations have been continuously expanding. Socfin’s plantations in African countries (RDC, Liberia, Côte d’Ivoire, Sierra Leone and Nigeria) have increased from 87,303 ha in 2011 to 108,465 ha in 2014—a 24% increase that has occurred largely at the expense of local communities. In light of the response of local Socfin managers—who routinely refuse to acknowledge their associations, preferring to deal only with public authorities—affected communities founded the “International alliance of local communities of the Socfin Bolloré plantations” (Alliance internationale des communautés riveraines des plantations Socfin Bolloré) with support from the French NGO ReAct. The Alliance demands that Bolloré push Socfin to engage in a dialogue to return land to local communities and respect their right to compensation, healthcare, water and electricity.

Vincent Bolloré opened the door to dialogue, but then abruptly closed it. He justifies his actions by virtue of his « status as a minority shareholder, not manager ». In a letter to the Alliance dated 4 April, he explains that Socfin “is a responsible company”; that he has “full confidence” in its leaders; and that « there has been increasing dialogue since 2015 (…) and many concrete actions for the benefit of local people”. However, local communities respond: “your stated confidence in the company is based solely on your own claims. You cannot reap profits from Socfin and deny your responsibility for the suffering experienced by thousands of people affected by Socfin’s industrial plantations”. Indeed, large banners on display at the Bolloré tower on Friday will read: “Bolloré and Socfin: profit without responsibility?”

Emmanuel Elong, leader of the Union of Local Farmers in Cameroon (Synaparcam), stated:

“Vincent Bolloré embodies predatory and irresponsible capitalism. He has no respect for the promises he has made; he makes widespread investments and then denies his responsibility to the people affected by those investments. Furthermore, we fear that his recent takeover of Canal+ and other French media will stifle voices like ours, which challenge his practices.”

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Corporate Oil Palm Plantations in Africa and the Destruction of Local Farming Communities

NATO was always more about offense than defense, about America controlling the policies of Alliance members, increasing their numbers, pressuring them to stress militarism more than they’d chose otherwise – and selling them lots of US weapons.

When founded in April 1949, Soviet Russia was a North Atlantic Alliance enemy in name only, ravaged by WW II – needing years after Stalin’s April 1953 death to regain pre-war normality, peace essential to restore it.

Washington controls NATO, covering 75% of its budget, calling the shots, installing subservient Alliance officials to serve its agenda.

At a time when no US enemies exist, they’re invented to justify NATO’s existence – including Milosevic, bin Laden and the Taliban, Saddam, Gaddafi, Assad, Yemeni Houthis, Al-Shabaab in Somalia, and independent democratic leaders everywhere America doesn’t control.

Cold War II is much more intense than its earlier version, Putin bashed and denigrated shamelessly for not bowing to Washington’s will, for wanting multi-world polarity according to international rule of law principles.

Russia’s envoy to NATO, Alexandr Grushkko, understands how US-dominated NATO operates, its aims and ways whereby it justifies its existence.

It pressured Europe to treat peaceful, good neighbor Russia as a major adversarial threat – at a time it seeks mutual cooperation among all nations, a world at peace, and nuclear disarmament, polar opposite to America’s agenda.

Russian diplomacy can’t change US-led NATO’s rage for war, waging endless ones, spurning peace and stability, promoting American interests belligerently “from Greenland to the Caspian Sea, and from the Arctic Ocean to the Levant,” said Grushko.

“The question is where is the US and where is the Caspian Sea,” each distant from the other, Moscow not about to let it become a US-dominated NATO lake – while concentrating its own military strength within its borders, polar opposite America’s empire of bases.

Provoking Moscow with US-led NATO combat troops and warships near its borders, so-called missile defense systems entirely for offense, hyping nonexistent “Russian aggression,” denigrating its legitimacy, and falsely calling it America’s greatest threat risks East/West confrontation with super-weapons able to end life on earth.

Speaking in Warsaw on Tuesday, US-installed NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg hyped “the importance of collective security (and) NATO’s (so-called) essential role in continuing to keep the peace” while claiming a nonexistent “more assertive Russia intimidat(es) its neighbors and chang(es) borders by force.”

Truth is polar opposite his willful Big Lies, bashing Putin, claiming he threatens continental security, ignoring his preeminent peacemaker role.

Instead of Europe seeking peaceful, cooperative relations with its important Russian neighbor, it lets Washington bully it into being an imperial tool – harming its welfare and security in the process.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected] His new book as editor and contributor is titled « Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III. » Visit his blog site at Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Provoking Moscow: NATO Needs Enemies to Justify Its Existence

Look at our cities – the concrete, the unbeautiful buildings where people live separated from each other; the constant rumble of traffic, the noise, the dirt and the polluted, heavy air. Look at the rich men making yet more money that they don’t need while the poor sleep on the streets, the homeless who have no vote, no say in what happens to their country, their land.

But we have other cities, places where the land is soft under our feet, or hard with rock and root. It may be quieter but the traffic is just as busy.  Leaf litter is a maze of active highways; fox and deer step carefully between the trees while the branches deal with air traffic. And underground are other creatures, and nature’s internet, a web of roots and fungal filaments, an information highway hidden from view.

Each wood is a city of a million souls, each tree and hedgerow a vibrant town, each grassy bank a village – busy communities all. Think of scrub and grasslands as nature’s urban sprawl. For wherever you look and everywhere you tread, there are nonhuman lives going about their business, nature’s work of keeping the earth healthy, balanced and sustainable. We do not trouble to listen to them, no matter how loud they shout. Indeed, most people do not believe they have a voice.

Yes, we think these communities are lovely, balm for the spirit, and we sometimes fight for their protection. That is why, for those who care, we value the influence of the EU and want to hold on to its environmental protections.  But still, only humans have the ‘power of speech’. All else is dumb.

Once, millennia ago, this land was one big city, stretching from sea to sea.  Its tiny remnants of ancient woodland are felled, bulldozed flat for development. Its people can’t ‘relocate’, no matter what the planners think. They die, along with their ancient homes, voices lost forever.

All that life, those hidden citizens, make this land what it is. Without them we could not exist.

Before the Ice Age the British Isles were part of the European land mass.  The ice melted and the seas rose and turned us into islands. Over the centuries wave after wave of human migrants from Europe became the dis-United Kingdom of today, fighting over whether we should ‘Remain’ or ‘Brexit’. Welsh, Scots, Irish or English, all our history makes us European.  Europe is where we belong.

This part of Europe has for centuries welcomed other migrants, new citizens from around the world that are part of our nation.  We are used to a multi-cultural, multi-racial society. That also is who we are.  And look around you. There’s not a garden in the land that doesn’t have its migrants, its ‘foreigners’ that we have taken in and planted to make our human lives more beautiful.

Britain’s other citizens, nature’s ignored majority, also know about migrants and migration. As man-made climate change kicks in, their relatives in Europe (that we insist on seeing as apart from us) flee to colder climes. Fish swim, birds and insects fly, seed and pollen float on the wind, and mammals and reptiles hitch lifts on our endless trade.

The woods across the land cry out for a vote. My friends the badgers would surely vote to stay in Europe because that is where they live. They do not understand nations, just the soil in which they tunnel to make their home, the soil on which all we humans depend. Nothing can live well in isolation; there is no power in cutting our ties, no matter what some believe.

The woods, the badgers and all the other citizens of hidden Britain have no vote.  That is why we have to vote for them.

Lesley Docksey is a freelance writer who writes for The Ecologist and other media on the badger cull and other environmental topics, and on political issues for UK and international websites.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Representation Denied – Britain’s Hidden Citizens

Opération Barbarossa 2 : Le gambit de la Baltique

juin 2nd, 2016 by Christopher Black

Vendredi 26 février, un jour avant que la trêve limitée en Syrie ne prenne effet, le Conseil de l’Atlantique, l’éminent think tank de l’OTAN, a publié un rapport sur l’état de préparation de l’OTAN pour combattre et gagner une guerre contre la Russie. Le rapport se concentre sur les États baltes.

Le rapport, intitulé Alliance en péril, indique en sous-titre Renforcer la défense européenne à l’ère des turbulences et de la concurrence. Les couches de distorsions, les demi-vérités, les mensonges et les fantasmes obscurcissent bien sûr le fait que ce sont les pays de l’OTAN qui ont causé des turbulences, du Moyen-Orient à l’Ukraine. L’OTAN n’est responsable de rien dans ce rapport, à part de protéger la paix. La Russie est l’État agresseur suprême, avec l’intention de porter atteinte à la sécurité de l’Europe, et même l’intention de l’attaquer, une «menace existentielle» que l’OTAN doit se préparer à repousser.

Une image intéressante, qui apparaît juste en dessous de la page de titre, est le logo du groupe Airbus, en lettres aussi grandes que le titre, et une déclaration que la publication est un produit du Centre Brent Scowcroft sur la sécurité internationale, en partenariat avec Airbus. Puis vous avez le logo de la grande entreprise, entrelacé avec la machine militaire américaine. Dépeignant ainsi une des principales caractéristiques du fascisme à l’Ouest : l’interdépendance et le partage du pouvoir du complexe militaire et des corporations occidentales.

Le Centre Scowcroft est nommé ainsi d’après le nom du général Brent Scowcroft de l’armée américaine, qui, entre autres, a été conseiller national à la sécurité pour les présidents Ford et Bush, et dernièrement conseiller du président Obama, et est un vieil associé de Henry Kissinger. Le Général Scowcroft est intéressant pour une autre raison. Le 11 septembre 2001, Scowcroft était à bord d’un avion de l’US Air Force E-4B, connu sous le nom de National Airborne Operations Command Center.

Le E-4B est une version militarisée du Boeing 747. Son but est de fournir au président américain, au vice-président et aux chefs d’état-major un centre de commandement aéroporté, qui pourrait être utilisé pour exécuter des plans de guerre et coordonner les activités du gouvernement au cours d’une urgence nationale.

L’avion était posé sur le tarmac de la base d’Andrews de l’US Air Force, à la lisière de Washington, attendant de décoller pour Offutt, une base aérienne dans le Nebraska, le siège de la Strategic Air Command, lorsque le premier avion a frappé le World Trade Center à New York.

Censément, l’E-4B devait prendre part à un exercice militaire déjà prévu appelé Global Guardian impliquant une guerre nucléaire simulée. Quelques minutes seulement après le décollage, cependant, le Pentagone a été frappé par un certain type d’engin aérien et l’E-4B a immédiatement été retiré du prétendu exercice, devenant alors le centre de commandement et de contrôle du gouvernement américain actuel. Il a ensuite continué vers Offutt Air Base dans le Nebraska, où il a livré Scowcroft et son personnel au Centre de commandement national, leur destination d’origine, et où il a été rejoint plus tard ce jour-là par le président Bush et son personnel.

Scowcroft était alors chef du Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board et conseiller et ami du président Bush. Il ne faisait pas partie des forces armées, ayant pris sa retraite. C’était un civil. C’est Scowcroft qui plus tard a déconseillé aux États-Unis d’attaquer seuls l’Irak et qui a appelé à la construction d’une coalition pour envahir la place, afin de donner une couverture aux États-Unis, ce qui a finalement transpiré. Ni sa présence à bord de l’E-4B ce jour-là, ni pourquoi cet avion était prêt à être mis en action juste avant l’attaque du World Trade Center pour un exercice militaire présumé [Encore un ? Décidément… Ndt] impliquant une éventuelle guerre nucléaire, n’a jamais été expliqué de manière adéquate.

Je digresse, mais je suis sûr que vous ne pouvez pas me blâmer, car mon argumentaire ci-dessous va développer l’idée selon laquelle l’OTAN mettra en scène une série d’actions dans les pays baltes en utilisant des méthodes de guerre hybride, ou simplement en fabriquant des images qui seront utilisées pour créer un nouveau mythe destiné à justifier la guerre, le mythe que la Russie tente de s’emparer de la région baltique.

Le rapport vise essentiellement à fournir de la propagande aux gouvernements européens concernés, la Grande-Bretagne, la France, l’Allemagne, l’Italie, la Pologne et la Norvège, propagande dont ils peuvent abreuver les gens par le canal des médias – qu’ils contrôlent pour la plupart – pour justifier l’augmentation des dépenses militaire et des forces militaires pour faire face à une menace de la Russie.

Il déclare à la page 6 que

L’invasion russe de Crimée, son soutien aux séparatistes et son invasion de l’est de l’Ukraine, ont effectivement déchiré le règlement post-guerre froide de l’Europe. Le président Vladimir Poutine a brisé toutes les conceptions d’un partenariat stratégique avec l’OTAN; à la place, la Russie est maintenant un adversaire stratégique de facto. Plus dangereusement encore, la menace est potentiellement existentielle, parce que Poutine a construit une dynamique internationale qui pourrait mettre la Russie sur une trajectoire de collision avec l’OTAN. Au centre de cette collision, il y aurait les populations russophones importantes dans les États baltes, dont les intérêts sont utilisés par le Kremlin pour justifier des actions agressives de la Russie dans la région. Aux termes de l’article 5 du Traité de Washington de l’OTAN, tout mouvement militaire de Poutine sur les États baltes déclencherait la guerre, potentiellement à l’échelle nucléaire, parce que les Russes intègrent des armes nucléaires dans tous les aspects de leur pensée militaire.

Cela conforte les avertissements lancés toute l’année dernière, d’un mouvement par l’OTAN dans les pays baltes, qui serait justifié par les opérations de guerre hybrides sous faux drapeau menées par l’OTAN, comme je l’ai dit à plusieurs reprises dans d’autres articles. C’est souligné par la recommandation figurant dans le rapport que «pour dissuader tout empiétement russe dans les pays baltes, l’OTAN devrait établir une présence permanente dans la région […] afin d’empêcher un coup d’État russe […]»

Tout au long du rapport, l’ennemi imaginaire est la Russie. Chaque segment écrit par un expert en analyse militaire de chacun des pays concernés dans le rapport, contient la propagande standard sur la Russie, et sur le fait que l’Europe est vulnérable et sur le point de tomber aux mains des hordes russes.

Le niveau d’intelligence qu’ils attendent du public doit être très faible, s’ils pensent vraiment qu’un document aussi fantaisiste pourrait être pris au sérieux comme une description de la réalité ou que leurs intentions pourraient ne pas être comprises pour ce qu’elles sont, c’est-à-dire criminelles. Toute personne intelligente recevant un tel document le jetterait automatiquement à la poubelle. Dans ce cas, il faudrait immédiatement le récupérer pour y jeter un second coup d’œil, parce qu’ils nous disent ce qu’ils vont faire, ce qu’ils préparent. J’ai écrit dans mon dernier article que l’augmentation de l’accumulation de forces de l’OTAN, en Europe de l’Est en particulier, présente une certaine similitude avec celle des nazis lors de l’invasion de la Russie en 1941, l’opération Barbarossa. Cela en fait donc une opération Barbarossa 2.

Ce nouveau rapport ajoute du crédit à l’attente d’actions dangereuses dans les États baltes pour lesquelles la Russie sera blâmée. Ce n’est sans doute pas une coïncidence si le rapport a été publié au moment où le cessez-le-feu syrien devait entrer en vigueur. Les États-Unis, clairement bernés, mis hors jeu et hors combat par les Syriens, les Russes, les Iraniens et leurs alliés en Syrie, ont été forcés d’adhérer à un cessez-le-feu russe proposé récemment. Mais déjà, les Américains ont parlé de leur Plan B, le découpage de la Syrie, leur intention depuis le début. Nous pouvons nous attendre à ce qu’ils fassent tout leur possible pour le miner, s’engager dans une stratégie de lutte et de palabre, en gardant la Russie occupée en Syrie, avec une tension constante dans le Donbass, harcelant ses alliés que sont la Chine et l’Iran. Et maintenant nous pouvons nous attendre à ce qu’un nouveau front puisse être ouvert dans les États baltes. Quel gambitl’Otan va-t-elle utiliser pour créer ce front et une confrontation directe avec la Russie ?  Qui peut le dire? Mais il y en aura un – le gambit de la Baltique.

Bien sûr, il va sans dire, mais je vais le dire encore une fois, que tout cela est illégal en vertu du droit international, en vertu de la Charte des Nations Unies, qui prescrit les seuls moyens acceptables de régler les différends internationaux. Selon le Statut de Rome, le document pourrait être utilisé comme preuve contre les personnes qui l’ont écrit et fonder un procès sur la base d’une accusation de complot en vue de commettre des crimes de guerre. Mais je doute que le procureur de la Cour pénale internationale demandera à en lire une copie pour rédiger un acte d’accusation. Le procureur de la Cour ne fera absolument rien du tout pour que le rapport arrive sur son bureau, surtout si cela implique des pays sur lesquels elle a des compétences.

L’aspect inquiétant du document au final est qu’il appelle à la modernisation nucléaire. Ce qui signifie un réarmement et l’augmentation de la construction d’armes nucléaires et de systèmes de lanceurs, un appel pour plus d’armes nucléaires en provenance des mêmes pays qui pendant des mois ont attaqué la Corée du Nord pour avoir ce même genre d’armes. Vous devez le leur accorder : ils ont beaucoup de nerf. Le problème est qu’ils en ont trop et il semble vraiment qu’ils soient fous.

Alors, que peut faire la Russie? Eh bien, les Russes ont démontré le bluff américain en Syrie, alors pourquoi ne pas le faire à nouveau? Ce monde ne peut pas avoir la paix, sauf si la paix est la seule façon dont les choses peuvent être faites. La seule façon pour cela, est d’éliminer les armes nucléaires de sorte qu’aucune nation ne puisse plus menacer l’existence d’aucune autre. La section française du rapport signale avec joie que les groupes de désarmement nucléaire en France ne se donnent même plus la peine de mentionner la question. Aussi, seules de très faibles résistances peuvent être attendues ce trimestre. Cela vaut pour le monde entier. Mais si la Russie devait jeter le gant et appeler au désarmement mutuel, un rejet par les Américains soulignerait pour le moins l’importance pour l’humanité du désarmement nucléaire et ferait clairement savoir au monde qui est l’État agresseur. Sinon, ce sera le gambit des Balkans et tout ce qui va suivre.

Christopher Black

Article original en anglais : Operation Barbarossa 2: The Baltic Gambit, The New Eastern Outlook, 29 février 2016.

Traduit par Hervé, relu par nadine pour le Saker Francophone

Christopher Black est un avocat pénal international basé à Toronto, il est membre du Barreau du Haut-Canada et il est connu pour un certain nombre de cas très médiatisés, impliquant des droits humains et des crimes de guerre, en particulier pour le magazine en ligne New Eastern Outlook.


  • Posted in Francais @fr
  • Commentaires fermés sur Opération Barbarossa 2 : Le gambit de la Baltique

CIA: The Corrupt and Ignorant Agency

juin 2nd, 2016 by Wayne Madsen

The American taxpayers have been fleeced for almost seventy years by a so-called «intelligence» agency that has systematically violated the US Constitution, broken practically every federal law on the books, and penetrated virtually every facet of American life. The Central Intelligence Agency’s creation was bemoaned by its creator, President Harry S Truman, who, in a fit of personal angst following the 1963 assassination of President John F Kennedy, wrote in a newspaper column,

« I never had any thought that when I set up the CIA that it would be injected into peacetime cloak and dagger operations… I, therefore, would like to see the CIA be restored to its original assignment… and that its operational duties be terminated or properly used elsewhere ».

During a presidential election year, two of the three remaining major candidates – Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump – have given no indication that they will heed the words of President Truman. For example, Trump has indicated he will give the CIA authority to torture that even the CIA considers illegal.

As for Mrs Clinton, her zeal in supporting the violent overthrow and assassination of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in 2011 only gives added impetus to the out-of-control players inside the CIA to commit similar actions in a Clinton administration. Only Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders appears to channel the beliefs of Truman when it comes to reining in the CIA.

It is not known whether Trump, who has made favorable noises to interventionist neo-conservatives within the Republican Party, will stand by his comments that the war in Libya was a mistake. But Trump was one of the cheerleaders urging US intervention in 2011. He said,

« Gaddafi in Libya is killing thousands of people, nobody knows how bad it is, and we’re sitting around. We have soldiers all over the Middle East and not bringing them to stop this horrible carnage… We don’t want to get involved and you’re going to end up with something like you’ve never seen before ».

Trump, Mrs Clinton, and Obama were wrong about Libya and Gaddafi on all counts. Gaddafi was not killing « thousands of people ». That was being done by the jihadist rebels supported by the CIA. The late US ambassador/weapons smuggler in Libya, Christopher Stevens, who was ironically killed by the very same jihadists with whom he was brokering deals to ship Libyan weapons to Syria, ensured that the latest NATO weaponry ended up in radical Islamist hands in Libya. It was these weapons that killed « thousands of people » – Libyan and African guest workers and their families – in a country wracked by a civil war manufactured by Mrs Clinton and CIA director General David Petraeus.

The CIA, in particular, had for decades, fantasized about overthrowing Gaddafi. Never did this most incompetent of US government agencies contemplate the effects of Gaddafi’s ouster: the spread of Saudi-financed jihadist terrorism across the Sahel region of Africa. The CIA’s fanciful notions that Gaddafi’s days were numbered were highlighted in a formerly Secret CIA report titled, « Libya: Will the Revolution Outlast Gaddafi? » Issued in June 1988, the report was obviously intended to bolster those within the Reagan administration who argued for a US military attack on Libya by taking advantage of what the CIA perceived was a weakened Gaddafi government at the end of the 1980s. The CIA, as usual, was extremely off-base in its assessment of Gaddafi’s staying power.

The CIA report states: « Gaddafi’s revolution has largely run its course, and he must rely on coercion to perpetuate his revolutionary vision ». In fact, Libyans had the highest standard of living on the African continent with oil revenues being shared with the entire population. The CIA’s erroneous assessment of Libya in 1988 continued: « Just as Libya in 1969 was ripe for a change to a more nationalistic and activist regime, we believe it now ripe for a return to normality ». The call for « regime change » by the CIA in 1988 was, in fact, a call for the return to the status quo ante of 1968: a Libya governed by a corrupt oligarchy led by a feeble monarch. Today, a motley crew of United Nations-selected Libyan gangsters governs the country as a « paper tiger » entity called the « Government of National Accord ». Meanwhile, jihadists of Ansar al-Sharia govern Benghazi while the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) governs Sirte, Derna, and a swath of territory southeast of Tripoli, the Libyan capital.

Just as the destruction of Saddam Hussein’s Ba’ath Party and military infrastructures in Iraq following the US invasion and occupation led to the complete collapse of the Iraqi nation-state, the destruction of the four key institutions that united Libya under Gaddafi led to « failed state » status for the country. The CIA cited these key institutions in its 1988 report but no effort was made to preserve them after Gaddafi’s assassination by CIA-supported forces.

The four key institutions in Libya were, according to the CIA, the tribally-based security battalions, the regular Armed Forces, the Military Intelligence service, and the revolutionary committees. These institutions were wiped out in order that the CIA’s wish in 1988 could be realized: that Libya would return to the « normality » of 1968: government by a restored monarchy led by a pretender to the al-Senussi family’s throne once occupied by King Idris I. However, Libya became a polyglot of warring tribes and jihadists, many of the latter imported from conflict zones abroad.

Whether governed by a restored monarchy or a military-dominated successor regime, the CIA saw a post-Gaddafi government desiring « a more constructive relationship with the United States and the West ». The CIA added, « Libyan successors probably would turn first to Western Europe for better economic relations and some arms. They also would be likely to seek greater US participation in the Libyan economy ». However, after Gaddafi agreed to abandon his so-called « weapons of mass destruction » chemical and nuclear programs, the United States and Western Europe had a more constructive relationship with Libya and the country was wide open for Western economic investment. After Mrs Clinton, Petraeus, Obama, Britain’s David Cameron, and other Western leaders had their way with Libya, it is now a wasteland. The infrastructures of irrigation, road and air transport, social welfare, public education, health care, and employment for African guest workers lie in ruins. The clearly demented Mrs Clinton’s private e-mails show that she and her cabal of interventionists were clearly overjoyed by the misery that befell Libya and its people. When she was informed of Gaddafi’s brutal assassination, one that involved his sodomization, Clinton uttered the preamble to what may be called the « Hillary Doctrine » – « We came, we saw, he died! » She followed her declaration with her signature hideous cackling laughter.

The 1988 CIA report does not seem to care much for Gaddafi’s style of governance through some 2000 local « people’s congresses », described by the CIA as « a hybrid of a New England town meeting and a Bedouin tribal gathering ». This demonstration of the « people’s will » in the Libyan « Jamahiriya » was anathema to the CIA’s goals for Libya, even Libya’s emulation of New England-style direct democracy.

A system of direct democracy in an Arab Muslim nation defied the CIA’s wish for the region, which was and remains an alliance of pro-US theocratic states governed by corrupt elites that wield power through US-equipped armed forces. The CIA report on Libya admits that initially, Gaddafi’s system of direct democracy and the exercising of the people’s will « actually worked ». Only in the jaundiced view of the United States was such a system of government a threat, not only to US interests and goals, but to those of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Morocco, and other corrupt and theocratic US client states in the region.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur CIA: The Corrupt and Ignorant Agency

Last week, the Iraqi government began operations to “liberate” Fallujah from Islamic State (IS) fanatics, with Prime Minister Haidar al-Abadi announcing on Sunday that Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) will be entering the city in “two days”.

His grandiose claims aside, the eventual result of this operation is a foregone conclusion in military terms. IS cannot hold Fallujah as they do not have the manpower to effectively garrison the city, they lack the technological capability to mitigate the devastating impact of US airpower and they are completely surrounded and cut off from resupply by forces that number in the tens of thousands.

As such, those who just want to see IS lose can rest assured as that will happen sooner or later, even with the incompetence of the ISF and its allied Hashd al-Sha’abi (Popular Mobilisation Forces – PMF) sectarian Shia militias.

But the battle for Fallujah is about more than just defeating IS, and it cannot be seen as a liberation in the true sense of the word either. A quick look at recent history is instructive in understanding what has been going on for quite some time now with little to no international outcry, and what is likely to happen in Fallujah.

When the Iraqi government announced that it would retake Tikrit in 72 hours last year, it actually took them almost two months to take a town occupied by around 200 IS fighters, and enthusiastic time estimates were also given for the battles in Baiji, Ramadi and other towns.

What happened after “liberation”? ISF and PMF fighters presided over the sectarian slaughter of Sunni Arabs, and at one point were even filmed slicing up the burnt corpse of a Sunni man with a sword “like shawarma”.

Fallujah has not even been taken yet, and already the PMF are massacring civilians in field executions that are undoubtedly war crimes. After the town of Karma was taken, just north of Fallujah, the PMF executed 17 men and boys after accusing them of being IS militants.

Sunni tribal leaders fear dozens of others who were kidnapped by the PMF in Karma will soon face the same fate and called upon the international community and Iraq’s politicians to do something to stop these terrible crimes. Has anyone heard their pleas? Of course not, as Iraqi blood is even cheaper than that of Syrians or Palestinians.

Under siege

Fallujah has an almost legendary history amongst Iraq’s Sunni Arabs as it is seen as a city that stood fast against occupation and invasion since 2003. The city was first taken out of government control by a coalition of Iraqi revolutionary fighters in January 2014, including such groups such as the General Military Council for the Iraqi Revolution who were formed after the viciously sectarian former prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, ordered peaceful Sunni Arab protesters slaughtered throughout 2013. Fallujah was not, as the media portrays today, held by IS alone until around the time US forces were drawn into the conflict in the summer of 2014.

Since early 2014, Fallujah has been under a near total siege, with regular shelling of its medical facilities by the Iraqi government, yet another war crime as it is not a legitimate military target.

Prior to the recent effort to recapture the city, the siege has also resulted in Baghdad pursuing a policy of starving the people of Fallujah as another example of the government equating Sunni Arabs with IS. Horrifying images have surfaced on Iraqi social media recently, showing women and children starved and bombed to death by the government that is supposed to shield them from violence. To make matters worse, the UNHCR recently reported that IS are now executing males who are unwilling to fight for them.

In short, the people of Fallujah are being smashed between the hammer of the Iran-backed sectarian Shia militias and the anvil of brutal IS savages whose adherence to Islam I have already questioned elsewhere.

Sectarian cleansing

No one should be under any doubt about what will happen once Fallujah is “liberated”. Sectarian cleansing is a well-established programme in Iraq, under the aegis and encouragement of the radical mullahs of Iran. In fact, areas around Samarra are being actively cleansed of any Sunni Arabs in order to create a Sunni-free corridor that stretches from the Iranian border to what the Shia consider to be their holy shrines and sites in the predominantly Sunni city.

The entire world is silent as this goes on, and instead of standing up for the human rights and freedoms they constantly harp on about are turning a blind eye to the crimes against humanity going on in Sunni areas and the continuation of the Iraqi Holocaust that the West has an enormous role in instigating and perpetuating alongside the Iranians and even Iraq’s other neighbours, whether Turk or Arab.

As Fallujah is the last major city to be held by IS apart from Mosul itself, what happens there will be indicative of what will happen when the assault against IS in Mosul begins. As I wrote in my recent research published by RUSI, the Sunni Arabs have close to no faith in the Green Zone government in Baghdad and would fear a “liberation” of Mosul for understandable reasons, including PMF and government brutality against Sunnis stretching back for a decade and more.

An interesting idea that arose was that UN-sanctioned peacekeeping forces that included neighbouring Arab countries and Turkey would increase Mosul’s Sunnis’ confidence in any operation to dislodge IS, as it would mean that there would be observers and troops on the ground to protect them from sectarian excesses.

It is, however, unlikely that the international community will have the stomach for a boots-on-the-ground peacekeeping mission in Mosul. Although they have stated that they want to rid the world of IS’s violence, they seemingly do not care about what violence is inflicted upon the Sunni community, staying silent on Iraqi government and PMF war crimes and crimes against humanity as, it would seem, the ends justify the means.

However, removing IS will not destroy extremism, just as weakening al-Qaeda did nothing to reduce terrorism. In fact, terrorism flourished and evolved to the point that al-Qaeda are barely mentioned in the media these days as they seem almost normal when compared to the newly charted territory of extremism that IS has forged.

Fallujah will fall to the Iraqi government. Fallujah’s people will suffer untold misery, death, destruction and violence that will be heaped upon them by the government and its allied militias that are supposed to be protecting them. Fallujah will be a prelude to the recapture of Mosul, and if things continue as they are, IS will either return to asymmetric traditional terrorism that will be both regional and international in nature, or else the horrors inflicted upon the Sunni community will breed an even more terrifying group that will make IS pale in comparison.

Tallha Abdulrazaq is a researcher at the University of Exeter’s Strategy & Security Institute, and winner of the Al Jazeera Young Researcher Award. He blogs at and tweets from @thewarjournal

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur The Annihilation of Iraq’s Fallujah Is Not Only about Defeating ISIS

A former CIA agent, John Kiriakou spent two years in prison for blowing the whistle about the Intelligence Agency torture program against prisoners, « obsessed with the idea that al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden would launch another attack against the United States, » he says in this interview. 

Since then, Kiriakou has lost almost everything: federal pension, house, friends, some family members – but never his dignity and bravery.

« I remained silent from 2002 until 2007. I decided finally to blow the whistle in December 2007 after President George W. Bush twice lied to the American people. He said first that the United States did not torture anybody, » speaks out Kiriakou.

Co-author with Michael Ruby of the book The Reluctant Spy: My Secret Life in the CIA’s War on Terror, published in 2009, John Kiriakou was honored with the January 2016 Patriot Award by The Bill of Rights Defense Committee and Defending Dissent Foundation stating:

« The Committee acknowledged Kiriakou for his three statements that would change both US national discourse and his life forevever: The CIA tortured prisoners, torture was the official policy of the United States, and President George W. Bush approved and signed off on the use of torture. »

The Committee also declared that:

« Thanks to Kiriakou’s courageous decision to tell the truth about the U.S.’s use of torture, as well as his work on intelligence and prison reform, he has helped to build exactly the kind of movements that are necessary to make intelligence and law enforcement agencies respect civil liberties. For this he receives January 2016 Patriot Award. »

In 2015, PEN Center USA awarded Kiriakou the prestigious First Amendment Award. Enganged in stimulating and maintaining interest in the written word, fostering a vital literary culture, and defending freedom of expression domestically and internationally, PEN Center USA told John Kiriakou that they « are admirers of your bravery in the face of unspeakable adversity. »

« The cost has been high, but I would do it all over again », John Kiriakou states in the following lines, pointing out, too, what has changed during the Obama regime on torture techniques: absolutely nothing.

Edu Montesanti:

John Kiriakou, I’d like to thank you so very much for this interview. It is a great honor for me. When PEN Center USA awarded you the First Amendment Award in November 2015, they said they « are admirers of your bravery in the face of unspeakable adversity. » And that « Board and staff of PEN Center USA have followed your story with equal parts interest and shock. The stress of what you bore witness to during your time in the CIA, and the losses you’ve suffered as a result of your disclosures, is unfathomable.

You join a group of patriotic whistleblowers who have our deepest respect ad admiration. » Would you please, John, comment the unspeakable adversity and losses you’ve suffered?

JK: There is a very high price for blowing the whistle on waste, fraud, abuse, and illegality in the United States, especially when you are blowing the whistle against an intelligence agency. For me, the price was especially high.

I spent two years in prison, separated from my wife and five children. My legal bills were more than one million dollars. I lost my federal pension. I lost my house. My friends, former colleagues, and even some family members stopped speaking to me.

I still owe my lawyers $880,000. I can never work in government again. The government’s goal is not necessarily to protect the information that the whistleblowers is revealing. The goal is to ruin the whistleblower personally, professionally, socially, and financially.

The cost has been high, but I would do it all over again.

Why did friends and some family members stop speaking to you? Have they got any threat? Have you got any threat, John?

No, neither my friends nor I have been threatened. But I was friends with a lot of people in the CIA and the FBI.

Many people in those organizations hate me because I blew the whistle on torture and so they cut me off. I am too controversial, and they don’t want to look like they support what I did.

About the CIA tortures, why and how exactly were they achieved during your time at the Agency, and what role did you play in that?

I am proud to say that I never participated in the CIA’s torture program in any way. I never took any action that resulted in the death of any person.

The reason that the CIA began torturing prisoners is that the CIA’s leadership was obsessed with the idea that al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden would launch another attack against the United States.

Bin Laden said this attack would come, and the CIA’s leadership was ready to do anything to stop it. As a result, the CIA began a torture program to try to collect that information. They also created a system of secret prisons. And most prisoners eventually were sent to Guantanamo.

I am proud to have directed CIA counterterrorism operations in Pakistan after September 11. In that position, I led capture operations against dozens of al-Qaeda fighters who had escaped to Pakistan from Afghanistan.

How, John, could you be apart from torturing prisoners?

A senior CIA officer asked me if I wanted to be trained in the torture techniques. I said no. I said that I was against torture and that I didn’t want any part of it.

When did you decide to blow the whistle?

I remained silent from 2002 until 2007. I decided finally to blow the whistle in December 2007 after President George W. Bush twice lied to the American people. He said first that the United States did not torture anybody.

A few days later he told the press that if there was torture, it was the result of a rogue CIA officer. This also was a lie. I knew that the CIA was torturing its prisoners, that torture was official CIA policy, and that the President personally approved of the torture.

In what ways President Barack Obama differs from former President George W. Bush on torture techniques, if there is any difference between them?

Honestly, I don’t think there is any real difference between George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

On intelligence issues they are exactly the same.

Would you speak of your time in prison, and how is your life today, please?

Prison was very difficult, but mostly because the prison guards are uneducated, lazy, and cruel. I never had any problems with any prisoners. But I had a lot of problems with the guards, who did not like that I was very high-profile and that I continued to write a blog from prison. It made them very angry.

With that said, I made some real friends in prison, almost all of them from among the « Italians, » who were from New York’s five « families. » I sat with the Italians, I ate with them, I socialized with them. Everybody knew that I was with the Italians, and so nobody ever bothered or challenged me.

I got home from prison on February 3, 2015. The adjustment was a difficult one, especially because I had to find a job that allowed me to provide for my family.

That was harder than I had expected, and so I had to patch together a new life writing, speaking, and teaching. But things are good now. I have just started a new job and for the first time in many years I feel like I have a bright future.

The US Inteligence community has been first protecting people or government? What must improve and/or be changed?

Everybody I ever worked with in the CIA believed in their hearts that they were protecting the American people. Don’t forget how the September 11 attacks traumatized the country.

Bin Laden promised a bigger attack, and we thought it would come. There was never any discussion, ever, of protecting the « government » versus the « people. »

How do you see, John, CIA failures to prevent the 9/11 attacks?

September 11 was, of course, the worst intelligence failure in the history of the United States. The CIA will never be able to change that.

But at the same time, it has to work to protect the American people while respecting human rights, civil rights, and civil liberties. It is not doing that. Security and freedom are not mutually exclusive. We can have both.

But without real oversight by Congress, the CIA will continue to do whatever it wants all around the world.

What do you think of the 9/11 official story? And, John, do you think there is any possibility that the 9/11 attacks could have been an inside job?

I believe the official story of 9/11 because I lived it. I saw the evidence. The United States was attacked by Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. Period.

There is no possibility that it was an inside job. This is just uninformed conspiracy theories.

How do you see the killing of Osama bin Laden, as US government never showed his body? And how do you see such a killing in the legal viewpoint as US Navy SEALs invaded Pakistan without any previous authorization by the local goverment, and even more: Bin Laden, who never claimed participation in the 9/11 attacks, on the contrary, he denied since that very day any participation on them, he was never carried into a court?

I disagree with you on this question. Osama bin Laden DID take responsibility for 9/11 in an interview with Aljazeerah. He planned it for years along with Khalid Sheikh Muhammad. He gloated over the death toll. He promised a bigger attack.

I have no reason to not believe the official story of bin Laden’s death. Frankly, he deserved to die. I don’t care if we got to see the body or not.

And I have not lost any sleep over the Navy SEALs activities inside Pakistan. The Pakistanis either were hiding bin Laden or were too stupid to know he was there. We had a job to do to find bin Laden. The Pakistanis were not helping us to do it. So we did it ourselves. The Pakistanis have no choice but to accept that.

John, in this interview granted by Osama bin Laden to the Pakistani newspaper Ummat on September 28, in which the Saudi man denied any participation in the 9/11 attacks. To Al-Jazeera, he also granted an interview on September, 16, denying it: « I stress that I have not carried out this act, which appears to have been carried out by individuals with their own motivation. » So to what interview do you refer, and when was it granted for Al-Jazeera by Osama bin Laden claiming responsanbilitiy for the 9/11 attacks?

This is the article where bin Laden took responsibility for 9/11:

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur An Ex-CIA Agent Blows the Whistle on Torture and Secret Prisons

Bernie Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver said Wednesday that it would be difficult for Hillary Clinton to keep running for president if she were under criminal indictment.

Like his boss, who remarked to Clinton last fall that the country was sick of “your damn emails,” Weaver was hesitant to make the email issue central during his surprising appearance on the conservative morning show Fox & Friends.  However, Sanders said Sunday that unpledged superdelegates would be taking a look at Clinton’s email scandal as they decided who to support at the Democratic convention.

Weaver said Sanders’ position had not changed, however, pointing out the “substantive” differences between him and Clinton on the issues. Co-host Brian Kilmeade, however, pointed to the State Department Inspector General report out last week that slammed Clinton’s email conduct.

“I know, but this is new, Jeff,” Kilmeade said. “You’re in second place with those issues. This could be something that gets into character and integrity and how you act in office.”

“Well, I think that the IG report really speaks for itself,” Weaver said.

“Anybody who’s interested in it can certainly go read it and see what they want, but look, the process is still going on with respect to the emails. There’s an FBI investigation going on. I think the State Department proper, as opposed to the IG, is also doing its own investigation, so this process still has a little ways to play out.”

Co-host Ainsley Earhardt noted a Rasmussen poll out Tuesday that showed 43 percent of respondents thought Clinton should cease campaigning immediately if she was charged with a felony regarding her server. Fifty percent said she should keep campaigning until a verdict was reached.

“Well, that’s obviously a wild hypothetical,” Weaver said. “I would find it difficult to believe that a candidate who’s under indictment could continue to run.”

Weaver insisted he was speaking from a “practical standpoint.”

“There’s no indication that’s going to happen, frankly,” he said.

Sanders and Clinton are locked in a tight race in delegate-rich California. Clinton appears poised to clinch the nomination next week, but Sanders has vowed to fight all the way to the nomination, pointing to the tight race between the two in the pledged delegate count.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Sanders Campaign Manager: It Would Be Difficult for Clinton to Keep Running if Under Indictment

“Under the cover of darkness, there is no limit to the expansion of Big Brother.”

Ilan Gilon, Meretz Party (Israel), Times of Israel, Feb 4, 2016

While Israel’s central justification for its often reactionary policies is couched in hyper-exceptionalist rhetoric, current interest in censoring the Internet is far from exceptional.

Like a machine of justification against its critics and its enemies, Israel enlists various projects under the banner of the remarkable and precious, when it is simply accomplishing what other states have done before or since: the banal and ordinary. All states want to limit expression, control criticism and marginalise the sceptics. Some do it more savagely, and roughly, than others.

Israel’s military censor, Col. Ariella Ben Avraham, who is part of the IDF’s Directorate of Military Intelligence, gave a good example of this in February by insisting that social media activists and bloggers submit material relevant to security matters for approval prior to posting.[1] The move also revealed an increasing interest to police the digital realm, previously considered an anarchic jungle incapable of effective policing.

Up to 32 Israeli bloggers and social media activists were informed about the directive, one of the first being Yossi Gurvitz, a left-wing activist running the “Friends of George” Facebook page. In rather unceremonious fashion, he was informed via Ben Avraham’s private Facebook account that he was obligated to run future submissions by her office. To his credit, he promises to defy the order.

Internal censorship is but one aspect of this policy. Israel Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan has dipped into the discourse of censorship to convince others that limiting various social media platforms on a global scale is the way to go. In January, he revealed the inner ambition of Israel’s security establishment to internationalise the censorship effort.

To achieve that goal, Erdan speaks of an “international coalition” that would make limiting criticism of Israel its primary objective. The central aim is hardly imaginative: making such providers as YouTube, Twitter and Facebook face up to responsibility as to what they host on their sites.

The Erdan plan suggests that various countries would form a “loose coalition that would keep an eye on content and where it is being posted, and members of the coalition would work to demand that the platforms remove the content that was posted in any of their countries at the request of members.” The simple idea behind this collusion is extra-territorial cooperation, effectively circumventing the global nature of such platforms.

As for the scurrilous subject matter itself, the issues are universal fare for states keen to control matters that supposedly stimulate the darker side of human nature. (Read: contrary to state interests.) Erdan’s office gives the example of material from a Palestinian (of course) disclosing the best locations on the body to inflict fatal stab wounds.

This begs that grand question about how far such an effort goes: control the more sordidly violent sides of the Old Testament because it encourages various unsavoury practices? Limit suggestive literature being discussed in the whirl of social media, buzzing away with malicious promise? The mind is an untidy place filled with remarkable things, and not all of them necessarily make it to actual perpetration. This is a point that continues to elude the mighty warriors of the security state.

Another justification is being thrown in: they, the social media giants, rake in the proceeds, and should therefore man the barricades. “We are planning to put a stop to this irresponsibility,” claimed Erdan’s office, “and we are going to do it as part of an international coalition that has had enough of this behaviour as well.”

Other governments have also done their bit to limit the internet and content available to their citizens. Most famously, Beijing runs its own “Great Firewall of China”, overseen by the Ministry of Information Industry (MII), while the State Council Information Office and the Chinese Communist Party’s Propaganda Department examine content.

In recent times, countries of a supposedly democratic character have taken to the blinds and endeavoured to do what Erdan dreams about. Dangerous thoughts are seen as the reason for dangerous actions. To that end, the country that gave Europe the Enlightenment has been busy forging its own vision of global internet censorship, using a mixture of security and privacy concerns.

The latter has proven to have potentially pernicious consequences, framed largely as an effort to protect the privacy of the French citizen. From that vantage point, a vision of global control has been built on a premise forged in European law: the right to be forgotten. The Court of Justice of the European ruling of May 13, 2014 (Google Spain v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos, Mario Costeja González) has supplied the subject matter for the latest enlargement of censorship powers.

The French response has been intrusively enthusiastic, with the privacy regulator, CNIL, fining Google 100,000 Euros in March for not applying the right to be forgotten across the global network. In the chilling words of the regulator, “For people residing in France to effectively exercise their right to be delisted, it must be applied to the entire processing operation.”[2] Erdan may well be irritated he did not come up with that one.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: [email protected]



  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Dreams of Control: Israel, Global Censorship, and the Internet

En 1965, les États-Unis et le Royaume-Uni rivalisaient pour l’obtention d’un contrat de vente d’avions de guerre à l’Arabie Saoudite. Afin de conclure la lucrative entente, une «commission» devait être versée à des membres du gouvernement saoudien.

L’histoire de cette vente colossale est relatée dans un documentaire de la BBC datant de 1999 sur la montée du pouvoir économique et le déclin du pouvoir politique, The Mayfair Set. Four Stories about the Rise of Business and the Decline of Political Power. Le premier épisode s’intitule Qui paie gagne.

Sur des images de la reine d’Angleterre et du roi saoudien se serrant la main et défilant dans les rues de Londres pour célébrer l’accord historique, un narrateur explique : « Décembre 1965. Les Saoudiens annoncent qu’ils achèteront les avions britanniques. Les pots de vin avaient fonctionné. Il s’agissait du plus grand contrat d’exportation de l’histoire de la Grande-Bretagne et le roi Faizal était venu en visite officielle afin de célébrer. »

Lord Caldecote, dirigeant du fabricant d’avions militaires English Electric, expliquait ainsi cette corruption flagrante sans la nommer : payer une « commission » aux autorités saoudiennes afin d’obtenir un contrat fait partie des mœurs, tout comme le fait d’avoir plusieurs femmes. Autrement dit, pour lui il ne s’agissait pas de corruption, mais seulement de la façon saoudienne de faire des affaires.

Presque 50 ans plus tard, en 2014, le Canada, à l’instar de la Grande-Bretagne de l’époque, signait lui aussi avec l’Arabie saoudite le plus gros contrat d’exportation de son histoire : une vente d’armes totalisant près de 15 milliards de dollars. C’est une société de la Couronne, la Corporation commerciale canadienne, qui a négocié et signé l’entente. L’entreprise General Dynamics de London en Ontario fournira les blindés.

Connaissant les « mœurs » de l’Arabie saoudite, lesquelles ont peu évolué depuis les 50 dernières années, les Canadiens sont en droit de se demander si leur gouvernement a offert des pots-de-vin à la famille royale dans le but d’obtenir le contrat le plus important de son histoire.

En 1965, la vente d’avions de guerre britanniques en Arabie Saoudite a été conclue alors qu’une guerre faisait rage au Yémen, où l’Égypte de Nasser soutenait les républicains yéménites se battant contre les forces royalistes soutenues par l’Arabie Saoudite. Les avions britanniques ont joué un rôle déterminant dans cette guerre en repoussant les Égyptiens hors du Yémen, en réaffirmant le contrôle des Britanniques sur d’importantes routes commerciales et en protégeant l’influence saoudienne dans la région.

En 2014, alors que le Canada concluait la vente de véhicules blindés au royaume saoudien, une guerre éclatait au Yémen impliquant, une fois de plus, l’Arabie Saoudite.

Le 27 mars 2015, le ministre des Affaires étrangères Rob Nicholson exprimait le soutien du gouvernement canadien pour la guerre américano-saoudienne au Yémen: « Le Canada appuie l’action militaire de l’Arabie saoudite, du Conseil de coopération du Golfe [CCG] et de ses autres partenaires visant à défendre la frontière de l’Arabie Saoudite et à protéger le gouvernement reconnu du Yémen, à la demande du président yéménite. »

Dans cette histoire qui se répète, on peut sérieusement douter du dicton «autres temps, autres mœurs». Le documentaire de la BBC montre comment l’accord historique du Royaume-Uni de 1965 a marqué «le début du commerce moderne des armes avec le Moyen-Orient, lequel en est venu à dominer l’économie britannique». L’accord a également donné lieu à un commerce fleurissant dans d’autres secteurs économiques, tels que le secteur de la construction, en ouvrant un marché étranger pour les entrepreneurs britanniques.

Selon le Globe and Mail :

Le gouvernement conservateur de Stephen Harper a fait du «marché émergent» de l’Arabie Saoudite une priorité dans le cadre d’une politique étrangère axée sur les affaires et le commerce international. Selon des documents du gouvernement saoudien rendus publics l’an dernier par Wikileaks, Ottawa a entamé des démarches diplomatiques prudentes auprès de Ryad au cours des années ayant précédé le contrat de vente d’armes de 2014. Les Saoudiens ont en retour fait leurs propres investissements au Canada, comme des dons de centaines de milliers de dollars pour agrandir les écoles islamiques privées au pays.

Le gouvernement Harper a fait une intense campagne de lobbying pour la vente d’armes, négociée par la Corporation commerciale canadienne, une société de la Couronne. Le Canada a obtenu le contrat en battant les entreprises françaises et allemandes. Ed Fast, le ministre fédéral du Commerce international, a vanté l’affaire en février 2014, comme un triomphe pour la diplomatie économique du Canada. (The Saudi arms deal: What we’ve learned so far, and what could happen nextThe Globe and Mail, 24 mai 2016)

Initialement le gouvernement Trudeau a déclaré qu’il «n’approuvait pas» le contrat mais refusait tout simplement d’y mettre fin. En réalité, il a approuvé le reste des permis d’exportation. Cet accord a donc été cautionné à la fois par les gouvernements Harper et Trudeau.

Comment le Canada a-t-il battu les entreprises françaises et allemandes? Les conservateurs et les libéraux ont-ils offert et/ou assuré le paiement de pots-de-vin aux autorités saoudiennes dans le but d’obtenir cette vente historique, contribuant ainsi à maintenir l’influence du régime le plus répressif et misogyne du Moyen-Orient, lequel, en passant, est également responsable de la formation et du financement du terrorisme que le Canada prétend combattre sur son sol et à l’étranger?

Une enquête s’impose sur ce contrat de vente d’armement dont la plupart des modalités demeurent secrètes.

Julie Lévesque

  • Posted in Francais @fr
  • Commentaires fermés sur Le gouvernement canadien a-t-il versé des pots-de-vin à l’Arabie saoudite afin d’obtenir son contrat de vente d’armes?

A recent New York Times editorial that criticized China’s rightful territorial claims in South China Sea is misleading by misconstruing and ignoring facts and international norms, said Ben Reynolds, a U.S. foreign policy analyst.

The Times editorial, « Playing Chicken in the South China Sea, » accused China of escalating tensions between itself, its neighbors, and the United States.

The editorial has vastly overstated the importance of the South China Sea to an audience that is increasingly skeptical of overseas interventions, argued Reynolds in a column piece with China-US Focus, an open-platform website focusing on China-U.S. relations based in Hong Kong.

Overinflating the Sea’s Importance

The editorial misstated and overly exaggerated the fact of the South China Sea being rich in resources, wrote Reynolds, pointing out that the only resource currently being extracted from the region in significant quantities is fish.

Regarding other energy resources like oil and natural gas, the vast majority of their reserves lie outside disputed areas according to the U.S. Energy Information administration, wrote the columnist.

Reynolds acknowledged the argument that the South China Sea is of vital strategic importance because it contains major trade flows is partially correct, but he argued that no party to the territorial disputes believes or suggests that China’s claims pose a threat to peacetime trade.

Ignoring Facts

The Times editorial blamed China’s land reclamation and construction activities in the South China Sea as an « aggressive and outrageous tactic, » but it ignored the fact that U.S. allies and partners involved in the dispute have also expanded or constructed islands in the South China Sea in recent years, argued Reynolds.

Reynolds continued his rebuttal on the Times’ innuendo from bringing up China’s rising military budget, noting that the editorial deliberately omitted the fact that the 2015 U.S. military budget was 601 billion U.S. dollars, more than three times than that of China.

Reynolds pointed out that the Times editors offered little criticism on the United States’ own astronomical military budget and its deployments in the Asia-Pacific.

« I should not have to remind the reader, much less the editors of a major global newspaper, that the United States is not located in Asia, » wrote Reynolds.

Mouthpiece For U.S. Interventionist Foreign Policy

Reynolds proceeded to point out the hypocrisy of the editorial’s argument that China is attempting to dangerously revise the post-World War II international norms.

The argument ignored the fact that the post-war order in Asia was designed by the United States to hedge against the influence of the Soviet Union, wrote Reynolds. « It was not designed to promote freedom and democracy ».

« Again, we see that the object of the Times’ critique is not militarism, threatening behavior, or the revision of international norms as such…Rather, the Times is critiquing Chinese behavior because China is a geopolitical rival of the United States, » wrote Reynolds.

Misleading the American people about U.S.-China rivalry in the South China Sea with omissions and half-truths is the job of the Defense Department, not the press, said Reynolds.

The New York Times has been on the wrong side of history in almost every proposed foreign intervention since World War II, which in its history endorsed the Vietnam War, the 2003 Iraq War, and the bombing of Libya, according to the columnist.

« Let us hope that the New York Times is more thorough and careful with the facts in future pieces, lest it sell the American public on yet another disastrous foreign intervention. »

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur New York Times Editorial on South China Sea Misleading, Partial

The Russian Defense Ministry has rejected allegations that Russian warplanes conducted airstrikes on the city of Idlib. Defense Ministry spokesman Major General Igor Konashenkov said Tuesday that the Russian Aerospace Forces haven’t conducted sorties in the Idlib area. The Western media reports had argued Russian airstrikes targeted several Idlib sites, including one next to a hospital, killing from 23 to 60 people, and injuring 200 more. The initial information about Russia’s airstrikes has been released by the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, an NGO run by an individual residing in the UK.

Since the start of the ceasefire agreement in Syria, there has been a lack of the reports about the Russian air power’s actions by the Russian MoD. On May 31, the Russian MoD stated that Russian warplanes destroyed the terrorists’ objects of illegal oil producing near al-Taura, 42 km to the south-west from Raqqah while other sources said that airstrikes were also conducted in the Maskanah Plains, east to Aleppo, and in the area of Tall al-Harra in Western Daraa.

Following heavy clashes, the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and Hezbollah troops cleared from terrorists the Military Construction Base and at the southern outskirts of Beit Na’am in East Ghouta. The loyalist forces launched an advance to seize the towns of Beit Naim and al-Mohammadiya, entering the central part of the region.

Meanwhile, there are reports that the Syrian government is deploying 5000-strong force to Eastern Hama in order to conduct a military operation in the direction of Deir Ezzor and further Raqqa. Desert Hawks Brigade, Syrian Marines, Golani Regiment, 550th Regiment of the 4th Mechanized Division, and Al-Ba’ath Battalions will reportedly take part in the advance.

On May 31, the Pentagon confirmed that 2 U.S. military servicemen have been wounded during the so-called “non-combat operations” against ISIS in both Iraq and Syria. 1 US soldier was wounded advising Peshmerga units in Iraq’s Nineveh province while another was wounded in Northern Raqqa where the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces was conducting operation against ISIS. Despite the Washington’s denies there are reports that US Special Forces are spearheading the Kurdish advance 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: or via:

Subscribe our channel!:…

Visit us:



  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Syria: US Special Forces Involved in Combat on the Ground

Are More Primary Problems Looming in California?

juin 2nd, 2016 by Klaus Marre

Thousands of Independents May Not Get to Vote

Misleading voter information, a different set of rules for independents, a lawsuit and an ultra conservative third party could all play a role in California’s crucial Democratic primary — and lead to thousands of being deprived a chance to vote. With 10 days to go before Californians cast their ballot, WhoWhatWhy looks at potential problems.

That is good news for Bernie Sanders, who needs a massive victory in the Golden State to have any chance of matching the number of pledged delegates Hillary Clinton has won. The Vermont senator has fared much better in open primaries than closed ones, which only allow registered Democrats to vote.

However, while registered Democrats will likely experience a smooth voting process, independents will have to navigate some hurdles before they can cast their ballots.

California Election Documents

California Election Documents Photo credit: Adapted by WhoWhatWhy from California election documents collected by Bernie Sanders Video (

The state’s Democratic primary on June 7 is open, which means that registered Democrats and independents who register as “No Party Preference” (NPP) voters are eligible to vote.

The majority of Californians vote by mail, which is a simple process for registered Democrats, who receive ballots in the mail. NPP voters, the only other group eligible to vote in the Democratic primary, have a harder time. They must request a so-called “Democratic crossover ballot.” And the rules dictating how and when to request these ballots may not be clear to everybody.

The California Elections Code requires that printed applications for mail-in votes include information clearly telling voters that their completed application “must be received by the elections official not later than seven days prior to the date of the election…” In this case, the deadline would be Tuesday, May 31.

The law also mandates that the application must include “a conspicuously printed statement substantially similar to the following: ‘You have the legal right to mail or deliver this application directly to the local elections official of the county where you reside’.”

A lawsuit filed May 20 alleges that election officials failed to comply with the law because they sent out information that was misleading with regard to deadlines and the right of NPP voters to request a crossover ballot to participate in the Democratic primary. In addition, voters were not informed they could drop off their mail-in ballot in person.

“The polls have been open since May 9. Voters have the right to come to the polling place up to the final day of elections on June 7 and ask for the ballot of their choice,” said Bill Simpich, a civil rights attorney representing the plaintiffs. “We intend to make sure they know that this is their right.”

A pro-Sanders website has compiled images of elections materials that were sent to voters but did not comply with the California Elections Code. One of the forms, distributed by the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk, notifies voters that they have to request their crossover ballots by March 18, more than two months before the actual deadline. James Roguski, who runs that website, said he received that notification more than six weeks after the alleged deadline had already passed.

It stands to reason, and there is evidence, that a lot of NPP voters who initially read it were led to believe that they had missed their chance to vote in the Democratic primary. Mailers sent out in other counties said the deadline was on various days in mid-April.

LA County Election Document

LA County election notification
Photo credit: Bernie Sanders Video (

The defendants in the lawsuit are the Alameda County Registrar of Voters and the San Francisco Board of Elections, which had sent out mailers with deadlines in mid-April. Alameda County did not respond to WhoWhatWhy’s requests for comment while a San Francisco elections official referred us to the City Attorney’s Office because the inquiry involved an issue currently being litigated.

However, other election officials, whose offices were not named in the lawsuit but who had sent out information with incorrect deadlines, argued that these mailers were meant to help voters and the election agencies alike.

The Riverside County Registrar of Voters sent out a mailer to approximately 100,000 registered NPP voters indicating that the deadline to request a crossover ballot was April 22. Candice Gordon from the registrar’s office told WhoWhatWhy that this was a “soft deadline” meant to “avoid a bottleneck” at the end of the application period, which could have made it difficult to ensure every NPP voter received their crossover ballot in time.

Gordon stressed that the correct information was displayed at all times on the registrar’s official website. She noted that the phones in the office were “ringing off the hook” when the mailer was sent out and that voters who called were informed that they had until May 31 to request the crossover mail-in ballots.

In a follow-up email, Rebecca Spencer of the registrar’s office stated that the April 22 deadline was for voters who “wanted their crossover ballot mailed out with the first vote-by-mail ballots on May 9, 2016. If we received their crossover request later, the voter would receive their No Party Preference ballot first and then their crossover request would be treated as a replacement request.”

Spencer pointed out that all NPP voters also received an application to get a crossover ballot on the back of their sample ballot. This document, which was provided toWhoWhatWhy, includes the correct deadline.

Sonoma County officials gave a similar response.

“The cards mailed to permanent vote by mail voters were done to comply with EC section 3205,” Sonoma County Chief Deputy Registrar of Voters Elizabeth Acosta toldWhoWhatWhy. “The postcard notice both educates voters about no party preference rules in a presidential primary election, and provides them information about their options.”

Acosta pointed to the various logistics challenge as a reason for why the postcards are sent early and also noted that there is a difference between a notice and an application for a crossover ballot, which included the May 31 date for Sonoma County NPP voters.

Brenda Duran, a public information officer for the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk, also strongly rejected any claims of impropriety. Duran’s office had sent out the mailer with the March 18 deadline. She told WhoWhatWhy that this particular mailer was just one piece of a large voter education campaign meant to help spread out the applications for crossover ballots to ensure all of them would be processed in time.

Duran provided documents showing that the correct deadline had been included in subsequent documents mailed to voters, including the sample ballot for NPP voters. The registrar’s spokesperson noted that the information had also been disseminated in various ways, including the office’s website and on social media. In addition, Duran said Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk Dean Logan had done 30 print, radio and TV interviews in different languages to ensure that voters were aware of processes and deadlines.

In the counties WhoWhatWhy looked at, it seems that voters had eventually been provided with the correct information — if they read all of the mail they received from election officials closely and did not simply believe that the deadline of receiving a crossover ballot had already passed.

American Independent Party card

A membership card for the 1969 American Independent Party. Independent California voters may have been confused enough in their application process to have checked off the box for this ultra-conservative party. Photo credit: Unknown / Wikimedia

Another, likely much bigger, problem for Sanders — and independents wanting to vote in the Democratic primary — is the existence of the American Independent Party, an ultra-conservative party on whose ticket George Wallace once ran in California.

Voters who did not take the time to read their application thoroughly and checked “American Independent Party” because they thought that this would make them an “independent” will not be able to vote in the Democratic primary — and there are indications that this could affect tens of thousands of voters who will show up at the polls but not receive the ballot they want. The same fate may await anybody who wrote “Independent” on their registration forms.

It is interesting to note that the American Independent Party, in addition to individual voters and the Voting Rights Defense Project, a pro-Sanders group, is a plaintiff in the lawsuit referenced above. The suit seeks a judgment that state election officials violated the law by not providing the correct information. The suits asks that the correct information be made available in the two weeks leading up to the primary and that actions be taken to allow eligible NPP voters to cast their ballots in the Democratic primary even if they did not request a crossover ballot.

At press time, the Sanders campaign had not responded to inquiries as to what it had done to educate voters about the procedures once it became aware of these potential problems.

While it is too late for anybody not currently registered as Democrat or NPP to vote in the Democratic primary, those Californians who are registered as one or the other can still request their mail-in ballot until May 31. In addition, even people who applied to vote by mail have the fallback option of voting in person at any time until June 7 at their county registrar’s office or another satellite voting location. If they have already received a ballot in the mail, they should bring that along and “surrender” it. That process appears to be the safest way to ensure their vote is counted.

However, even if all Democratic and NPP voters take these steps, it appears likely that large numbers — primarily those who signed up for the American Independent Party — might show up at the polls on June 7 only to be turned away.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Are More Primary Problems Looming in California?

In its annual report on the “State of Black America”, one of the oldest research organizations in the African American community documents the continuing levels of national oppression and economic exploitation.

This report for 2016 represents the fortieth anniversary of the yearly study with the first issued in 1976. During this period the United States was impacted by a severe recession triggering long-term restructuring of the world economic system.

Released under the title: “Locked Out: Education, Jobs and Justice, A Message to the Next President”, the document provides more than enough evidence to suggest that the African American people remain an oppressed nation within the political and economic clutches of Washington and Wall Street. Despite the advent of the first African American president in the personage of Barack Hussein Obama, the fundamental problems facing this population of at least 45 million are still unresolved some 151 years since the abolition of chattel slavery and the conclusion of the Civil War.

The study utilizes what is called an “equality index”, looking at what percentage of the socio-economic matrix which African Americans have access. Using this method the NUL report says that overall African Americans do not have full equality but only 72 percent of what whites possess.

Although there are potential pitfalls in using such a framework due to the class divisions among African Americans as well as the need to take into account the systematic national discrimination imposed on this population through the denial of economic and social opportunities which could be realized absent of a racist and class dominated society. However, it does provide a form of measurement that acknowledges in real terms the disparity that remain throughout the decades.

Oppression and Exploitation Still Intact

What is striking about the National Urban League (NUL) findings in its current report is the degree to which the overall social conditions of African Americans have remained essentially unchanged. This stagnation has continued through successive Republican administrations, as in 1976, to a Democratic one in 2016.

This conclusion is not to discount or minimize gains that have been made over the four decades particularly in the area of educational achievement.   According to the report, “Eighty-six percent of African Americans are high school completers; the share with a bachelor’s degree or more has more than tripled (from 6.6% to 22.2%); and roughly one-third of 18-24 year-olds are enrolled in college.  While whites have increased college enrollment faster than Blacks between 1976 and 2014 (most recent data available), the college completion gap has narrowed 20 percentage points over this time (from 43% in 1976 to 63% in 2014).”

Nevertheless, in essential areas such as job acquisition and retention, unemployment rates among African Americans as in 1976 are twice as high as whites during a period in which the government and business says that there is a recovery. These figures are a reflection of the abolition of millions of jobs in heavy and light industry which has ramifications in the areas education, public services and consumer viability.

The NUL report says “despite notable absolute progress for Black America, there has been much less relative progress towards economic equality with whites, especially when compared to the progress made toward educational equality.  This is especially notable when it comes to unemployment.  With few exceptions, the Black unemployment rate has consistently remained about twice the white rate across time and at every level of education.  Compared to 40 years ago, the income gap has remained basically unchanged (now at 60%), and the homeownership rate gap has actually grown 6 percentage points (now at 59%).”

As mentioned in the above quote, another important area in assessing the quality of life among African Americans is the ownership of residential housing. This NUL report emphasizes that “The foreclosure crisis has left Black homeownership rates at approximately the same point they were in 1976, while the white homeownership rate is now 5 percentage points higher.  On the other hand, there has been slow, but ongoing progress in reducing poverty, in spite of the economic challenges presented by the Great Recession.  According to the most recent estimates, the Black poverty rate is now 2.4 percentage points lower than in 1976 (down to 27% from 29.4%).”

Taking these statistics related to poverty rates at their face value means that based upon the official low-income measurement indexes well over one-quarter of the African American population is impoverished. Aggravating this quantitative data related to poverty is the high levels of joblessness which could easily imperil the households of those who are designated as not being impoverished.

It is important to recognize that there are other forms of measurement in determining poverty and the subjective outlooks of households within modern U.S. society. In 2014, a survey was published indicating that in general nearly half of people in the U.S. were either in poverty or near this category.

This methodology known as the Census Department’s Relative Poverty Measure is often used in developed countries to designate poverty. The Economic Policy Institute uses the term « economically vulnerable. » With this standard, 18 percent of Americans are below the poverty threshold and 32 percent are below twice the threshold, putting them in the low-income category. (Paul Buchheit, Alternet, March 23, 2014)

The worst state in the U.S. for African American unemployment is Illinois with specific concentrations of poverty, inequality and joblessness being in the Chicago metropolitan area.

In a study conducted by the Economic Policy Institute, it notes that “During the first quarter of 2016, covering January through March, the unemployment rate among Black Illinoisans was 14.1 percent. That’s up from 13.1 percent during the fourth quarter of 2015, when Illinois also had the nation’s worst African-American unemployment rate, according to the liberal think tank’s report. Illinois also tied with Washington for having the highest Hispanic unemployment rate, 7.8 percent, during the first quarter of 2016.” (, May 20)

Impact of the Obama Administration and the Way Forward

This report provides much hard data which necessitates a critical look at the lack of progress made during two terms of the Obama administration. African Americans voted overwhelmingly for Obama in 2008 and 2012 securing his two terms in office.

Unemployment rates in the area in which he emerged politically from the state and federal senate, Illinois, exposes the futility of an electoral agenda absent of substantive demands based on the concrete conditions facing the working class and poor.

These statistics poses a challenge for mass organizations to continue to put forward a political program for real jobs, decent housing, quality education and economic parity. It would be safe to say that irrespective of who is elected to the White House and Congress for 2017, the oppression and exploitation will not wither away.

In an article published as part of the State of Black America report, Joy-Ann Reid, a national correspondent for MSNBC, predicts that “Whether the next president is a Democrat or Republican, Black leadership will likely be pressed as never before to deliver on the ‘hope floor’ laid by the election of the first Black president…In short, the Age of Hope is poised to give way to the Era of Radical Demands for Change.”

For this era of radical demands for change to be effective it must take on an anti-capitalist character. There is most of all a dramatic need for the redistribution of wealth from the ruling class to the working class and the nationally oppressed.  This transferal of wealth can only occur under a socialist system which would guarantee full employment, income equality, housing and education for everyone along with the total liberation of the African American people and all oppressed nations.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur « State of Black America »: National Urban League Report Says African Americans Remain ‘Locked Out’

Escalation Usa contro la Cina

juin 1st, 2016 by Manlio Dinucci

«La rivoluzione scientifica che ha portato alla scissione dell’atomo richiede anche una rivoluzione morale»: con questa storica frase (coniata dagli speech-writer presidenziali) è culminata la visita di Obama in Asia, dove da Hiroshima ha proclamato la volontà di «tracciare una via che conduca alla distruzione degli arsenali nucleari». Lo sconfessa la Federazione degli scienziati americani, dimostrando che l’amministrazione Obama ha ridotto meno delle precedenti il numero di testate nucleari.

Gli Usa hanno oggi 4500 testate strategiche, di cui 1750 pronte al lancio, più 180 «tattiche» pronte al lancio in Europa, più 2500 ritirate ma non smantellate. Comprese quelle francesi e britanniche, la Nato dispone di 5015 testate nucleari, di cui 2330 pronte al lancio. Più della Russia (4490, di cui 1790 pronte al lancio) e della Cina (300, nessuna pronta al lancio).

L’amministrazione Obama – documenta il New York Times (21 settembre 2014) – ha varato un piano da 1000 miliardi di dollari che prevede la costruzione di altri 400 missili balistici intercontinentali, 12 sotto-marini e 100 bombardieri strategici da attacco nucleare. Per la «modernizzazione» delle testate nucleari, comprese quelle schierate in Italia, è in fase di espansione negli Usa un complesso nazionale composto da otto maggiori impianti e laboratori con oltre 40mila addetti. Rilanciata la corsa agli armamenti nucleari, Obama ha proclamato a Hiroshima la volontà di eliminare non solo le armi nucleari, ma la guerra stessa: ricordando che «la gente comune non vuole più guerre», ha sottolineato che «dobbiamo cambiare la nostra stessa mentalità sulla guerra, per prevenire i conflitti con la diplomazia».

In quello stesso momento, a Washington, il Pentagono accusava la Cina di schierare sistemi di difesa nel Mar Cinese Meridionale per «controllare questo mare e limitare la nostra capacità di muoverci nella regione Asia/Pacifico». Regione nella quale gli Usa stanno accrescendo la loro presenza militare, in base a un piano che prevede di schierare, a ridosso di Cina e Russia, anche navi e basi Aegis analoghe a quelle schierate in Europa, dotate di sistemi di lancio adatti sia a missili intercettori che a missili da attacco nucleare. Mentre unità lanciamissili Usa incrociano nel Mar Cinese Meridionale, la U.S. Navy prepara nel Pacifico la Rimpac 2016, la più grande esercitazione navale del mondo. Le Filippine hanno già messo a disposizione degli Usa 5 basi militari e l’Australia, dove già sono dislocati i marines, si prepara ad ospitare bombardieri strategici Usa da attacco nucleare.

Sulla posizione di Washington l’intero G7 (Usa, Canada, Francia, Germania, Giappone, Gran Bretagna e Italia) che, riunito in Giappone, ha richiesto «libertà di navigazione e sorvolo» del Mar Cinese Meridionale e Orientale, confermando allo stesso tempo le sanzioni alla Russia per l’«aggressione» all’Ucraina (mentre la Ue conferma quelle alla Siria).

La strategia Usa/Nato in Europa contro la Russia si salda a quella attuata dagli Usa contro la Cina e la Russia nella regione Asia/Pacifico, in alleanza col Giappone che sta assumendo un crescente ruolo militare. Nello stesso quadro strategico si inserisce la visita di Obama in Vietnam, a cui gli Usa tolgono l’embargo per fornirgli armi in funzione anti-cinese. Più i Peace Corps (di cui è nota la Cia connection), che andranno in Vietnam a insegnare inglese (anzi americano), e l’Università Fulbright che aprirà una sede a Città Ho Chi Minh per fornire ai giovani vietnamiti una «istruzione di classe mondiale».

Gli Usa, sconfitti dall’eroica resistenza vietnamita, ritornano con altre armi.

Manlio Dinucci
  • Posted in Italiano
  • Commentaires fermés sur Escalation Usa contro la Cina

Le 24 mai débutait l’offensive desdites Forces démocratiques syriennes [FDS] contre le prétendu État islamique, Daech, dans son fief à Raqqa. Tout au long de la semaine, nombre d’articles et d’entrevues ont analysé les véritables objectifs des USA venus les soutenir.

Avant de les passer en revue aussi brièvement que possible sans négliger les détails significatifs, il est important de souligner que tout syrien patriote ne pourrait que souhaiter la victoire des FDS contre Daech, s’il ne s’attendait à un énième coup tordu de l’Administration US et de ses alliés contre la Syrie et les Syriens, y compris les Kurdes.


I. Le 23 mai, dès l’annonce de l’offensive, le Général Amin Hoteit analysait dans les colonnes du quotidien syrien « Al-Thawra » les mobiles de cette dernière manœuvre des États-Unis, obligés de se rabattre sur les forces des Unités de protection du peuple [YPG], branche armée du Parti de l’Union démocratique kurde syrien [PYD], faute de pouvoir compter sur une intervention militaire terrestre « officielle » de la Turquie, vu qu’il leur serait difficile de la couvrir et de la justifier de la part d’un pays membre de l’OTAN sans en subir les conséquences :

  • Empêcher l’Armée syrienne et ses alliés de répéter la victoire de Palmyre à Raqqa ; auquel cas, un coup fatal serait porté au projet de mainmise des USA sur la Syrie par le biais du terrorisme international qu’ils ont créé et nourri.
  • Rétablir l’équilibre militaire stratégique, rompu depuis les avancées récentes de l’Armée syrienne sur le terrain, afin de regagner des cartes en vue des futures négociations à Genève pour le partage de la Syrie en « zones d’influences ».
  • Permettre aux forces de l’YPG d’étendre leur influence jusqu’au barrage sur l’Euphrate et le lac Al-Assad, en particulier, ce qui leur accorderait enfin un siège indépendant à la table des négociations [pourtant refusé jusqu’ici par la Turquie et les USA et réclamé par la Russie, Ndt], les pousserait à se désolidariser de plus en plus du gouvernement central à Damas, et les inciterait à instaurer le modèle de l’autonomie kurde irakienne avant d’en arriver à déclarer leur indépendance au moment jugé opportun.
  • Plus grave encore, l’objectif stratégique des USA de réoccuper graduellement l’Irak puis la Syrie, de façon masquée, en commençant par la prétendue assistance aux forces de l’YPG contre Daech pour en arriver à mettre en place leurs bases militaires comme cela s’est passé pour nombre de pays membres de l’OTAN dans les Pays du Golfe, d’Oman au Koweït en passant par les Émirats Arabes Unis, le Qatar, le Bahrein et l’Arabie saoudite.

C’est ainsi que l’Irak, d’où les USA ont été obligés de se retirer sans pouvoir édifier leurs cinq bases militaires prévues, est désormais le théâtre des manœuvres de 7000 soldats US sous différents titres, tandis que le Secrétaire général de l’OTAN parle de l’envoi de troupes supplémentaires pour soutenir la coalition internationale menée par les USA et les forces alliées « sunnites » sur le terrain. Et c’est ainsi que la Syrie, qui avait échappé jusqu’ici à toutes les tentatives de présence militaire US sur son territoire, se retrouve avec 250 soldats US entrés sans autorisation sous prétexte d’aider les FDS à libérer Raqqa de Daech.

Et le Général Hoteit de conclure que dans les deux cas les USA cherchent à étendre l’influence kurde de Mossoul l’irakienne à Raqqa la syrienne.

II. Le 24 mai, M. Nasser kandil au cour de son émission bi-hebdomadaire de 60 minutes a envisagé trois hypothèses, en privilégiant la dernière :

  • Le camp turco-israélo-saoudo-qatari, toujours mené par les USA, remporte des victoires dans le nord de la Syrie, pendant que les forces FDS/US créent un fait accompli à Raqqa ; auquel cas, les USA pourront imposer au camp adverse [Syrie, Iran, Hezbollah, Russie] de nouvelles conditions de négociation à leur avantage.
  • Le camp turco-israélo-saoudo-qatari échoue au nord, le camp adverse avance, mais les forces FDS/US prennent Raqqa ; auquel cas, le « Groupe d’opposition de Riyad » perd sa place au niveau des négociations, remplacé par les représentants politiques des FDS ; autrement dit, Saleh Muslem [ou Mussalem] et Haytham Manna remplacent le chouchou de la France : le bien nommé Riyad Hijab.
  • Le camp turco-israélo-saoudo-qatari et les forces FDS/US échouent, le camp adverse avance ; auquel cas les représentants politiques de tous les bords ne peuvent plus dépasser le plafond consenti par l’État syrien prêt au dialogue pour la paix.

III. Le 25 mai, M. Ali Mortada, journaliste de la chaîne Al-Mayadeen, s’appuyant sur les analyses militaires, met l’accent sur la détermination des États-Unis à modifier la situation sur le terrain en faveur des « forces complices » dans le but de concrétiser le plan initial israélo-américain de remodelage du Moyen-Orient passant par la dislocation de la Syrie et de l’Irak en mini-états et en « zones d’influences ». En bref :

  • En Syrie, les USA cherchent à créer leur zone d’influence à l’est du pays, face à la zone ouest sous contrôle de l’État syrien soutenu par la Russie ; l’offensive kurde présentée comme « arabo-kurde » ayant pour but de rassurer la Turquie contre le projet de création d’un État kurde à ses frontières.
  • En Irak, les USA veulent libérer Al-Anbar et Ninive en s’appuyant sur des forces qu’ils qualifient de « sunnites », ce qui consacrerait définitivement sa partition en trois états [sunnite, chiite et kurde] préalablement à leur mainmise totale sur le pays et, par conséquent, romprait toute communication directe entre les maillons de l’Axe de la résistance [Iran, Irak, Syrie, Liban].

Les preuves à l’appui de ce scénario étant fondées sur les réalités du terrain, notamment la libération du passage d’Ar-Rutba, ouvrant la route vers la Jordanie, et l’abandon du passage d’Al-Tanaf, ouvrant la route vers la Syrie à Daech. Ce qui permettrait aux forces alliées des USA, en Jordanie, d’intervenir dans la région d’Al-Anbar.

Et empêcherait les forces alliées à l’Axe de la Résistance, que ce soit le Hachd al-Chaabi irakien [dont les USA refusent la participation à la libération de Mossoul et de Fallouja prétextant leur sectarisme, Ndt] ou d’autres, d’intervenir en Syrie pour combattre Daech à Raqqa, à Deir ez-zor et dans les autres villes de la région d’Al-Djezireh au nord de la Syrie.

IV. Le 25 mai, un débat concernant cette offensive FDS/US a réuni trois personnalités syriennes sur le plateau d’Al-Alam TV

  • M. Nizar al-Bouch, chercheur et spécialiste en affaires politiques russes, est intervenu par Skype de Moscou.

Il a rappelé que les FDS avaient refusé de coopérer avec les Forces russes contre Daech et que, suite à la libération de Palmyre et d’Al-Qariatayn, les diplomates et militaires russes avaient clairement annoncé que la prochaine étape serait Raqqa ; ce que les USA ne pouvaient tolérer, d’où les violentes attaques terroristes du Front al-Nosra sur les quartiers résidentiels et les civils à Alep et à Khan Toumane afin d’occuper l’Armée syrienne et l’empêcher de libérer Raqqa et Deir ez-Zor.

En bref, son intervention se résume à dire que, par cette opération FDS/US autour de Raqqa, les USA cherchent à sauver la face devant l’opinion publique locale et internationale qui commencent à sérieusement douter de leur volonté de frapper Daech, tout en espérant imposer un fait accompli qui aboutirait à la partition de la Syrie grâce à un coup de bluff incroyable par lequel Daech remettrait Raqqa à son allié US ! Incroyable ? Il rétorque : « Les USA ont créé le Front al-Nosra, Daech et les FDS. Ils ordonnent et leurs créatures exécutent ! ».

  • M. Khaled Issa, représentant du Parti de l’Union démocratique [PYD] en France.

Il n’a ni relevé ni discuté de ce coup de bluff et a déclaré que les affaires militaires n’étaient pas de son ressort puisqu’il les lit dans la presse comme tout un chacun. Cependant, en tant que représentant de la branche politique du PYD, il pense qu’il faudrait non seulement libérer Raqqa, mais toutes les zones du nord de la Syrie sous administration autonome kurde, précisant qu’il signifiait la région située à l’Ouest de l’Euphrate dont Jarablous et A’zaz.

Quant aux velléités séparatistes des Kurdes syriens, ce serait plutôt « certains autres » qui les ont ostracisés en refusant leur participation aux négociations de Genève [Quels autres ? Objectivement, ce ne sont ni les Syriens, ni les Russes, qui ont empêché cette participation, bien au contraire ils n’ont cessé de la réclamer. Ne serait-ce pas plutôt De Mistura obéissant aux ordres des USA et aux exigences de leurs alliés, pour lesquels le « Groupe de Riyad » devait être considéré comme le seul représentant du peuple syrien ?; Ndt].

Et enfin, M. Issa a justifié l’intervention des FDS/US contre Daech à Raqqa, comme le veut la propagande, par la supériorité psychologique, combative et organisationnelle des FDS comparativement à l’Armée syrienne.

  • M. Turki al-Hassan, Général de l’Armée syrienne à la retraite

Il a regretté qu’un « frère syrien » parle de l’Armée syrienne en ces termes alors qu’elle se bat, avance, libère ou meurt dans un combat féroce ourdi par une coalition de grandes et petites puissances depuis 5 ans. Et, sans se prononcer sur l’éventuel coup de bluff USA/Al-Qaïda, il a rappelé que lorsque les Peshmergas kurdes sont entrés dans la région de Sinjar et de Tal-Afar en Irak, Daech s’est retiré sans combattre. Idem, lorsque les PYD syriens sont entrés dans Al-Chaddadi et Al-Hole en Syrie.

À son avis, cette offensive n’était pas vraiment une surprise et était prévisible depuis que Saleh Muslem a déclaré, en mars dernier, que les FDS étaient fin prêts pour libérer Raqqa, mais qu’il leur manquait une couverture politique. Maintenant qu’ils sont couverts par les USA et que la Russie leur propose son aide, la libération de Raqqa est possible, mais risque d’être longue et difficile pour deux principales raisons : la population très majoritairement arabe et l’afflux permanent de terroristes daechiens, à partir de la frontière turque, qui fait que les estimations parlant de 3000 à 5000 de leurs combattants à Raqqa pourraient être largement dépassées. Libération qui restera difficile, même si les FDS mettaient toutes leurs forces dans la bataille ; lesquelles forces sont estimées entre 38 000 et 46 000 combattants, dont 12 000 seraient engagés dans la bataille de Raqqa.

A noter des appellations inconnues jusqu’ici lorsqu’il nous dit qu’à sa connaissance, les FDS intègrent les forces des YPG ; des forces de l’ASL [l’Armée prétendument Syrienne Libre] rebaptisée « armée d’Abou Ays » [transcription phonétique]; les forces du Tayyar al-Ghad [signifiant le Courant de Demain, pour ne pas dire le Courant du Futur] composé par l’homme des Saoudiens, Ahmad al-Jarba ; avec, évidemment, les centaines de boys US expédiés ouvertement en Syrie.

V. Le 27 mai, M. Fayçal Jalloul, chercheur à l’Académie de Géopolitique de Paris, interrogé par la chaine libanaise NBN, résume la situation en soutenant que Daech a outrepassé la volonté de ses créateurs pour réaliser ses propres objectifs, si bien que son élimination est devenue la priorité des priorités pour tout le monde, sauf les USA.

À l’appui de cette affirmation M. Jalloul rappelle que, de l’aveu même d’Hilary Clinton, les USA ont créé Daech d’abord pour combattre « le régime syrien », ce n’est qu’à la marge de ce premier objectif qu’il leur a servi à profiter des dissensions entre Irakiens.

Il explique que s’ils se sont rabattus sur les Kurdes c’est parce qu’ils refusent que l’Armée syrienne l’emporte sur Daech, car cela maintiendrait et renforcerait Bachar al-Assad à son poste de Président ; ce qu’ils refusent catégoriquement. La preuve en est leur désappointement évident devant la victoire de l’Armée syrienne soutenue par les forces aériennes russes à Palmyre ; leur opposition à toute résolution du Conseil de sécurité qui l’encouragerait à libérer d’autres villes ; leur refus récent de coopérer avec la Russie pour libérer Raqqa, coordination ne signifiant pas coopération ; leurs dernières déclarations insistant de nouveau sur la destitution du Président syrien d’une manière ou d’une autre.

En bref, M. Jalloul pense que l’Administration US n’a toujours pas modifié sa stratégie première en Syrie : introduire Daech sur son territoire, se débarrasser ensuite de Daech et du régime syrien en les laissant s’entretuer, puis amener leurs amis favoris au pouvoir.

Pour lui, la relation entre ce qui se passe en Irak et autour de Raqqa correspondrait quand même au fameux « Plan B » annoncé par John Kerry en cas d’échec des négociations de la 3ème session de Genève 3, puisqu’on observe depuis leur interruption que les USA se sont arrangés pour maintenir la « trêve », sont entrés sous prétexte de combattre Daech en Irak et dernièrement en Syrie, pour empêcher l’Armée syrienne de récupérer Raqqa et Deir ez-Zor avec ses alliés, notamment la Russie.

VI. Le 30 mai, le Général Amin Hoteit revient sur les événements de la semaine dans les colonnes d’Al-Thawra : pour dégager quatre mobiles supplémentaires à l’offensive FDS/US sur Raqqa :

1. L’intention très claire des USA de faire pression sur Daech pour le pousser vers le nord, et plus particulièrement vers la ville d’Alep, afin d’empêcher l’Armée syrienne de la libérer complètement, auquel cas ils n’auraient plus grand-chose à négocier pour garantir leurs intérêts en Syrie.

2. La menace de partition par le projet d’une Syrie fédérale dont les USA et la Russie auraient préalablement discuté et qui aurait été volontairement divulgué à la presse locale sous la forme d’un « Projet russe pour une nouvelle Constitution en Syrie ». [Projet publié initialement par Al-Akhbar, puis démenti par la Russie et la Syrie. Il serait l’œuvre de l’Institut US « Carter » et aurait été rédigé en collaboration avec certains opposants syriens aux USA ; Ndt]. Une manœuvre par laquelle les USA chercheraient à atteindre deux objectifs :

  • s’assurer l’entière collaboration des Kurdes en exploitant leur rêve d’un État indépendant ;
  • faire pression sur les autorités syriennes en menaçant de briser l’unité du pays.

3. L’incitation de l’Armée syrienne à se diriger vers Raqqa pour une bataille à laquelle elle n’est peut-être pas suffisamment préparée. D’où deux risques majeurs qui serviraient les intérêts des USA :

  • perdre à Raqqa, rater l’occasion de libérer Alep, voire perdre de nouveau Palmyre ;
  • installer une animosité définitive entre les forces des YPG et le gouvernement central syrien.

4. Les rumeurs tendant à faire croire que les USA auraient la réelle intention de faire pression sur la Turquie pour qu’elle modifie son comportement à l’égard de Daech et des Kurdes à la fois. Ce qui n’entraînera certainement pas une confrontation entre ces deux pays alliés au sein de l’OTAN dont les prises de position ne dépassent pas le cadre d’un jeu de rôles, sans plus.

Alors que sur le terrain, l’ouragan terroriste Daech souffle de Raqqa à A’zaz et Efrin. En effet :

  • Daech a réussi cette semaine à intensifier sa présence dans le nord syrien en se dirigeant directement vers Mareh et A’zaz, s’en prenant à toutes les autres factions armées [lesquels fuient vers la Turquie qui leur ferme sa frontière ; Ndt] ; ce qui arrange les USA car l’avancée de Daech rend la bataille d’Alep plus difficile, surtout que la stratégie russe actuelle ne consiste plus à achever le grand nettoyage mais à protéger l’Armée syrienne contre les attaques terroristes et à maintenir les acquis précédents ; ceci parce que ses intérêts reposent sur la lutte contre le terrorisme et la création des conditions d’une solution pacifique.
  • La Turquie a ordonné à ses forces régulières de pénétrer le territoire syrien sur 700 mètres en direction d’Efrin. Une mission guerrière censée délivrer trois messages. Le premier aux USA afin de leur signifier son mécontentement pour l’assistance accordée aux Kurdes. Le deuxième aux kurdes pour leur dire qu’elle ne leur permettra pas de relier la région de Efrin à l’ouest à la région kurde de Aïn al-Arab/Kobané à l’est. Le troisième aux autorités syriennes pour réaffirmer que ce qui se passe au nord de la Syrie fait partie de sa sécurité nationale.
  • Les Kurdes de l’YPG ont sans doute réalisé les dangers de leur offensive puisqu’ils semblent ne plus vouloir gouverner Raqqa, mais laisser le choix à ses habitants [contrairement à leur annonce initiale d’intégrer Raqqa à leur régions d’administration autonome ; Ndt]. S’ils ont bien évalué la situation, ils ont dû comprendre que leurs forces ne leur permettraient pas d’accomplir leur mission bien qu’ils soient soutenus par un millier de soldats et officiers US, lesquels ne combattront pas à leur côté, mais resteront sur les lignes arrières pour se contenter de les diriger, car les USA ne sont pas prêts à recevoir des cercueils en provenance de Raqqa, ni ne veulent mettre fin à cette guerre. Ils ont dû comprendre que l’humeur locale leur est défavorable et refuse de remplacer un violeur par un autre.

Finalement, tout ce qui précède indique que ladite « Bataille de libération de Raqqa par les USA » n’est rien d’autre qu’une manœuvre destinée à pérenniser leur « guerre d’usure par procuration » en empêchant l’Armée syrienne de libérer effectivement la Syrie du terrorisme qu’ils prétendent combattre, et un prétexte pour retarder le « processus politique » soutenu par la Russie, tant qu’ils ne tiennent pas les cartes pouvant leur permettre d’exercer les pressions susceptibles de l’orienter dans le sens de leurs seuls intérêts en Irak et en Syrie.

Revue de presse et d’entretiens par Mouna Alno-Nakhal



Sources :

I. Amin Hoteit / Al-Thawra, 23 mai 2016

II. Nasser Kandil / 60 minutes Top News, 24 mai 2016

III. Ali Mortada / Al-mayadeen, 25 mai 2016

IV. Trois personnalités syriennes / Al-Alam, 25 mai 2016

V. Fayçal Jalloul sur NBN, 27 mi 2016

VI. Amin Hoteit / Al-Thawra, 30 mai 2016



  • Posted in Francais @fr
  • Commentaires fermés sur Syrie : Une semaine après l’offensive, quels sont les véritables objectifs de la prétendue « bataille de libération de Raqqa par les USA »?

Did the Canadian Government Bribe Saudi Officials to Obtain its Arms Deal?

By Julie Lévesque, June 01 2016

In 1965, the United States and the UK were competing to sell war planes to Saudi Arabia. In order to get the lucrative contract, a « commission » had to be paid to members of the Saudi government. The history…


Hillary Out Following FBI Racketeering Charges? Or Hillary-Bernie Ticket? Clinton, Sanders Camps in Talks for “Party Unity”

By Stephen Lendman, June 01 2016

A previous article called Clinton the most recklessly dangerous president aspirant in US history. Humanity’s fate is up for grabs with her finger on the nuclear trigger. She’s also damaged goods, vulnerable to indictment on federal racketeering charges, her Clinton…

Brexit R-U

Colluding in EU-British Lies: The Brexit Debate

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, June 01 2016

The Brexit argument (whether Britain should remain or otherwise in the European Union), has become hysterically hyperbolic. That was the view of former Tory MP Gyles Brandreth, expressed with usual alacrity on the news quiz show Have I Got News…


“Evil” Presidential Candidates: Write-in Voting and Political Protest

By William John Cox, May 31 2016

With the increasingly likelihood of a presidential contest between the generally despised Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, millions of angry voters are considering protesting the lineup by either sitting out the election or writing in alternatives. With almost one-third of…


The South African National Student Uprising of 1976: Looking Back 40 Years Later

By Abayomi Azikiwe, June 01 2016

On June 16, 1976, students in the Southwest Townships (Soweto) outside of Johannesburg stayed away from school in protest against the Bantu education system which was enacted by the racist apartheid government beginning in the early 1950s. The Bantu Education…

Portrait of politician Barry Goldwater

Learning from the History of Presidential Elections: Barry Goldwater versus Donald Trump

By Michael T. Bucci, June 01 2016

Those old enough to have lived through the Bay of Pigs and Cuban Missile Crisis; attended the movies Dr. Strangelove, On The Beach and Seven Days In May; and experienced November 22-25, 1963 “as it happened”, might remember Senator Barry…

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Selected Articles: Secret Saudi Arms Deal? FBI Racketeering Charges against Hillary

Receiving scant attention from Western mainstream media outlets except for a few notable exceptions, Americans and many alternative media outlets have remained ignorant to the fact that private mercenaries from Blackwater (aka Academi) appear to have been contracted by the GCC Gulf state feudal monarchies to assist in the military war of terror in Yemen against the Houthi rebels and the embattled Yemeni people.

Still, on December 9, a flurry of reports from media outlets such as Press TVTeleSur TVAl-Manar,Al –Bawaba, and Colombia Reports have revealed that around 15 Blackwater mercenaries have been killed in a fierce battles with the Houthi forces.

Al-Masirah, Yemen’s Arabic language website reported that the Commander-In-Chief of the firm’s operation in Yemen, a Mexican national, was killed in the al-Omari district of Ta’izz Province.

Press TV reports that a number of British, French, and Australian advisers and commanders as well as six Colombian soldiers were killed.

In late November of 2015, it was reported that around 1,800 former Latin American soldiers who had been recruited by a program once managed by Blackwater founder Erik Prince were being trained in the desert of the United Arab Emirates to be used against the Houthis at some point.

It was estimated that about 450 of the soldiers were from Colombia.

The New York Times wrote that

 “The United Arab Emirates has secretly dispatched hundreds of Colombian mercenaries to Yemen to fight in that country’s raging conflict, adding a volatile new element in a complex proxy war that has drawn in the United States and Iran.”

El Tiempo placed the mercenary presence much earlier, however, suggesting that 100 Colombian soldiers had entered Yemen in October, a claim corroborated by The New York Times.

Colombia Reports stated that the mercenaries were being paid around $1,000 more per week than what they would have been paid as part of the Emirati deployment, and over triple the amount they would have made as members of the Colombian military. The contracts are allegedly for three-month-front-line service.

The New York Times reported on November 25,

The Colombian troops now in Yemen, handpicked from a brigade of some 1,800 Latin American soldiers training at an Emirati military base, were woken up in the middle of the night for their deployment to Yemen last month. They were ushered out of their barracks as their bunkmates continued sleeping, and were later issued dog tags and ranks in the Emirati military. Those left behind are now being trained to use grenade launchers and armored vehicles that Emirati troops are currently using in Yemen.

Emirati officials have made a point of recruiting Colombian troops over other Latin American soldiers because they consider the Colombians more battle tested in guerrilla warfare, having spent decades battling gunmen of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, in the jungles of Colombia.

The exact mission of the Colombians in Yemen is unclear, and one person involved in the project said it could be weeks before they saw regular combat. They join hundreds of Sudanese soldiers whom Saudi Arabia has recruited to fight there as part of the coalition.

In addition, a recent United Nations report cited claims that some 400 Eritrean troops might be embedded with the Emirati soldiers in Yemen — something that, if true, could violate a United Nations resolution restricting Eritrean military activities.

The United States has also been participating in the Saudi-led campaign in Yemen, providing logistical support, including airborne refueling, to the nations conducting the airstrikes. The Pentagon has sent a team to Saudi Arabia to provide targeting intelligence to the coalition militaries regularly used for the airstrikes.

The New York Times also reports that, interestingly enough, the training program and the use of Colombian and other third world mercenaries by Gulf State countries has been taking place since as far back as 2010. The article states,

Hundreds of Colombian troops have been trained in the Emirates since the project began in 2010 — so many that the Colombian government once tried to broker an agreement with Emirati officials to stanch the flow headed to the Persian Gulf. Representatives from the two governments met, but an agreement was never signed.

Most of the recruiting of former troops in Colombia is done by Global Enterprises, a Colombian company run by a former special operations commander named Oscar Garcia Batte. Mr. Batte is also co-commander of the brigade of Colombian troops in the Emirates, and is part of the force now deployed in Yemen.

It should also be noted that Blackwater, or at least Erik Prince, was involved in setting up the program early on, although the firm currently denies ties to the program in 2015. Foreign media outlets obviously disagree on the level to which Blackwater and/or Prince’s firm are involved in the program. That the foreign fighters are mercenaries, however, is beyond doubt.

According to Al-Masdar’s Yemen correspondent, Tony Toh, another piece of the puzzle has now been provided in regards to the mission and methodology of the Saudi-Blackwater cooperation. Toh states that Al-Masirah News, a Yemeni news organization, has revealed that Reflex Responses Management Consultancy LLC is the company doing the actual hiring of mercenaries from Blackwater to fight in Yemen.

RRMC LLC is an Emirati-owned company that specializes in hiring foreign mercenaries and fighters for the UAE’s military.

According to the Yemeni news source, Major General ‘Issa Seif Mohammad Al-Mazrawi, an Emirati officer, is the individual most heavily involved in the deployment of these mercenaries. Al-Masirahalso reports that a contract worth $529 million was signed between RRMC and the UAE government in March, 2015, around the beginning of the Yemeni crisis.

It is clear that the Saudis and the Emirates are grasping at any straws within their reach in order to shore up their faltering military campaign in Yemen and make up for the weakness of their own military forces that have repeatedly demonstrated that the GCC countries are nothing but paper tigers.

Brandon Turbeville – article archive here – is the author of seven books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom7 Real ConspiraciesFive Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1and volume 2The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria, and The Difference it Makes: 36 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President. Turbeville has published over 650 articles on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s radio show Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. His website is He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at)

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Blackwater/Academi Mercenaries Procured by United Arab Emirates Are Now Fighting in Yemen

The Korean Peninsula Conflict: A Way Out

juin 1st, 2016 by Prof. Johan Galtung

Like the Israel-Palestine conflict, the world has gotten tired of it, “what, the two Koreas still unable to sort it out”?  Also, like Israel-Palestine, the USA is in it; making the situation complicated.

Never has the situation been so tense after the end of the war in Korea more than 60 years ago.  Not only because of the nuclear bomb with missiles in North Korea, and the hawkish pro-nuke reaction in South Korea and Japan, but because of no moves forward to solve the underlying conflict.  And where is that conflict?  Not between North and South Korea, but between North Korea and USA that after 140+ years of victorious warfare had to accept armistice, not victory, in Korea.

Conflict means incompatible goals. Travel to Pyongyang and find that their goals are peace treaty, normalization of relations, and a nuclear free Korean Peninsula.  And the US goal is the collapse of the present NK regime; failing that, status quo.  Given the threat of a major war, even nuclear war, that goal is untenable.  Some points.

  • Why does NK have nuclear capability? Because NK is threatened by the USA-South Korea alliance in general and their “Team Spirit” in particular to deter conventional, or nuclear attacks; failing that to fight back, and particularly against where the attack might come from: US bases in Okinawa-RyuKyu, and from Japan proper. Militarily trivial.
  • AND to have a bargaining chip in any denuclearization that of course has to be monitored; given the US cheating in connection with Austrian neutralization in 1955 focused particularly on that one.
  • AND to show that we are not collapsing, we are capable of making nuclear bombs and the missiles to carry them; far from collapsing.
  • AND, ominously: as the ultimate response if threatened by collapse. Nuclear suicide?  More likely killing those seen as never listening, never thawing in sunshine, using boycotts and sanctions.

Beat a dog repeatedly and it becomes crazy. NK has been beaten, also by exceptional rain causing slides of clay covering enormous cultivated areas, but mainly by an unholy alliance Seoul-Washington. Seoul even commits fratricide on their brothers and sisters in NK, into death and collapse, because Seoul dislikes their regime.

This situation has made both Koreas absurd societies, detached from reality. In the North a fundamentalist Confucian society with a filial piety through the Kims, assuming that the spirit of Kim Il Sung drifts down to son and grandson as incorporations in one person of the national will; in the South through the Parks, at present running a society that is a carbon copy of Japan down to the smallest details on the basis of hysterical anti-Japanism, run by US micro-management.

They will both change.  Absurdities are unsustainable.

SK is also a Christian, Methodist-Catholic, country.  But one senses no Love Thy Neighbor and Love Thy Enemy, only much of Seoul sitting in “judgment over living and dead”.  Jointly with USA.

Sanctions are multi-state terrorism, like terrorism and state terrorism hitting the weak, defenseless, and like them backfiring. Idea: “get rid of your leaders and terrorism will stop”. Reality: the victims turn against the killers, not the leaders. One more absurdity.

There is a way out.  Build on the North Korean goals, hold NK to their words. Their regime will, like all regimes, change; even the USA is now heading for basic change.  Design a peace treaty, like with South Korea, normalize diplomatic relations North-South and North-USA; and design a regime for a nuclear free peninsula, destroying or removing weapons monitored by solid UN inspection, also claims of no weapons.

The two instruments for normalization and denuclearization are then exchanged by depositing them in an escrow with a third party–the UN General Assembly, not UNSC, too similar to the Six Parties Talks.

Then: implementation; preferably quick; de Gaulle style.

But that is only the beginning, only remedies for a pathological and very dangerous situation.  Then comes the peace-building, based on cooperation for mutual and equal benefit, equity (not some SK chaebol-재벌 getting cheap labor in NK), and on harmony based on deep empathy with each other, sharing joys and sorrows; not the opposite, like enjoying suffering and imminent collapse because “sanctions are having a bite”.

Of 40 such proposals here are two.

There is the contested maritime zone between the two different maritime border: use it for joint fishing andjoint fish breeding. Share the income 40-40-20; 20 for the ecology and administration.

There is no flight Seoul-Pyongyang: start it both ways. Use it also for the construction workers and personnel for two embassies.

Admittedly, it is unlikely that USA will come to its senses and initiate all of this although not impossible-the absurdity built into the US boycott of Cuba is being remedied after 58 years. For Korea under a Trump or Sanders presidency, but not belligerent Clinton.

South Korea has to do it, by becoming an independent, autonomous country, not micro-managed, on at least this issue.  There is a longer term mechanism: absurdities have limited life expectancy as witnessed by the decline and fall of empires to the UK, Soviet and US empires.

And there is a short term possibility: presidential power in SK accrues to the two term UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, if elected as a candidate for the governing Saenuri party. Watching his choice of words on the Korean issue, he is always emphasizing dialogue. He would know how to handle a UN General Assembly Uniting for Peace, could have dialogue contact with NK; the rest more or less as above.

Could a united Korean nation with two states at peace inspire the other four of the Six, their ten relations all non-peace, some even recently at war?  History moves quickly these days.  If pushed by democratic pressure from below. And pulled by power from above.

Johan Galtung, a professor of peace studies, dr hc mult, is founder of the TRANSCEND Network for Peace, Development and Environment and rector of the TRANSCEND Peace University-TPU. He has published 164 books on peace and related issuesof which 41 have been translated into 35 languages, for a total of 135 book translations, including ‘50 Years-100 Peace and Conflict Perspectives,’ published by theTRANSCEND University Press-TUP.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur The Korean Peninsula Conflict: A Way Out

The head of the Organization of American States (OAS) on Tuesday called for an emergency meeting over what he described as an « institutional crisis » of democracy in Venezuela. But supporters of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, and other leftist governments in the region, are saying that—while Brazil essentially « burns under coup »—the hemispheric body is going after the wrong villain.

In a 132-page letter (pdf), OAS secretary general Luis Almagro invoked the Inter-American Democratic Charter, calling for a permanent council meeting to address the « alteration of the constitutional order and how it gravely affects the democratic order » in the socialist country.

« The institutional crisis in Venezuela demands immediate changes in the actions of the executive branch, » Almagro wrote, adding that the South American nation is « at risk of falling immediately into a situation of illegitimacy. »

As AFP explains, the Permanent Council may vote to suspend Venezuela’s membership in the OAS with a two-thirds vote. The move was requested by Venezuela’s opposition-controlled congress to assess whether the Maduro government was in violation for imposing a state of emergency as the country struggles with shortages of food, medical supplies, and blackouts as a result of plunging oil prices.

Maduro has said that the « fascist right, » with the help of the United States, is attempting to capitalize on the crisis to overthrow the leftist government.

Meanwhile, Almagro has not remained impartial during this time. TeleSUR reports:

The former Uruguayan foreign minister has been brazen in his attacks on the government of Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro, including penning a tirade against Maduro published on the OAS website on May 19. The letter prompted OAS member state Ecuador to issue a swift rebuke, saying Almagro’s statement « uses improper terms and a tone removed of equanimity and restraint required by the representative of an organization that brings together thirty-four states in the hemisphere. »

This is the first time an OAS chief has activated the charter against a member state over the will of its government. And, critics note, it comes as another left-wing member government is facing an overt crisis of democracy.

« OAS Secretary-General Luis Almagro invoked the body’s Democratic Charter against Venezuela, which could lead to the suspension of the Caribbean nation from the Organization of American States, while taking no action in regards to the recent legislative coup in Brazil which placed a right-wing unelected government in power, who has very close ties to the Obama Administration, »

notes TeleSUR, which is funded by the governments of Venezuela, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Uruguay, and Bolivia and is headquartered in Caracas, Venezuela.

The recent ouster of Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff was recently exposed by leaked transcripts to have been orchestrated by government, military, and oil officials seeking to escape an internal corruption probe.

« Despite such damning reality in Brazil and mounting evidence that opposition lawmakers and elite conspired against the democratically elected government, » TeleSUR continues, « Almagro opted to take no action and instead invoke his body’s charter against Venezuela upon the request of the Venezuelan opposition, which leads the country’s national assembly. »

However, the state-sponsored media outlet charges, « the reality is according to the body’s charter and its 28 articles, what has happened in Brazil does in fact warrant taking action by the OAS against the coup government. »

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Turning A Blind Eye to Brazilian Coup, Organization of American States (OAS) Targets Venezuela’s Maduro

Those old enough to have lived through the Bay of Pigs and Cuban Missile Crisis; attended the movies Dr. Strangelove, On The Beach and Seven Days In May; and experienced November 22-25, 1963 “as it happened”, might remember Senator Barry Goldwater’s nomination for the presidency on the GOP ticket in 1964. They might also remember the most famous ad in political history that doomed Goldwater, “Daisy”.

In election year 1964, on the heels of the Bay of Pigs, Cuban Missile Crisis and the assassination of President Kennedy, Republican nominee Goldwater vied against Democratic incumbent Lyndon Baines Johnson. 

In his acceptance speech for the nomination in what Smithsonian magazine dubbed “the ugliest of Republican conventions since 1912” where “entrenched moderates faced off against conservative insurgents,” Goldwater proclaimed, “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. »

Goldwater later admitted that the remark was not original with him: « In fact, I believe Cicero used it in some form at one time,” he said, “and I have been able to trace it rather faintly back to some of the early Greeks. So, while I was very proud of the fact that I made the speech, it’s certainly not original. »

Goldwater is often credited with sparking the American conservative movement in the 1960’s and influencing the libertarian movement. Goldwater conservatives rejected the legacy of the New Deal as strongly as conservatives and libertarians today reject government spending on most social programs since enacted. House Speaker Paul Ryan’s GOP 2017 budget proves how Goldwater conservatism of the 1960’s has radically progressed today.

In 1964, however, “an era in which a national consensus seemed to have coalesced around advancing civil rights, containing Communism and expanding government, the moderates believed they had to win to preserve the Republican Party,” wrote Smithsonian magazine. “The conservatives – who wanted to contain the role of the federal government and roll back Communism – believed they were saving not just the party but Western civilization.”

At the Cow Palace in San Francisco, Goldwater conservatives succeeded to break the rule of moderate “Wall Street Republicans” – the “few secret kingmakers in New York,” as Phyllis Schlafly called them, who conspired to run away with the presidential nomination every four years. Several hundred copies of Schlafly’s book, A Choice Not An Echo, were distributed in the summer of 1964 rallying conservatives to defeat “Establishment Republicans” and the “liberal Rockefeller” wing of the party.

The 1964 Goldwater campaign “helped usher in the modern conservative movement in the United States,” according to “The political careers of both Phyllis Schlafly and Ronald Reagan got a big boost during the campaign.”

The 1964 campaign also marked the first time since before the Civil War that the states of the Deep South, angered by L.B.J.’s support for civil rights, broke from the Democratic Party and gave their electoral votes to the Republican nominee Goldwater. 

Gov. Nelson Rockefeller – a rival candidate for the nomination – cast Goldwater as an opponent of civil rights and an isolationist who wanted to withdraw from the United Nations. Goldwater had lambasted President Johnson for failure in Vietnam and Panama, supported a tougher blockade against Cuba, and encouraged Communist “eviction from positions of control” in the world and keeping the Soviet Union in check. What would later ricochet into the “Daisy” ad, Goldwater mentioned how low grade Atomic bombs could be used to expose the supply of Communists in Vietnam.

Just shy of securing the nomination after winning the California primary, Goldwater began the search for a running mate beginning with four easterners. Among them was William Scranton who was asked by President Eisenhower to be “more available.” Eisenhower disavowed the “Stop Goldwater” movement advising Scranton not to get involved “in a cabal against anyone.” Moderates felt this effectively ended the anti-Goldwater movement. After securing the nomination, Goldwater was asked to soften his political stances.

Exploiting the fissure within the Republican Party and Goldwater’s positions on social security, Cuba, the military, atomic weaponry, the role of the Federal government, together with an unfavorable press and fears over the support given him by the KKK and John Birch Society, President Johnson portrayed Goldwater as an extremist.

Goldwater used the slogan, “In your heart, you know he’s right.” Democrats retorted: “In your gut, you know he’s nuts.”

Goldwater billboard on Atlantic City’s Million Dollar Pier across from Convention Hall near where the 1964 Democratic Convention was being held.

The Goldwater campaign brochure addressed:

Government Bureaucracy:

“I think that the people’s uneasiness in the stifling omnipresence of government has turned into something approaching alarm. But bemoaning the evil will not drive it back, and accusing fingers will not shrink government.”

States Rights:

“There is a reason for (the Constitution’s) reservation of ‘States’ Rights. The people have long since seen through the spurious suggestion that federal aid comes free. They know that the money comes out of their own pockets, and that it is returned to them minus a broker’s fee taken by the federal bureaucracy. They know, too, that the power to decide how that money shall be spent is withdrawn from them and exercised by some planning board deep in the caverns of one of the federal agencies. They understand this represents a great and perhaps irreparable loss-not only in their wealth, but in their priceless liberty.”

Civil Rights:

“In the schools, the Attorney General already has the authority through court decrees to effect integration. But if more authority must be granted, we should write a law that is tightly drawn, that can be used like a rifle, not a shotgun … No matter how we try, we cannot pass a law that will make you like me or me like you. The key to racial and religious tolerance lies not in laws alone but, ultimately, in the hearts of men … Unenforceable government edicts benefit no one. Continued public attention and moral persuasion, I believe, will do more, in the long run to create the good will necessary to the acceptance of decent racial relations in all segments of our society.”


“The labor movement was born out of the threat of the loss of freedom through excesses of overbearing business monopolies. It has served well to bring the pendulum back from the extreme. I believe that unionism, in its proper sphere, accomplishes a positive good for the country … But the pendulum has now swung too far in the opposite direction and we are faced, as a people, with the stern obligation to halt a menacing misappropriation of power before it completely engulfs the liberties of labor, management and the general public.”

Social Security:

“I favor a sound Social Security system and I want to see it strengthened. I want to see every participant receive all the benefits this system provides. And I want to see these benefits paid in dollars with real purchasing power … Essentially, protection against need in America depends upon a free economy … I believe Social Security has a vital and legitimate supporting role.”

Fiscal Responsibility:

“Barry Goldwater believes that the first fiscal responsibility of the Federal Government is to preserve the value of the dollar … Local governments must take on more and not less responsibility in meeting needs when those needs are fully established … Let us, by all means, remember the nation’s interest in reducing taxes and spending.”

The Welfare State:

“Barry Goldwater has issued a clear call to halt the relentless drift toward the welfare state … We must elect uncommon men to do an uncommon job for an uncommon country.”

The American Dream:

“I understand what the people of America are saying in this decade. Their message has been heard and understood. The people are now eager for a leader who will restore the Constitutional limitations of government, who will mobilize moral force of 180 million people to reduce and to limit the inequitable, concentration of power in any government, organization or economic combine.”

Go Goldwater “A Choice Not an Echo”

Political advertising for the Johnson campaign was handled by ad agency DDB headed by Bill Bernbach. Attack ads capitalized on Goldwater statements suggesting his willingness to use nuclear weapons that others would find unacceptable. One ad was titled “KKK for Goldwater”; another titled “Eastern Seaboard” took aim at Goldwater saying the country would be better off “if we could just saw off the eastern seaboard and let it float out to sea.”

Bob Dylan once said of Senator Goldwater, “I’m liberal up to a degree, I think everybody should be free, but if you think I’ll let Barry Goldwater move in next door and marry my daughter, you must think I’m crazy. I wouldn’t let him do it for all the farms in Cuba.

“I am compelled to urge Negroes and all people of goodwill to vote against him,” said Martin Luther King, Jr. “His election would be a tragedy, and certainly suicidal almost for the nation and the world.”

As election day approached, DDB, considered the leading force behind the “Creative Revolution” on Madison Avenue during the 1950’s and 1960’s, along with concept and creative consultant Tony Schwartz created for Johnson what became the most famous ad in political history.

Advertising Age lists it as one of the greatest ads of the 20th Century. Roger Ailes (CEO of Fox), Democratic adman Joe Trippi and GOP media consultant Mike Murphy rated it the “#1 Top Game Changing Political Ad of All Time.”

Peace, Little Girl (“Daisy”) aired only once, just after Labor Day in 1964.

After « Daisy » aired, the race was never close, and Johnson won in a landslide.

Peace, Little Girl (« Daisy »)

Candidate: President Lyndon Johnson

Agency: DDB

Consultant/Creator: Tony Schwartz


Michael T. Bucci is a retired public relations executive currently living in New England. He has authored nine books on practical spirituality collectively titled The Cerithous Material.


[1] “1964 Republican Convention: Revolution From the Right”. Rick Perlstein. Smithsonian Magazine. August 2008.

[2] Barry Goldwater. Wikipedia. (accessed May 30, 2016)

[3] Schlafly, Phyllis, A Choice Not an Echo. 1964. (PDF)

[4] “Goldwater’s 1964 Acceptance Speech”. Washington Post.

[5] “Barry Goldwater”. Wikiquote.

[6] “Barry Goldwater for President 1964 Campaign Brochure”.

[7] “Barry Goldwater presidential campaign, 1964”. Wikipedia.,_1964

[8] “Finding Bill Bernbach”. David Andres Lloyd. Advertising Age. August 15, 2011.

[9] « Peace Little Girl (Daisy) ». The Living Room Candidate. (Video)

[10] “Daisy (advertisment)”. Wikipedia. (Video)

[11] “(High Quality) Famous « Daisy » Attack Ad from 1964 Presidential Election”. YouTube. (Video)


  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Learning from the History of Presidential Elections: Barry Goldwater versus Donald Trump

The besieged civilian population of Fallujah is confronting a “human catastrophe” as a US-backed offensive to retake the Iraqi city from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) intensifies, a human rights group warned Tuesday.

While forces backing the Iraqi government, including troops of the elite Counter Terrorism Service, Iraqi Army soldiers, police and Shia militiamen of the Popular Mobilization Units, have moved to the outskirts of the city, stiff ISIS resistance Tuesday prevented them from advancing into its center. At least 50,000 civilians are believed to be trapped in Fallujah.

“A human catastrophe is unfolding in Fallujah. Families are caught in the crossfire with no safe way out,” warned Jan Egeland, Secretary General of the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC), which has provided aid to civilians in the area.

“The stories coming out of Fallujah are horrifying,” said Nasr Muflahi, NRC’s Country Director in Iraq.

“A lack of food, medicine, safe drinking water and electricity are pushing families to the brink of desperation. People who managed to flee have told us of extreme hunger and starvation. We haven’t been able to see this for ourselves or assist people inside the town, and we are extremely concerned about the full extent of the terrors unfolding there.”

The United Nations’ humanitarian aid director in Iraq, Lise Grande, further warned that the city could be only “days away from a cholera outbreak,” because of the lack of clean drinking water.

Fallujah has been under siege for close to a year, with roads that bring in vital supplies cut by the Iraqi Army and Shia militias. Now, its residents are facing intensifying bombardment from US and allied warplanes, Apache attack helicopters and Iraqi artillery.

Fallujah was the first major Iraqi city to fall to ISIS at the beginning of 2014, six months before the Islamist militia overran Mosul, Iraq’s second largest population center, along with roughly a third of Iraqi territory.

The early victory in Fallujah was made possible by a revolt on the part of the city’s Sunni population against the Shia-dominated central government in Baghdad, which was widely reviled for carrying out sectarian repression against Sunnis.

While there have been widespread reports of ISIS exploiting the city’s civilians as “human shields”—a charge frequently made by the US military to provide an alibi for carnage inflicted by American air strikes—it is also reported that the bulk of the ISIS fighters are city residents.

This marks the third time in a little over a decade that Fallujah has been subjected to an all-out military siege. Twice in 2004, the US Marines, backed by heavy aerial bombardments, stormed the city, killing thousands and reducing the bulk of Fallujah’s homes and infrastructure to rubble. A center of resistance to the 2003 US invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq, the city was subjected to merciless collective punishment.

Fallujah’s fate this time around has been presaged by that of previous Iraqi Sunni towns retaken by forces loyal to the Baghdad government. These include Ramadi, where at least 70 percent of the buildings were destroyed by bombardment and the population of 400,000 has been driven out, and Tikrit, where Shia militias carried out bloody reprisals against the population for the atrocities committed by ISIS, which included the massacre of up to 1,700 predominantly Shia military cadets.

Sunnis view this US-backed campaign as an exercise in ethnic cleansing designed to expel them from Iraq. The massive destruction unleashed on these cities, however, has also been seen in the predominantly Kurdish town of Kobane, which was largely razed to the ground, as well as the Yazidi town of Sinjar. It is a function of the type of warfare employed by the Pentagon, in which proxy ground forces, often with the participation of US special operations troops, rely on heavy air support to defeat ISIS.

While the US military is supporting the offensive against Fallujah with intense air strikes, the Pentagon had reportedly opposed the move against the city, seeing it as a distraction from the buildup for an attack on Mosul, Iraq’s second city, which had a population of some 2 million before falling to ISIS in June 2014.

Washington is also uneasy about the prominent role being played by Iranian advisers on the ground as well as the Shia militias, which provide much of the manpower for the siege. The US views Iran as its major regional rival for hegemony over the Middle East in general, and Iraq in particular.

For Iraq’s Prime Minister Haidar al-Abadi, the siege of Fallujah is seen as a political imperative for his government, which has faced mounting popular opposition from within Baghdad’s impoverished Shia majority. Crowds have twice stormed the heavily fortified Green Zone, the seat of the central government, to protest rampant corruption and the failure to ensure essential services.

Also fueling the growing popular anger is a series of terrorist attacks centered in poorer Shia neighborhoods. The government has charged that Fallujah, less than 40 miles west of the capital, is the center from which these attacks are planned and executed.

Unfolding parallel to the siege of Fallujah is a separate anti-ISIS operation to the north also backed by extensive US-led air strikes. This operation, directed at preparing an offensive against Mosul, is being conducted largely by Kurdish Peshmerga fighters and allied militias, with the participation of US special forces, who are increasingly engaged in combat.

Similarly, Kurdish paramilitaries of the YPG (Kurdish People’s Protection Units) are providing the main ground forces for a campaign across the border in Syria aimed at re-taking the city of Raqqa, the capital of ISIS’s self-styled caliphate.

While the Kurdish forces, supported by US special operations “advisers” and US warplanes, are advancing from the northwest, the Syrian military, backed by Russian airpower, is advancing from the southwest.

This race for Raqqa reflects the underlying conflict between Washington and Moscow over Syria, with the US backing a war for regime change against the government of President Bashar al-Assad, and Russia working in alliance with the government.

In both Iraq and Syria, Washington’s reliance upon Kurdish forces has antagonized its NATO ally, Turkey, which has demanded that the US brand Syria’s Kurdish militia as “terrorist” because of its ties with the Turkish Kurdish PKK (Kurdistan Workers Party), against which the Turkish military is waging a simmering civil war.

Not only has the Obama administration resisted Ankara’s pressure on this score, the chief of the US Central Command paid a visit to the Kurdish units in northern Syria last month. Subsequently, photographs of US special forces wearing YPG patches on their uniforms provoked fresh outraged protests from the Turkish government.

At the same time, the prospect of Kurdish forces “liberating” either Raqqa in Syria or Mosul in Iraq, both predominantly Sunni cities, has sparked new fears of ethnic cleansing and partition.

The advance of the disparate anti-ISIS offensives has served to underscore the catastrophic destruction inflicted upon the region by US imperialism, which deliberately incited sectarian divisions, first as part of its divide-and-rule strategy in Iraq, and then to promote a sectarian-based war for regime change in Syria.

At the same time, the prospect of defeating ISIS only exposes even more clearly the mutually opposed interests of the various outside powers that claim to be united in their opposition to the Islamist militia, raising the specter of the present conflict spawning regional and even world war.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur US-Backed Offensive against Fallujah Threatens « Human Catastrophe »

Indict Hillary Clinton

juin 1st, 2016 by Wouldlike Change

Hillary Clinton should be immediately indicted for:

1.  Obstruction of justice.  If any average citizen lied to investigative officials, failed to turn over evidence, provided only selective evidence,  they would be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.  If any average military personnel with even the lightest of Security Clearance was in breach as Clinton clearly was, they would be prosecuted.  Why are our officials not held accountable for their actions?

2.  Spoliation of evidence.  If any average citizen wiped the hard drive after requests from authorities to turn it over, they would be prosecuted.  Why are our officials not held accountable for their actions?

3.  Violaton of Federal Records Act (perhaps willful).  Our officials agree to be accountable when they hold office.  They also agree to comply with the Federal Records Act.  Why are our officials not held accountable for their actions?

4.  Violation of Espionage Act (perhaps willful).  Our officials with Security Clearances agree to hold sensitive information vital to our country’s security with strict restrictions.  Ignoring these restrictions should be prosecuted in full, and not doing so is treason against every American.  Why are our officials not held accountable for their actions?

The Clinton Foundation ties to weapons deals should also be thoroughly investigated.

To sign petition click here


  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Indict Hillary Clinton

The McClatchy news service scoop that Labib al-Nahhas, the Syrian foreign affairs director of al-Qaeda’s ally Ahrar ash-Sham, visited Washington, DC in December 2015 should have created a huge political stir in a presidential election year.

However, the fact that the Obama administration has been consorting with terrorist allies of al-Qaeda and the Islamic State in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, and other countries has received little to no coverage in the American media. More astoundingly, Ahrar ash-Sham, which, along with the al-Nusra Front massacred 19 Alawite Muslims in the Syrian village of Zara in May, is not designated a terrorist group by the US State Department.

The simple fact is that from CIA director John Brennan to national security adviser Susan Rice and US Central Command chief General Joseph Votel to Senate Armed Services Committee chairman Senator John McCain, the Obama administration and the Republicans who control Congress have consorted with Islamist terrorists. These groups have included those who have executed Americans and who help finance and plan terrorist attacks against civilians around the world. The visit of al-Nahhas to Washington follows a long tradition of the US government consorting with Sunni Mujahideen (called the «muj» by their CIA overseers), jihadists, and Salafists starting with the support for Muslim insurgents in Afghanistan and continuing with the provision of military training and weapons to Sunni Arab guerrillas in Iraq.

Votel, who paid a May visit to northern Syria, is not the first US official who entered Syria for a «get acquainted with» session with US-armed jihadist rebels, which was disguised as a «fact-finding mission». In May 2013, Senator McCain entered northern Syria and met with a man who strongly resembles Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. The more McCain’s staff and his neo-conservative apologists tried to claim the man was not al-Baghdadi but an unidentified commander of the Northern Storm Brigade, a group linked to the practically non-existent Free Syrian Army, the more McCain’s and the neocons’ lies became apparent. Reports from Damascus, Baghdad, Tehran, and Hezbollah’s media outlets in Beirut all confirmed that the CIA, along with the Israel Defense Force, were actively providing weapons, training, and logistics support to ISIL and allies units in Syria and western Iraq.

Ever since President Jimmy Carter’s fervently anti-Russian and extreme nationalist Polish national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski began training and arming the most radical jihadist Sunni Pashtun and Arab fighters he could find to fight the Soviet army in Afghanistan, the CIA and Pentagon have maintained a problematic relationship with Islamist radicalism. The CIA’s own widely-used term, «blowback», is the only word that can adequately describe what Brzezinski’s decision has cost the United States and the civilized world.

The CIA’s recruitment of jihadist fighters from across the Middle East was so rampant in 1980s that Michael Springmann, the US Vice Consul in Jeddah, reported that he was ordered by resident CIA officers at the consulate to grant US visas to individuals who Springmann said were jihadist recruits of Osama bin Laden. During the CIA’s military operations in Afghanistan, Bin Laden was a trusted and much-valued US ally. For blowing the whistle on the visas for al-Qaeda, Springmann was fired by the State Department.

A December 1986 formerly Secret CIA report concluded that «well-educated» and «urban» Muslim fundamentalists were the best ranks from which to recruit a «charismatic leader» capable of galvanizing «an untapped pool of potential fundamentalists» from «the lower classes». Whether in Afghanistan in the 1980s or Syria today, the CIA and its Pentagon cohorts have followed the 1986 CIA template with regard to Bin Laden and Al-Baghdadi. These are but a few disgraceful examples of Brzezinski’s, Henry Kissinger’s, and current CIA director John Brennan’s «realpolitik» in the conduct of American foreign policy for almost four decades.

The CIA report also stated that in 1986, with most Syrians «benefitting» from the rule of the Assad family, «radical fundamentalism» was «unlikely to gain a strong foothold in Syria». The US support for the «Arab Spring» in Syria changed all that and the destabilization of Syria by mostly foreign agitators saw a consequential erosion of popular support for the Syrian government, especially among Sunni tribes close to the porous border with Iraq.

By 1986, some Islamist radicals that were recruited to participate in the «jihad» against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan had committed their fair share of what the Pentagon calls «collateral damage». This included the 1981 assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and early signs of trouble in Egypt, Jordan, Tunisia, and Pakistan with recently-returned jihadists from Afghanistan clashing with police in street demonstrations held in Cairo, Amman, Tunis, and various Pakistani cities.

Financial problems caused by Western bankers at the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and the investment firms of Wall Street and the City of London brought on the initial stages of social upheaval in the Arab world. Thirty percent of Jordan’s trained engineers and one-third of its medical doctors were unemployed. Rent-controlled apartments became scarce in Cairo, with only the wealthy able to afford to rent, let alone buy, a home. A breakdown in public services resulted in raw sewage flowing in the streets of Alexandria. Public transportation woes included overcrowded buses and inoperable trains. The danger of collapsing residential buildings in Algiers put 6000 people in mortal jeopardy. There is little wonder, therefore, that 90 percent of the jihadists in the 1980s were in their twenties and thirties. Fighting in a far-away battlefield was preferable to living in a slum.

These ready-made recruits were valuable fodder for the CIA in the war in Afghanistan. For the CIA, it also made sense to curry favor with and keep lines of communications open with fundamentalist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, which the CIA sold to the American people and an international audience as «moderate» fundamentalists. Today, the CIA and Pentagon have done the same with regard to the jihadists in Syria. Some fundamentalists, like the terrorist Ahrar ash-Sham «foreign minister» al-Nahhas, are called «moderates».

One thing should be clear: there are no «moderate» Sunni jihadists, whether in Syria, Iraq, Libya, or Yemen today or Afghanistan and Pakistan in the 1980s. While there are moderate fundamentalist Shias, Ibadis, Ismailis, Zaidis, Ahmadis, Alevis, Sufis, Akhbaris, and Alawites in Islam, moderate Sunni fundamentalists, thanks to Saudi Wahhabist influence around the world, are as rare as hen’s teeth. Wahhabism and its Salafist tenets have resulted in only two choices in the Sunni world: jihadism or secularism. Baathist or pan-Arab socialism, which the US has all-but-destroyed in the Arab world, placed secularism over Islam. There has been no other similar movement to fill the vacuum, especially in Syria, Iraq, and Libya. In any case, the CIA was never interested in «moderate» Sunni fundamentalists. The fools who ran and continue to run America’s intelligence community wanted only those Sunni recruits who were willing to die in battle or commit suicide for their jihad, whether in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, or Libya. Unfortunately, for the civilized world, these jihadists went on to die for their jihad in places like Paris, Brussels, London, San Bernardino, Boston, Istanbul, Moscow, Ottawa, and Madrid.

Jihadist terrorists should pay for their crimes against humanity. But so should those whose policies enabled the rise of jihadist terrorists and trials for aiding and abetting terrorism for Messrs Brzezinski, Brennan, McCain, and Mmes Rice (Susan and Condoleezza), Madeleine Albright, Samantha Power, and Hillary Clinton should be seriously considered.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Uncle Sam’s Support for Terrorism Laid Bare. There are No « Moderate Terrorists »

The United States and its NATO allies have recently established ballistic missile defense systems in Poland and Romania. The United States claims that these systems are set up for the purpose of protecting Romania and Poland.

However, Russian leaders interpret the systems as a threat to them because these “defense systems” are strike enabling. The new ballistic missile systems enable NATO forces in Poland and Romania to strike Russia with cruise missiles, and then deflect any response.

Russia and China raised similar objections to the missile system being established in the southern part of the Korean Peninsula. In Cold War terms, these missile systems give “first strike capability” to the United States and its NATO allies in Eastern Europe.


The installation of the missiles in Poland has been quite unpopular. Naturally, the installation of the system in Poland has been accompanied by a crackdown on political forces that object to it.

Mateusz Piskorski, a Pan-Slavic activist and former member of the Polish parliament has been detained without specific charges. Authorities allege, without citing anything specific, that he has been engaged in espionage.

To anyone trained in criminology or the history of espionage, it should be highly obvious that Piskorski has not engaged in any illegal activity. Piskorski is a well-known political activist. He leads a small political party and runs a Pan-Slavic publishing house. As a well-known public figure, Piskorski is the last person that any intelligence agency would cooperate with. Piskorski has been detained because he is an outspoken critic of NATO and the European Union, and is loudly voicing his opposition to Polish cooperation with hostility to Russia.

Piskorski is not the only one who has been targeted by the pro-NATO government in Poland. On April 1st, the right-wing political party that runs the country passed a sweeping anti-Communist law. The law outlaws displays honoring adherents of the “Anti-Polish Communist Ideology.” The law specifically lists a number of Polish historical figures who cannot legally be honored. Among them are not only leaders of the post-war socialist regime, but also the Dabrowski Brigade of Polish volunteers who fought fascism in Spain, and any members of the Social Democratic Party of Poland and Lithuania, once led by Rosa Luxemburg. A number of anti-Nazi resistance groups, led by Communists, that operated during the Second World War are also outlawed.

On March 31st, four leaders of the Communist Party were convicted of “promoting totalitarianism.” Their crime was operating a website and printing a leftist newspaper. They were sentenced to nine months in prison with hard labor.

The “Law and Justice Party” which leads Poland is leading the crackdown on Communists, leftists, and Pan-Slavists while at the same time allowing Neo-Nazis and other fascists to operate openly. While Communists and Pan-Slavists are forced into the shadows, 400 Neo-Nazis paraded through the streets on April 13th in a public rally.

Imagine if Vladimir Putin were to crackdown on his pro-liberal, western opponents in such a way? In Putin’s Russia, the “Union of Right Forces” and other parties that embrace western ideologies operate openly. Groups promoting free market capitalism, falsifying Russian history and accusing great historical figures of genocide, openly operate all across Russian soil, and often receive western funding as they do so.

The “human rights” allegations against Russia pale in comparison to what is being openly done by the pro-NATO polish regime, as the missile systems are being erected, paving the way to World War Three.

The hypocrisy of western media and the “human rights” NGO noise machine should be very obvious.

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 While Installing NATO Missiles Directed against Russia, Polish Regime Crushes Dissent

On June 16, 1976, students in the Southwest Townships (Soweto) outside of Johannesburg stayed away from school in protest against the Bantu education system which was enacted by the racist apartheid government beginning in the early 1950s.

The Bantu Education Act of 1953, which was drafted by H.F. Verwoerd, who later became prime minister in the 1960s, had also met protests from the African population. These demonstrations during the 1950s were eventually crushed by the security forces of the settler colonial regime.

Bantu education was designed for Africans with the expressed intent to convey through this methodology that equality with whites was not to be pursued by the majority population. One unintentional consequence of the Bantu Education Act was to increase enrollment of Africans within the school system and therefore providing a base for the expression of mass discontent with the overall system of racist oppression.

In 1976, the Nationalist Party government declared that educational instruction would be conducted in both English and Afrikaner languages, the tongue of the dominant oppressors inside the country. Students who had already been undergoing a radicalization process for several years decided to take action in opposition to not only the language policy but to the overall deplorable system of education in general.

The march on June 16 was reportedly called by the Action Committee of the Soweto Students Representative Council and initially involved two high schools, Naledi High in Naledi and Morris Isaacson in Mofolo. Nonetheless, other accounts contend that the main focus of activity was Phefeni Junior Secondary, located near Vilakazi Street in Orlando. (

Phefeni was close to the railway station where many students got off the trains to join the demonstration. The plan was set up where the students from Naledi High were to march from this direction and later mobilize students from the schools on the way toward Morris Isaacson.

Students from Morris Isaacson were to march from their school connecting with others until they arrived at a central location where they would continue in a disciplined manner collectively to Orlando Stadium. There were other schools that also participated in the manifestation bringing thousands of youth into the streets.

Police encountered the young people who were conducting their protest peacefully first by throwing teargas into the crowd and later firing live bullets striking at least four students initially. After the first massacre of students, people scattered enraged by the outrageous killing of youth.

Soon enough the West Rand Administrative Buildings (WRAB) and vehicles were set on fire and burned to the ground. Later a white WRAB bureaucrat was pulled from a car and beaten to death.

Stores selling alcoholic beverages were burned and looted. Other clashes with the police took place where dozens more students were murdered in the vicinity of the Regina Mhundi church in Orlando and the Esso garage in Chiawelo. When the students were halted and dispersed by the police in one locality they swiftly moved on to other areas.

By the conclusion of the first day of the uprising most of Soweto, including Diepkloof, which was relatively unaffected during the earlier hours, were impacted by the unrest. The apartheid authorities closed all schools early and many students headed towards home amid townships on fire.

Hundreds of people were killed in the days that followed as the demonstrations spread to Cape Town and other regions of the country. This protest extended across the country from the youth sector to the working class.

A Renewed Struggle

The outbreak of strikes and rebellion in 1976 provided the banned exiled national liberation movements an opportunity to recruit youth who were fleeing the country as well as those who remained inside South Africa.

African National Congress (ANC) leaders escalated their efforts to provide political and military training to a new generation of youthful militants. Several clashes between cadres of the ANC military wing Um Khonto we Sizwe (MK) were reported in the following months during 1976.

Both the ANC and its breakaway Pan-Africanist Congress of Azania (PAC) experienced a boost in membership and affiliation. By 1980, the armed struggle had escalated where coal to fuel production facilities were bombed by the ANC on June 1. The attacks on SASOL I, NATREF and SASOL II took place in order to coincide with the apartheid Republic Day.

A new generation of resistance took hold leading to the mass upsurge of the 1980s involving the formation of unions, civic organizations, a cultural revival, and a more consistent armed struggle leading to the demise of the racist system by 1994.

The racist apartheid regime attempted to ruthlessly suppress the national liberation struggle through mass incarceration, targeted assassinations, massacres of protesters and strikers along with cross border raids into neighboring Frontline States accused of harboring MK guerrillas.

ANC offices and training camps in Angola, Mozambique, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Lesotho and Botswana were raided and bombed by the South African Defense Forces (SADF). It is estimated that over one million died in the struggle to free South Africa and Namibia including efforts to drive out the SADF from southern Angola during the late 1970s and 1980s.

The Republic of Cuba provided hundreds of thousands of volunteers in the fight to defeat the SADF in Angola. The Southwest Africa People’s Organization (SWAPO) in Namibia also waged a heroic campaign between 1960 and 1989 leading to their independence in 1990.

Lessons From the South African Liberation Movement

Today some twenty-two years since the ascendancy of the ANC to power in South Africa the struggle is by no means over. Although advances have been made in the acquisition of political power; the construction of homes; providing water to township and rural residents; educational opportunities and medical care; the national wealth of South Africa has not been transferred to the African majority.

Legitimate grievances remain and they are reflected in the ongoing unrest among the African working class and urban residents. Nonetheless, the United States government, which reaped tremendous benefits from corporate investments in the apartheid system is still seeking to undermine the ANC government.

The ANC is facing formidable challenges in the local governmental elections scheduled for August. The country is undergoing an economic crisis with the decline in the value of the national currency, the rand, and rising unemployment rates fueled by capital flight carried out by the mining firms and financial institutions.

What lessons can youth in the U.S. and other western states learn from these struggles for the 21st century? Like the Civil Rights and Black Power movements, the South African Revolution was based upon both national and class oppression.

In the U.S., African Americans and Latina/os are subjected to higher rates of joblessness, poverty, police repression and mass incarceration. Linking the plight of the youth with that of the working class was a fundamental strategic aspect of the movement to liberate Southern Africa as a whole.

The U.S. is undergoing a national election in 2016 where the issues related to the social conditions involving the oppressed are not seriously discussed. This reality suggests the need for independent self-organization within a similar framework as the ANC and its allies within the South African Communist Party (SACP) and the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU).

These lessons from the national student uprising of 1976 and the subsequent struggle encompassing the working class and peasantry should be seriously considered as a way forward for the realization of self-determination and social emancipation in the U.S. As in both South Africa and the U.S., the capitalist relations of production must be overturned in order for genuine liberation and social justice to become a reality.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur The South African National Student Uprising of 1976: Looking Back 40 Years Later

Le scandale impliquant la société Enron em 2001 a permis de mettre en relief la corruption financière sous-jacente aux projets d’oléoducs des grandes sociétés pétrolières.

L’article ci-dessous, écrit en 2002 et publié pour la première fois le 27 mai 2002, examine la manière dont les pétrolières avec l’appui de la Banque mondiale ont de manière flagrante manipulé le droit foncier dans les pays en voie de développement afin de s’approprier de vastes étendues de terre.

Cette analyse permet d’avoir une perspective historique de la complicité de la Banque Mondiale et du FMI avec les pétrolières s’appropriant des terres autochtones pour le développement des grands marchés gaziers et pétroliers dans les années 2000 en Amérique latine.

« Enron avait un style en Amérique latine : un mélange d’arrogance de mensonges et de magouilles emballé par de généreuses contributions à la classe politique  » (l’ancien directeur  d’Ecopetrol, l’entreprise nationale d’énergie colombienne).1

En Amérique latine, en Afrique, en Asie centrale… les géants pétroliers usurpent des terres ancestrales pour les besoins des grands marchés gaziers et pétroliers.

Sous la houlette de la Banque mondiale, une nouvelle politique économique s’est dessinée à l’échelle mondiale ayant pour conséquence la dérogation du droit coutumier et l’invasion « légitime » des terres autochtones par les géants du pétrole. Ces pétrolières ne font pas qu’administrer des pipelines et des projets énergétiques, elles sont également impliquées dans des actions visant la modification du droit foncier sur les terres autochtones.

En Amérique latine, la déréglementation du marché des terres ainsi que la privatisation des terres publiques ont permis à la société Enron de conquérir les secteurs du gaz et de l’électricité sans s’inquiéter pour autant des impacts sur l’environnement et les nations autochtones qui occupaient ces terres en vertu du droit coutumier.

Les plus puissantes transnationales, notamment les mégasociétés pétrolières Shell, Enron, TotalFinaElf, ont investi dans les plus importants mégaprojets énergétiques en Amérique latine. Ces investissements visent également des « projets de développement » dans des secteurs connexes : la prospection minière, les projets forestiers et environnementaux, etc.

Ces investissements furent réalisés grâce à de généreuses subventions auprès de ces compagnies. La Banque Mondiale octroie des crédits auprès des gouvernements qui à leur tour subventionnent ces grandes sociétés.

Les réformes économiques et la consolidation du pouvoir des transnationales

En octobre 1998, les représentants de la Banque Mondiale et du FMI se réunissaient à Washington avec les cadres supérieurs des plus grandes entreprises transnationales et les ministres de plusieurs pays en développement. La septième Conférence annuelle du Congrès mondial de développement économique incitait le « dialogue » (sic) entre les gouvernements et le secteur privé international afin de créer des liens étroits entre les différents acteurs. Il s’agissait d’établir, par l’entremise des actions de la Banque mondiale, de nouvelles règles économiques afin d’appuyer les projets d’investissement des méga-sociétés du gaz, du pétrole, des mines et des forêts.

Plus précisément, cette réunion visait à mettre en oeuvre de nouvelles règles pour « une mobilisation de l’investissement international du capital » tout en « minimisant les risques économiques » pour le capital étranger dans les « pays à faible revenu ».

Pour leur part, les gouvernements souvent complices des pétrolières, garantissaient le financement des infrastructures tout en déréglementant les secteurs de ressources stratégiques (gaz, pétrole, électricité, mines et forêts), ce au coeur même des terres des autochtones. De nouvelles lois régissant la propriété foncière furent établies; les sociétés privées accèdent à des secteurs préalablement controlés par l’État. Dans cette même logique de financement de l’investissement étranger, la dette extérieure monte en flèche.

Parmi les pays représentés à la conférence du Congrès mondial de développement économique, le Brésil figurait comme l’excellent élève des leaders de l’économie mondiale. Le gouvernement brésilien avait déjà emboîté le pas durant le gouvernement du Président Fernando Collor de Mello au début des années 1990. Durant le premier gouvernement du président Fernando Henrique Cardoso, une mégapolitique de privatisation de plusieurs grandes industries et de terres publiques occupées par les autochtones fut mise en marche. La conséquence de cette politique fut d’affaiblir la société pétrolière nationale Petrobras. Alors que Petrobras demeure une compagnie d`État, elle a désormais perdu son monopole au profit des sociétés étrangères. De son côté, le gouvernement bolivien du président Gonzalez Sanchez de Losada ( Goni ) avait édifié un système unique de privatisation des grandes sociétés d’état des ressources stratégiques. Cinq des plus grandes sociétés d’état boliviens furent privatisées par l’entremise du processus dite de « capitalisation ».2  C’est ainsi que la compagnie d’état bolivienne, la pétrolière YPFB (Yacimientos Petroliferos Fiscales Bolivianos), fut scindée en quatre entités, dont trois capitalisées au profit des transnationales. La mise en place du processus de « capitalisation » des entreprises publiques à partir de 1994 a grandement favorisé le capital étranger. En d’autres mots, une partie importante du secteur public bolivien fut vendu au capital étranger.

Désormais tous les gouvernements des pays en développement imitent ce modèle exigé par la Banque Mondiale et du FMI., en complicité avec les intérêts de Wall Street. La Banque Mondiale a dessiné des réformes conformes aux exigences des créanciers et des investisseurs. Le président de la Banque Mondiale, James Wolfensohn, déclarait : « le Monde a besoin d’une nouvelle ‘architecture de développement’ assortie au nouveau système financier mondial ».3  Dès son entrée en fonction, M. James Wolfensohn, avait promis de « révolutionner la Banque Mondiale » par des réformes économiques et « sociales ».4  Ces réformes furent marquées par l’accroissement de l’aide aux grandes sociétés, leaders dans l’économie du pétrole et du gaz. Par conséquent, la Banque Mondiale a multiplié son financement aux projets les plus controversés, notamment les gazoducs GASBOL (Bolivie-Brésil), Yadana (Thaïlande-Myanmar) et l’oléoduc Cameroun-Tchad. Les bailleurs de fonds ainsi que les banques privées ont également octroyé des prêts pour le financement de ces grands projets d’infrastructures gérés par des transnationales pétrolières.5  Le Groupe de Banque Mondiale incluant sa Société financière internationale (SFI) ainsi que la Banque interaméricaine de développement (BID) avaient financé, par l’octroi de prêts au consortium, le tiers des montants requis au développement du gazoduc Bolivie-Brésil (Santa-Cruz-Porto Alegre 1997-1999).

Les impacts environnementaux

Or la Banque Mondiale se donne « bonne conscience » en prétendant que ses réformes contribuent à la diminution de la pauvreté tout en assurant le développement durable dans les « pays à faible revenu ». Par ailleurs, le gaz naturel est souvent présenté comme une « source d`énergie verte », à savoir que le gaz produirait deux fois moins de gaz à effet de serre que le carbone et deux tiers moins que le pétrole (à cause de son bas niveau de carbone, il produit moins de gaz carbonique lorsqu’il brûle).

Mais ces résultats mis de l’avant par la Banque mondiale, sont remis en question par des études qui démontrent que le gaz contribue grandement à l’effet de serre. Par exemple, « le gaz est composé de méthane (90%) qui a un impact 20 fois plus important que le gaz carbonique. »6 Par ailleurs, les opérations de forage pour l’exploitation du gaz ont sensiblement les même impacts sur les populations et leur environnement que celles liées au pétrole. Ces forages (pétrole et gaz) produisent des déchets toxiques, sans compter la déforestation et les impacts environnementaux attribuables à la construction de nouvelles routes à travers des écosystèmes très fragiles. Alors que la Banque Mondiale et les mégasociétés pétrolières font la propagande du gaz comme l' »énergie verte » (gaz), les impacts environnementaux du mégaprojet gazier Bolivie-Brésil, et son projet d’expansion, sont très importants. Les environnementalistes ont souligné entre autres la déforestation et les émissions de carbone évaluées à 500 mille tonnes par an. Par ailleurs, la Banque mondiale et le FMI appuient les géants pétroliers ( Shell, Enron, TotalFinaElf, etc.) malgré les nombreuses accusations concernant la violation des droits humains et environnementaux .7 Au débat sur les activités des sociétés transnationales (STN) et leurs responsabilités des droits humains à l’ONU (Sous-Commission de l’Homme de l’ONU- SCDH), M. Grant Taplin, représentant du FMI, affirmait que « le FMI n’est pas mandaté pour prendre en compte les droits de l’homme dans ses décisions et qu’il n’est pas lié par les différentes conventions relatives aux droits humains ».8

« Nous assistons à la mise en place d’une tendance visant à privatiser les droits humains: il existe aujourd’hui des consultants en matière de droits de l’homme qui travaillent pour certaines sociétés et on a même vu Amnesty International accepter de Shell des actes qui, du point de vue des droits de l’homme, sont inacceptables. Les codes de conduite sont une preuve de cette privatisation. Les Nations Unies ont adhéré à cette tendance en participant au Global Compact. » 9

Micheline Ladouceur

1. Gustavo Soto, Mort annoncée de Bolivie néo-libérale 1985-2001, Défis Sud, No. 50. 2002,

2. La capitalisation « consiste à transformer les grandes enterprises publiques en sociétés mixtes dont le capital est double lors de leur mise en vente, l’acquéreur souscrivant 50% des actions et se voyant accorder la direction de l’entreprise. La sélection de l’acquéreur se fait sur appel d’offres public international, l’adjudicataire étant celui qui aura proposé le meilleur programme d’investissements dans le pays. » Privatisations,

3. « The World need a « new development architecture » to match the new global financial system », Réunion annuelle de la Banque Mondiale, le 28 septembre 1999, Financial Times, « Wolfenson pledges development reforms », 29 septembre 1999.

4. Oxfam a appuyé le nouveau président en disant qu’il amenait « a breath of fresh air ».

5. Banque Intraméricaine de développement 240 millions, Corporacion Andina de Fomentp (CAF) 165 millions, Banque Européenne d’investissement 60 millions, Banque Nationale de Développement Économique et Social (BNDES) financent les tubes faits au Brésil, au Japon et aux États-Unis, 418 millions, Capacidade Opcional de Transporte (TCO) 389 millions. Des agrnces de crésit à l’exportation, dont J Bic et Marubeni Corporation du Japon et Mediocredito (Garantia Italia) particiopent également avec 346 millions. Source : Petrobras, 30 mars 2000

6. Project Underground, Enron: the Global Gospel of Gas, 27 novembre 1997,

7. Par exemple, au Nigéria, Shell a développé un projet pétrolier sur les terres Ogoni. Les opposants ont été emprisonnés et torturés.

8. Selon le CETIM (Centre Europe Tiers-Monde), des transnationales vont jusqu’à financer des activités terroristes, des coups d’état et des dictature… Jac Forton, Espaces latinos, 2001.

9. Claude K. Akpokavi, Les normes internationales du travail et les codes de conduite pour les sociétés transnationales, Actes et conclusions du séminaire de Céligny (Suisse), 4 et 5 mai 2001, organisé par AAJ et CETIM,

For decades, the story of Saudi Arabia recycling petrodollars, i.e., funding the US deficit by buying US Treasuries with proceeds of its crude oil sales (mostly to the US), while the US sweetened the deal by providing the Saudis with military equipment and supplies, remained entirely in the conspiracy realm, with no confirmation or official statement from the US Treasury department.

Now, that particular « theory » becomes the latest fact, thanks to a fascinating story by Bloomberg which gives the background and details of secret meeting between then-US Treasury secretary William Simon and his deputy, Gerry Parsky, and members of the Saudi ruling elite, and lays out the history of how the petrodollar was born.

Here is the background:

It was July 1974. A steady predawn drizzle had given way to overcast skies when William Simon, newly appointed U.S. Treasury secretary, and his deputy, Gerry Parsky, stepped onto an 8 a.m. flight from Andrews Air Force Base. On board, the mood was tense. That year, the oil crisis had hit home. An embargo by OPEC’s Arab nations—payback for U.S. military aid to the Israelis during the Yom Kippur War—quadrupled oil prices. Inflation soared, the stock market crashed, and the U.S. economy was in a tailspin.

Officially, Simon’s two-week trip was billed as a tour of economic diplomacy across Europe and the Middle East, full of the customary meet-and-greets and evening banquets. But the real mission, kept in strict confidence within President Richard Nixon’s inner circle, would take place during a four-day layover in the coastal city of Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

The goal: neutralize crude oil as an economic weapon and find a way to persuade a hostile kingdom to finance America’s widening deficit with its newfound petrodollar wealth. And according to Parsky, Nixon made clear there was simply no coming back empty-handed. Failure would not only jeopardize America’s financial health but could also give the Soviet Union an opening to make further inroads into the Arab world.

It “wasn’t a question of whether it could be done or it couldn’t be done,” said Parsky, 73, one of the few officials with Simon during the Saudi talks

As noted above, the framework of the required deal was simple: the U.S. would buy oil from Saudi Arabia and provide the kingdom military aid and equipment. In return, the Saudis would plow billions of their petrodollar revenue back into Treasuries and finance America’s spending.

The man leading the US negotiation, US Treasury Secretary William Simon, had just done a stint as Nixon’s energy czar, and « seemed ill-suited for such delicate diplomacy. Before being tapped by Nixon, the chain-smoking New Jersey native ran the vaunted Treasuries desk at Salomon Brothers. To career bureaucrats, the brash Wall Street bond trader—who once compared himself to Genghis Khan—had a temper and an outsize ego that was painfully out of step in Washington. Just a week before setting foot in Saudi Arabia, Simon publicly lambasted the Shah of Iran, a close regional ally at the time, calling him a “nut.”

But Simon, better than anyone else, understood the appeal of U.S. government debt and how to sell the Saudis on the idea that America was the safest place to park their petrodollars. With that knowledge, the administration hatched an unprecedented do-or-die plan that would come to influence just about every aspect of U.S.-Saudi relations over the next four decades (Simon died in 2000 at the age of 72).

In the beginning it wasn’t easy: « it took several discreet follow-up meetings to iron out all the details, Parsky said. »

But at the end of months of negotiations, Bloomberg writes, there remained one small, yet crucial, catch:King Faisal bin Abdulaziz Al Saud demanded the country’s Treasury purchases stay “strictly secret,” according to a diplomatic cable obtained by Bloomberg from the National Archives database. »

The secret remains… until May 16 when the US Treasury for the first time ever revealed the full extent of Saudi TSY holdings.

Bloomberg adds that with a handful of Treasury and Federal Reserve officials, the secret was kept for more than four decades—until now. « In response to a Freedom-of-Information-Act request submitted by Bloomberg News, the Treasury broke out Saudi Arabia’s holdings for the first time this month after “concluding that it was consistent with transparency and the law to disclose the data,” according to spokeswoman Whitney Smith. The $117 billion trove makes the kingdom one of America’s largest foreign creditors. »

The TIC data released later that day confirmed the FOIA response.

To be sure, as we commented in mid-May, it is very likely that the Treasury report is incomplete, and that the Saudis also own hundreds of billions in Treasurys held in custody with offshore trading centers such as Euroclear. After all, the current tally represents just 20 percent of its $587 billion of foreign reserves, well below the two-thirds that central banks typically keep in dollar assets

What’s more, the commitment to the decades-old policy of “interdependence” between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, which arose from Simon’s debt deal and ultimately bound together two nations that share few common values, is showing signs of fraying. America has taken tentative steps toward a rapprochement with Iran, highlighted by President Barack Obama’s landmark nuclear deal last year. The U.S. shale boom has also made America far less reliant on Saudi oil.

Needless to say, the real total notional amount of Saudi holdings will eventually become known, especially if the middle-eastern nation follows through with its threat of liquidating some or all of them.  What is more notable, however, is that with the first disclosure of this data since the birth of the petrodollar, something appears to have changed:

What’s more, the commitment to the decades-old policy of “interdependence” between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, which arose from Simon’s debt deal and ultimately bound together two nations that share few common values, is showing signs of fraying. America has taken tentative steps toward a rapprochement with Iran, highlighted by President Barack Obama’s landmark nuclear deal last year. The U.S. shale boom has also made America far less reliant on Saudi oil.

“Buying bonds and all that was a strategy to recycle petrodollars back into the U.S.,” said David Ottaway, a Middle East fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center in Washington. But politically, “it’s always been an ambiguous, constrained relationship.”

One thing that certainly changed is that in a world where central banks are ravenously buying up each others’ (and their own) debt, the need for Petrodollar recyclers such as Saudi Arabia is no longer there.But that was not always the case:

[B]ack in 1974, forging that relationship (and the secrecy that it required) was a no-brainer, according to Parsky, who is now chairman of Aurora Capital Group, a private equity firm in Los Angeles. Many of America’s allies, including the U.K. and Japan, were also deeply dependent on Saudi oil and quietly vying to get the kingdom to reinvest money back into their own economies.

« Everyone—in the U.S., France, Britain, Japan—was trying to get their fingers in the Saudis’ pockets,” said Gordon S. Brown, an economic officer with the State Department at the U.S. embassy in Riyadh from 1976 to 1978. For the Saudis, politics played a big role in their insistence that all Treasury investments remain anonymous.

America’s reliance on Saudi Arabia to fund its deficit – and obtain a cheap price for oil – meant that the kingdom would be granted Platinum status in every form of interaction with the US.

Tensions still flared 10 months after the Yom Kippur War, and throughout the Arab world, there was plenty of animosity toward the U.S. for its support of Israel. According to diplomatic cables, King Faisal’s biggest fear was the perception Saudi oil money would, “directly or indirectly,” end up in the hands of its biggest enemy in the form of additional U.S. assistance.

Treasury officials solved the dilemma by letting the Saudis in through the back door. In the first of many special arrangements, the U.S. allowed Saudi Arabia to bypass the normal competitive bidding process for buying Treasuries by creating “add-ons.”Those sales, which were excluded from the official auction totals, hid all traces of Saudi Arabia’s presence in the U.S. government debt market.

“When I arrived at the embassy, I was told by people there that this is Treasury’s business,” Brown said. “It was all handled very privately.”

* * *

Another exception was carved out for Saudi Arabia when the Treasury started releasing monthly country-by-country breakdowns of U.S. debt ownership. Instead of disclosing Saudi Arabia’s holdings, the Treasury grouped them with 14 other nations, such as Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Nigeria, under the generic heading “oil exporters”—a practice that continued for 41 years.

Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia continued buying: by 1977, Saudi Arabia had accumulated about 20 percent of all Treasuries held abroad, according to The Hidden Hand of American Hegemony: Petrodollar Recycling and International Markets by Columbia University’s David Spiro.

The deal led to assorted headaches: « an internal memo, dated October 1976, detailed how the U.S. inadvertently raised far more than the $800 million it intended to borrow at auction. At the time, two unidentified central banks used add-ons to buy an additional $400 million of Treasuries each. In the end, one bank was awarded its portion a day late to keep the U.S. from exceeding the limit.

Most of these maneuvers and hiccups were swept under the rug, and top Treasury officials went to great lengths to preserve the status quo and protect their Middle East allies as scrutiny of America’s biggest creditors increased.

Over the years, the Treasury repeatedly turned to the International Investment and Trade in Services Survey Act of 1976—which shields individuals in countries where Treasuries are narrowly held—as its first line of defense.

The strategy continued even after the Government Accountability Office, in a 1979 investigation, found “no statistical or legal basis” for the blackout. The GAO didn’t have power to force the Treasury to turn over the data, but it concluded the U.S. “made special commitments of financial confidentiality to Saudi Arabia” and possibly other OPEC nations.

Simon, who had by then returned to Wall Street, acknowledged in congressional testimony that “regional reporting was the only way in which Saudi Arabia would agree” to invest using the add-on system.

Ultimately, Saudi dominance in the US Treasury market meant they were untouchable. « It was clear the Treasury people weren’t going to cooperate at all,” said Stephen McSpadden, a former counsel to the congressional subcommittee that pressed for the GAO inquiries. “I’d been at the subcommittee for 17 years, and I’d never seen anything like that. »

Today, Parsky says the secret arrangement with the Saudis should have been dismantled years ago and was surprised the Treasury kept it in place for so long. But even so, he has no regrets. Doing the deal “was a positive for America”, he says cited by Bloomberg.

And with that the story of how the Petrodollar was born is now public information, something which Saudi Arabia may not be too happy with. For the sake of the US, it better have its ducks in order because the release of this story simply means that the US Treasury is confident it will no longer have a strategic need for its long-time Saudi partner. The Fed, which has implicitly stepped into the Saudi role, better not disappoint.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur How the Petrodollar Was Born and Lived in Secrecy for over 40 Years

Colluding in EU-British Lies: The Brexit Debate

juin 1st, 2016 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

The Brexit argument (whether Britain should remain or otherwise in the European Union), has become hysterically hyperbolic. That was the view of former Tory MP Gyles Brandreth, expressed with usual alacrity on the news quiz show Have I Got News For You.

Times in Britain are viciously partisan. No one wants to see their dog left out of this particular fight. The result is a vicious mauling being handed out by all sides on whether the leavers or stayers have the upper hand.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies, one of Britain’s more prominent tax think tanks, went in against the Vote Leave campaign, suggesting that the austerity regime would be prolonged by a departure from the EU. That would be the only way to plug consequential multi-billion pound holes in the budget arising from lower foreign investment and poorer trade returns.

The IFS also took issue with various figures being used by the Leave campaign, most notably the suggestion that Brussels receives £350 million every week from the sceptred isle. That particular figure has become the holy marker for former London mayor Boris Johnson. According to the body, that assessment conveniently ignored the role of the rebate and a range of other subsidies for business and research. Taken together, the amount ending in EU coffers was more likely £150 million.

Vote Leave, in what has been symptomatic of the debate, could only dismiss the IFS projections as issuing from a “paid-up propaganda arm of the European Commission”. Naturally, “The IFS was not a neutral organisation.”[1] Objectivity is suffering a long drawn out death.

Then came a study by Migration Watch which emphasised the undesirables coming into the country. While Johnson and company rail against the succubi of Brussels, they also fear the influx of humans.

Migration Watch duly supplied some ammunition with a suitably alarmist prediction, claiming that up to half a million refugees and their assortment of relatives would make their way to Britain after 2020. The supposition there is that those granted asylum in other EU countries – Germany, Greece, and Italy – would leapfrog their way into the UK on acquiring citizenship.

The group’s report asserts that leaked documents from Germany suggest that each person granted asylum would be followed by up to four family members. Building on figures farmed from Eurostat that 1 million migrants would be successfully granted asylum for 2015 and in the first quarter of 2016, the numbers are predictably inflated for effect.

According to the group’s chair, Andrew Green, “The UK could well face a significant secondary flow of refugees from Europe in the coming years adding to the already huge strain being placed on housing and public services.”[2]

Britain Stronger in Europe, the official front for the cause to stay in the EU, had another position, rubbishing the projections as counterfeit. For Emma Reynolds, MP for Wolverhampton North East and former shadow communities secretary, the “overwhelming majority of refugees will never get the right to come to Britain”. Another charming state of affairs.

On the side of the stayers, the situation has also been absurd, focusing on subjects emptied of political content. Vapid videos from the In Campaign are proliferating about how a lifestyle is at risk if the vote of June 23 favours departure. One, Votin, proves particularly grating in its semi-literate framing, using grammatically challenged terms. The unfortunate casualty in that production is the letter g. There is “earnin”, “makin”, “roamin” and “chillin”; there is “ravin” topped off by the smashing hashtag “#votin.”[3]

Its supposition is that the young are suitably disengaged in mindless activity to avoid the argument altogether. The reaction from that very segment was savage. “It failed to speak their language,” snorted The Telegraph, “instead implying they are stupid.”[4]

The corporate sector is similarly using another tack that emphasises a rather different notion of governance. For them, the profit factor, rather than the representative, democratic one, counts. Their apocalyptic warnings say little about reforming the EU and everything about keeping capital free.

Airbus, for instance, has insisted that leaving the EU would lead to a fall in investment in Britain. The company itself employs somewhere in the order of 15,000 people. Such direct arguments, even threats, tend to resemble acts of electoral bullying. If you vote to leave, goes this line of thought, you vote for the dire consequences of unbalanced budgets and lower growth.

Rather than drawing constructive arguments from each side, the descent to a bottom in the maelstrom of illogical fear has been undertaken. Between the dogmatic Brexiteers and the warning stayers, there is much more nonsense to be had before the referendum.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: [email protected]



  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Colluding in EU-British Lies: The Brexit Debate

In 1965, the United States and the UK were competing to sell war planes to Saudi Arabia. In order to get the lucrative contract, a « commission » had to be paid to members of the Saudi government.

The history of this colossal deal is recounted in a 1999 BBC documentary, The Mayfair Set. Four Stories about the Rise of Business and the Decline of Political Power. The first episode is titled Who Pays Wins.

The voice over images of the Queen of England and the Saudi King shaking hands and parading the streets of London to celebrate the historic deal explains: “December 1965, the Saudis announced they would buy the British planes. The bribes had worked. It was the biggest export dealing in Britain’s history and King Faizal came on a state visit to celebrate.“

Saudi King Abdullah with PM Harper

Lord Caldecote, the director of the military aeroplanes manufacturer English Electric explained this blatant corruption in those words: paying a commission to Saudi officials in order to obtain a contract is a cultural thing, just like having many wives. In other words, the Saudis have different customs, and paying bribes is not a form of corruption. It is just the Saudi way of doing business.

Almost 50 years later, in 2014, Canada was just like the UK signing its biggest export contract of all time, a 15-year arms deal worth $15 billion. A Crown corporation, the Canadian Commercial Corporation, negotiated and signed the contract. The armoured vehicles will be supplied by General Dynamics, based in London Ontario.

Knowing the Saudi « customs », which have not evolved much for the past 50 years, Canadians have every right to wonder if the Canadian government offered bribes to the Saudi royal family in order to obtain the most important contract of its history.

In 1965, the sale of British war planes to Saudi Arabia was closed as a war was raging in Yemen, where Nasser’s Egypt backed the republican Yemenites who were fighting against the royalist forces supported by Saudi Arabia. The British planes were instrumental in driving the Egyptians out of Yemen, reasserting British control over important trade routes and protecting the Saudi influence in the region.

In 2014, while Canada was concluding its sale of armoured vehicles to the Saudi kingdom, a war broke out in Yemen involving, once more, Saudi Arabia.

On March 27 2015, the then Minister of Foreign Affairs Rob Nicholson voiced the support of the Canadian government for the U.S.-Saudi war in Yemen: “Canada supports the military action by Saudi Arabia and its Gulf Cooperation Council [GCC] partners and others to defend Saudi Arabia’s border and to protect Yemen’s recognized government at the request of the Yemeni president.”

In this history that repeats itself, one can seriously doubt the saying “other times, other customs.” The BBC documentary shows how the historic British deal in 1965 was “the beginning of the modern arms trade with the Middle East which has grown to dominate Britain’s economy.” The deal also gave rise to a blooming trade in other economic sectors, such as the construction business, opening a foreign market for British contractors.

According to the Globe and Mail:

Stephen Harper’s Conservative government made Saudi Arabia’s “emerging market” a priority as part of a foreign policy that focused on international trade and business. Ottawa made careful diplomatic overtures to Riyadh in the years before the 2014 arms deal, according to Saudi government documents made public last year by Wikileaks. The Saudis, in turn, made their own investments in Canada, such as donating hundreds of thousands of dollars to expand private Islamic schools in this country.

The Harper government lobbied hard for the arms deal, which was brokered by a federal Crown corporation, Canadian Commercial Corp. Canada beat French and German companies to get the contract. Ed Fast, then the federal trade minister, touted the deal in February, 2014, as a triumph for Canada’s economic diplomacy.” (The Saudi arms deal: What we’ve learned so far, and what could happen next, The Globe and Mail, May 24, 2016)

The Trudeau government, which initially declared it “didn’t approve” the contract and was simply refusing to terminate it, actually approved the remaining export permits. Thus, this deal was approved by both the Harper and Trudeau governments.

How did Canada beat the French and German companies? Did the Conservatives and the Liberals offer and/or secure bribes to Saudi officials in order to obtain this historic sale, thereby helping to maintain the influence of the most repressive, misogynist regime in the Middle East, which, by the way, is also responsible for training and financing terrorism which Canada is allegedly fighting at home and abroad?

An inquiry into this largely secret arms deal is needed.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Did the Canadian Government Bribe Saudi Officials to Obtain its Arms Deal?

The End of M.A.D. — The Beginning of Madness

juin 1st, 2016 by Eric Zuesse

originally published at The Saker

John Helmer, who explains military-strategic matters better and more knowledgeably than just about anyone, headlined on May 30th, “The Red Line Crossed, In the Cross-Hairs, At Trigger Point”, and he opened:

First there was the red-line announcement. On Friday [May 27th] in Athens there was the cross-hairs statement. By the month of October, the month before the US presidential election, there will be the trigger point.

The US and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies are going to war with Russia, accelerating the inevitability that Russia will strike in self-defence. This is what the first and second statements by President Vladimir Putin warn. There will be no statement of warning.

News media in the West treat any such report — that Russia might be placed into a situation in which a blitz nuclear attack against the West would (and maybe even will) be Russia’s rational response to Western operations to surround Russia with hostile forces on its borders — as if there’s something kooky about any such opinion: they treat it as if the West weren’t ruled by people who are that evil, as if recognizing such evil in a ruler in the West is to be prohibited (especially if that ruler is America’s President, instead of, for example, Turkey’s President, whom apparently one is allowed to impute to be evil). On the present occasion, however, they should pay close attention to the situation Helmer describes, and they should report about the matter, while there might still be time enough to avert an unimaginable catastrophe, which (as Helmer explains in detail) could quite possibly happen this year.

The West is in stark reality-denial. Whereas the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, between JFK and Khrushchev, was accompanied by an appropriate public fear on both sides, the even more dangerous situation this time, between Putin and Obama, elicits such fear only among the Russian people, not at all among Americans and other Westerners.

Mutually Assured Destruction, or M.A.D., isn’t only a reality in a nuclearly armed multipolar world, but it is also, and equally importantly, also a mass-psychology, of belief that there cannot be any winner of a nuclear war — that (especially regarding a nuclear conflict between the two nuclear superpowers) any nuclear war will destroy the planet we all share. This sense of a shared fate on both sides, is central to M.A.D., as what it was — the foundation-stone of the post-world-war era, the era in which existed the longest extended period without a global war, since the advent of global war in 1914.

That era is, tragically, now over.

M.A.D. ended as a mass-psychology in the West, but not in the East — not in Russia, and not in any other of the world’s free nations, otherwise known as the independent nations (the nations that aren’t under the control of the U.S. aristocracy and of any of the aristocracies that are allied to that aristocracy — nor of any other foreign nation’s aristocracy), or also called the “BRICS” nations (which just recently lost its “B” when Brazil underwent a coup, which changed Brazil to becoming now a satellite of the U.S., which will probably (if nuclear war is averted) then be ‘rescued’ by IMF loans that will increasingly strip the Brazilian public and leave them with even lower living-standards and even deeper indebtedness, which will increasingly be owed to foreign lenders).

M.A.D. resulted from the balance that existed when America’s NATO alliance was counterbalanced by the USSR’s Warsaw Pact alliance. Therefore, the very idea of nuclear ‘conquest’, in a military sense, was simply assumed to be impractical, not only by the publics on both sides, but (at least as crucially) by the two opposed aristocracies, West versus East, U.S.-allied versus U.S.S.R.-allied.

The end result of U.S. President George Herbert Walker Bush’s secret strategy, in 1990-1991, of terminating that M.A.D. by his regime’s lying so as to fool Gorbachev to terminate the USSR and its Warsaw Pact while Gorbachev (and then his successor Yeltsin) allowed continuation and even expansion of NATO, has become, in the West, a total lack of the near-hysteria of mutual fear of nuclear annihilation that had existed in both the West and the East during the Cold War, and its replacement now by a nonchalant West and an increasingly terrified East, as the West is making preparations for what the U.S. aristocracy seems increasingly to believe to be a previously unprecedented situation, in which the U.S. aristocracy and its allied stooge-aristocracies (in Europe, Japan, and Australia) can emerge as actual victors after a nuclear war.

Thus, in the West, there is no hysteria, such as once existed, for everyone to build his/her own family bomb-shelter, even as the West now is tightening its nuclear noose around the Russians’ collective neck. Instead, that previous fear and sometimes even hysteria, has been replaced by a situation in which only some individuals (no one knows whom nor how many) from the West’s aristocracies, have purchased elaborate hardened underground luxurious bunkers, in preparation for their increasingly likely future existences in a presumed post nuclear-holocaust world, and meanwhile the Western masses are not at all outraged at their being left fully exposed with no bunkers at all; and, the reason they’re not, is that they believe that, as their country becomes ‘protected’ by a ballistic-missile-‘defense’ or BMD or ABM (anti-ballistic-missile) system against the ‘enemy’ (now just Russia), they’ve got no more need to worry about ’the enemy’.

The Reagan-era ‘Star Wars’ anti-ballistic missile defense dream for the American aristocracy, is now starting to be realized finally in an Obama-era Lockheed Martin “Aegis Ashore Missile Defense System” nightmare for the Russian people alone, as the putative imagined pathway towards global victory for America’s aristocracy is becoming installed in eastern Europe and other areas bordering on and close to Russia. The American and other Western publics are blithely unworried about it, because the aristocracy’s ‘news’ media have told them that this is ‘just a defensive measure against possible further Russian aggression’ (not a reach-for-global-conquest by America’s aristocracy, which it actually is).

This is one of the reasons why, from the standpoint of America’s rulers, it’s so vitally important for information about those luxurious bunkersto be circulated only in publications for the elite, such as FORBES. If the general public were to become increasingly aware that the few billionaires amongst them are making their own preparations for living in a possible post-nuclear-holocaust nation, then the uncomfortable questions would arise as to why the federal government is not assisting the general public to do likewise (or at least to live in some kind of bunker, such as did happen back in ‘the good old days’).

This is also the result of the ‘libertarian’ or ‘neoliberal’ ideology, the ideology of ‘individualism’, which the aristocracy has systematically inculcated now into generations of people in the West, which denigrates the government’s obligations to the public, and which raises instead to the ideal, the belief in the rightness of ‘every man for himself’ and ‘we are not in this together’, because ‘the masses of lazy bums and stupid people should get nothing more than whatever they deserve’. If, perhaps, a billionaire can afford to live ‘safely’ deep underground, then “more power to him,” according to this ideology, which proclaims that equality of rights is wrong, and that instead a person deserves to have no more rights than he or she has property, wealth, dollars — things to trade with other individuals who possess wealth. In the U.S., this transactional basis for individuals’ rights was the ideology of the Supreme Court in a series of decisions such as the 2010 Citizens United decision, that a person’s right to ‘free speech’ should be proportional to how much money he/she spends to buy it so as to persuade others to vote the way one wants them to vote, or to buy whatever else one wants them to buy.

This transactional concept of an individual’s rights is a protection of dollars, not really of people. It’s for (and in service to) an aristocracy, not a democracy. This Supreme Court has supported aristocracy, not democracy. And, since, after WW II, this has increasingly become the new ethos, not only in the United States but in all countries that take the U.S. to be the ideal, Western publics are not at all outraged at being left high-and-dry in the event that perhaps the new military-security system, which is replacing the shared safety of M.A.D., is replacing it with the competitive and non-shared safety of ’nuclear primacy’, and will end up leaving the public out in the cold nuclear winter in the enemy’s camp.

After all, in the totally competitive world, what’s won is taken, and what’s lost is given; and, ‘to the victor belong the spoils’. This might not necessarily be so in economics, but it certainly is so in the military; it even defines the military outlook — which, after all, is what we’re talking about here.

And, if people have to pay for their rights, then the ‘enemy’ isn’t the aristocracy — certainly not that of one’s own nation — but instead, it is the people who don’t have the money to buy their own rights. Some people call this type of political system ‘liberty’ or ‘libertarianism’ or ‘liberalism’ or ‘neoliberalism’; but, by whatever name it is called, it certainly isn’t democracy, and it certainly isn’t equality of rights, and it certainly isn’t equality of opportunity. It is, in a word: fascism. That’s an extension of the military outlook, into everything.

But another accurate term for it is: madness. However, it is a madness that has been sold, by Western aristocracies, to the publics in the West, which is the reason why the belief in M.A.D. is now gone from the West. The popular belief there now is: eat or else be eaten. And, what is to be eaten isn’t the aristocrats who are selling this poison; it’s ‘the enemy’. (Meanwhile, America and NATO can call thugs like this ‘friends’ and even “members of NATO” and still call themselves supporters of ‘democracy’, a term that’s now devoid of meaning in the West.) This is why Western publics don’t care about the fear that the Russian people feel concerning the installation of America’s anti-ballistic missile systems.

In the most fundamental sense, the concept that we are all in this together is gone, in the West. If it doesn’t exist in both the West and the ‘East’ (namely, in Russia, where it does exist), then a nuclear war is extremely likely, and the real question is: When will it be likeliest to happen?

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur The End of M.A.D. — The Beginning of Madness

Beijing May Declare Security Zone in South China Sea

juin 1st, 2016 by Stephen Lendman

So-called Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) imposition by any country involves protecting its national security interests.

Foreign aircraft entering it without authorization may be intercepted, ordered out, or forced down if refuse. In the case of the South China Sea, vessels could be interdicted for entering protected waters without permission.

US-generated tensions risk escalating dangerously. A previous article indicated China intends deploying nuclear-armed subs in Pacific Ocean waters for the first time – to counter America’s growing threat.

Unjustifiably claiming freedom of navigation rights, provocative US air and naval military patrols, along with joint exercises with Asian allies, ups the stakes for possible direct Sino/US confrontation.

According to the South China Morning Post (SCMP), Beijing may declare “an air defence identification zone (ADIZ) in the South China Sea, two years after it announced a similar one in the East China Sea, according to sources close to the People’s Liberation Army and a defence report.”

Timing depends on regional security concerns, notably increasing US hostile activities. According to an unnamed Beijing source, “(i)f the US military keeps making provocative moves to challenge China’s sovereignty in the region, it will give Beijing a good opportunity to declare an ADIZ in the South China Sea.”

Its Defense Ministry declared its sovereign right to impose it. Its 2013 East China Sea AZIZ includes waters and islands claimed by other regional countries.

Beijing considers America’s expanding Pacific military footprint the region’s greatest threat. Its Ministry of National Defense spokesman Yang Yujun urged Washington “to stop stirring up a storm in a teacup and stop sowing seeds of discord so as to maintain peace and stability in the South China Sea, which conforms to the common interests of all parties.”

Beijing wants provocative US air and sea-based surveillance activities stopped. Its Defense Ministry minced no words, calling “large-scale and frequent (US) close-in reconnaissance activities against China by US military vessels and aircraft” unacceptable close encounters, the “root cause” for its security concerns.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected] His new book as editor and contributor is titled « Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III. » Visit his blog site at Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Beijing May Declare Security Zone in South China Sea

On, March 2, 2016 the United Nations Security Council imposed sanctions on North Korea, citing the DPRK’s:

• Nuclear test of January 6, 2016;
• Its satellite launch of February 7, 2016, which the Security Council said relied on ballistic missile technology which could be used as a nuclear weapons delivery system. (Is it possible to launch a satellite without ballistic missile technology?)

UN Security Council Resolution 2270, championed by the United States, was approved unanimously by all 15 Security Council members, both permanent, and non-permanent, including Venezuela and Angola.

There is nothing in international law that says:

• A country cannot have nuclear weapons. True, there exists a Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, but it is only binding on the parties to it, not on those who declined to join it, (like Israel), or have, (as North Korea has done), withdrawn from it.
• There is nothing in international law that says a country cannot have ballistic missiles.
• There is nothing in international law that says a country cannot launch a satellite.

So, on what grounds has the Security Council imposed sanctions on North Korea?

The Security Council defined the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, as well as their means of delivery, as threats to international peace and security, and therefore branded North Korea’s nuclear test and satellite launch as grave concerns. The Security Council also determined that North Korea’s nuclear test posed a danger “to peace and stability in the region and beyond.”

Article 39 of the UN Charter authorizes the Security Council to “determine the existence of any threat to peace” and to take appropriate measures to eclipse it.

North Korea objected, and for the following—I think, very compelling— reasons:

• The Security Council’s definition of what constitutes a threat to international peace and security makes no reference to violations of international law. All that North Korea has done wrong, it seems, is to have engaged in activities the Security Council doesn’t like, but which all of its permanent members have, themselves, engaged in.
• The resolution uniquely defines the DPRK’s nuclear test and satellite launch as threats to peace, but does not define the nuclear tests or satellite launches of its permanent members in the same way.

This naturally raises the question: Why is launching a satellite, developing ballistic missile technology, and nuclear weapons testing, threats when pursued by North Korea, but not when pursued by the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia—or any other country the Security Council chooses not to single out?

Let me suggest two answers.

#1. The first has to do with what the anthropologist Hugh Gusterson called nuclear Orientalism—the idea that we can live with nuclear weapons in the hands of the five permanent members of the Security Council, but proliferation to Third World countries is enormously dangerous. People in the Third World, according to this view, cannot be trusted to make responsible decisions.

The term Orientalism can be confusing, so let’s use another term—“us vs. them thinking.” That’s really what Gusterson means. In us versus them thinking, “they” are defined as the polar opposite of us. We’re rational, dispassionate, responsible, and adults. They’re irrational, lack impulse control, are irresponsible, and are children, requiring a guiding hand. We can be trusted with nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. They cannot.

The Security Council engages in us vs. them thinking when it expresses great concern that Pyongyang is “diverting” resources to “the pursuit of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles while DPRK citizens have great unmet needs.” But Gusterson points out that this argument—which was once used against Pakistan and India when they first acquired nuclear weapons— can be applied just as strongly to Western countries.

For example, the United States spends hundreds of billions of dollars on its military, far in excess of what’s required for national defense, while two million US citizens live without shelter, and another 36 million live below the official poverty line. So why isn’t the Security Council expressing great concern that Washington is “diverting” resources to “the pursuit of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles while US citizens have great unmet needs”?

#2. Another reason for uniquely declaring North Korea’s nuclear test and rockets as threats to international peace and security, but not those of the permanent members of the Security Council, is the wish to enforce a nuclear apartheid, the idea of limiting the means of self-defense through nuclear deterrence to a small elite of nations—the permanent members of the Security Council, and a key US military asset, Israel—which can then use their privileged positions as holders of the world’s most formidable weapons to threaten the security, independence and sovereignty of non-nuclear states.

We might like to think of the UN Charter as the best way to promote peace and stability in the world, but whatever its merits as a charter for peace, it is also an instrument for the domination of small countries by the largest and most powerful states. What’s to protect those small states which seek to chart a course of independent self-development outside the orbit of the world’s imperial powers from the depredations of the Security Council’s permanent members? Certainly not the UN Charter, since it accords the Security Council—the world’s largest powers—illimitable authority to penalize small states simply for engaging in activities it doesn’t like, including developing the means to defend themselves, and to launch their own satellites rather than having to depend on large powers to do so on their behalf, for a profit.

And does anyone seriously think that the United States—whose leaders worship the cult of Mars, and which has spread death and destruction from Korea to Vietnam to Afghanistan to Iraq and points in between—can credibly act as the primus inter pares member of a council authorized to preserve peace and international security?

As the political scientist Kenneth Waltz has argued controversially, but not without cogency, the greatest deterrent to war may be nuclear weapons. War against a nuclear armed opponent makes the cost of aggression too incalculable and too uncertain to pursue. Yet, it is precisely the only effective means of deterrence against conquest available to North Korea—a country incessantly threatened by the United States and Washington’s neo-colony South Korea, and soon by its former colonial master, Japan (if Washington has its way)—which the UN Security Council seeks to deny the DPRK.

Is it a concern for peace and international security that motivates the United States and its Security Council cohorts to penalize North Korea ? No. UN Security Council Resolution 2270 originates in a desire–particularly that of the United States–to dominate.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Is the United States a Credible Guarantor of International Peace and Security?

A previous article called Clinton the most recklessly dangerous president aspirant in US history. Humanity’s fate is up for grabs with her finger on the nuclear trigger.

She’s also damaged goods, vulnerable to indictment on federal racketeering charges, her Clinton Foundation a suspected criminal enterprise masquerading as a charitable NGO.

She’ll likely escape federal prosecution because of longstanding close ties to Attorney General Loretta Lynch and become Democrat party nominee in July.

Her delegate lead is too great to overcome. Next Tuesday’s California primary should put her way over the top.

Reports indicate camps representing her and Sanders in talks for party unity. Earlier she said “(o)nce the primaries are over…we will begin talking in more detail about what we can do to unify the party.”

“Because as I’ve said many times, and Senator Sanders has said, we both are going to do everything we can to prevent Donald Trump from getting anywhere near the White House.”

“I will certainly do everything I can to unify the Democratic Party. Our campaigns have been reaching out to one another. We will continue to do that.”

On the one hand, Sanders vowed to continue contesting to become Democrat party nominee. On the other, he hinted at what’s ahead if he fails, saying “(w)hat happens the day after (if) it appears that I am not going to become the nominee, that’s subject for further discussion.”

Several times earlier he promised to support Clinton as party standard bearer if she’s nominated. Will he serve as her running mate if asked?

A previous article explained his popularity among young voters combined with most women for her would be a formidable challenge for Trump to overcome.

A Clinton/Sanders ticket would dispel the undeserved faith of his diehard supporters in his alleged populist advocacy, phony throughout his 30-year political career, voting 98% of the time with Democrats, supporting their deplorable agenda.

He’s more opportunist than populist. She represents pure evil. Partnering with her would irreparably taint him more than already – making him complicit in her high crimes.

After months of campaigning since last year, voters in November will get to choose between a billionaire demagogue and an unindicted criminal racketeer/war goddess/Wall Street tool.

If Sanders supports what he campaigned against, he’ll prove himself just another dirty politician – saying one thing, intending something entirely different, betraying his supporters, showing business as usual always wins.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]

His new book as editor and contributor is titled « Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III. »

Visit his blog site at

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Hillary Out Following FBI Racketeering Charges? Or Hillary-Bernie Ticket? Clinton, Sanders Camps in Talks for « Party Unity »

Originally published in April 2016

America’s B61-12 mini nuke portrayed as an instrument of peace.

“The danger of a terrorist group obtaining and using a nuclear weapon is one of the greatest threats to global security,” said Obama at the Nuclear Security Summit attended by more than 50 world leaders in Washington. A nonsensical statement.

According to Obama, « … al Qaida has long sought nuclear materials », intimating that a nuclear device or a « dirty bomb » could be used in a terror attack against a Western capital (Brussels or Paris), … « ‘ISIL has already used chemical weapons, including mustard gas, in Syria and Iraq.  There is no doubt that if these madmen ever got their hands on a nuclear bomb or nuclear material they most certainly would use it to kill as many innocent people as possible. »  These madmen, according to Obama could « kill and injure hundreds of thousands of innocent people using only plutonium the size of an apple. »

click image to order Michel Chossudovsky’s Book

The focus on ISIS « madmen »  capable of developing a nuclear bomb is an obvious smokescreen, a PR campaign to dissipate the fact that the danger of nuclear war largely emanates from decision-making at the highest levels of US government. 

If Al Qaeda and Daesh are the threat to global security, what about the State actors of US foreign policy including Hillary Clinton:

 “What I said and what I mean is that there will have to be consequences for any violation by Iran and that the nuclear option should not at all be taken off the table. That has been my position consistently.” (ABC News, December 15, 2015)

I want the Iranians to know that if I’m president, we will attack Iran. In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.” (ABC « Good Morning America. », quoted by Reuters, April 22, 2008)

The potential role of  Al Qaeda and ISIS acquiring nuclear capabilities borders on the absurd, not to mention the fact that ISIS is supported by Turkey and Saudi Arabia, America’s closest allies.

The Al Qaeda legend is being used to distort the most likely causes of nuclear war, as well co-opting  international leaders into accepting US global hegemony with regard to the control over nuclear weapons and nuclear materials.

Moreover, lest we forget, US intelligence has acted as a sponsor of Al Qaeda since the heyday of the Soviet Afghan War. If Al Qaeda and ISIS constitute a nuclear danger, who are their State sponsors?

The dangers of nuclear war are nonetheless real.

The US is developing a trillion dollar project which consists in refurbishing its nuclear arsenal, not to mention the development of the B61-12 tactical nuclear weapon.

Tactical nuclear weapons or so-called mini nukes (with an explosive capacity of one third to six times a Hiroshima bomb) were cleared by the Senate in 2002 for use in the conventional war theater. They are considered « harmless to the surrounding population because the explosion is underground » according to scientific opinion on contract to the Pentagon.

The mini-nukes portrayed as instruments of peace are bona fide thermonuclear bombs with a lower explosive capacity.

Turkey has 90 tactical B61 nuclear bombs at its Incirlik air force base, which are deployed against targets in the Middle East.

The Nuclear Security Summit is a propaganda ploys intent upon distorting the nuclear threat which largely emanates from the US and its NATO allies under the Pentagon’s post 9/11 nuclear doctrine, which consists in the use of nuclear weapons on a pre-emptive first strike basis against nuclear as well as non-nuclear states.

Michel Chossudovsky’s interview with RT America regarding the April 2016 Nuclear Security Summit

Since the first Nuclear Security Summit in April 2010, neither the discourse nor the agenda has changed.

What Washington wants is to gain a monopoly over nuclear weapons as well acquire and control nuclear materials.

The issue of terrorism is a smokescreen.

Michel Chossudovsky’s interview regarding the April 2010 Nuclear Security Summit

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Al Qaeda and ISIS are « Nuclear Threats », What About Hillary Clinton?

Partie 1 : Guerres hybrides: Briser les Balkans

Partie 2 : Guerres hybrides: Briser les Balkans.Le partenariat stratégique russo-chinois s’installe en Europe


Jusqu’à présent, cette recherche a montré la concurrence intense de la nouvelle guerre froide qui se déroule dans les Balkans entre les mondes unipolaire et multipolaire. Ce dernier travaille avec véhémence pour amener ses projets conjoints transnationaux dans la région, alors que le premier est prêt à faire tout ce qu’il faut pour les arrêter. Ce contexte situationnel prépare le terrain pour enquêter sur les vulnérabilités socio-politiques de chacun des pays des Balkans avant d’entreprendre un examen détaillé de leurs scénarios de guerre hybrides les plus probables.

Le Balkan Stream et la Route de la soie des Balkans sont envisagés pour traverser directement les Balkans centraux (le méga-projet multipolaire de la Chine étant actuellement le seul politiquement réalisable des deux), faisant de ce corridor d’États un point géostratégique central de la guerre hybride, avec une attention particulière accordée à la République de Macédoine et à la Serbie. À contrario, une très faible attention déstabilisatrice est dirigée vers les pays des Balkans de l’Est comme la Roumanie et la Bulgarie, principalement en raison de leur isolement par rapport à des facteurs régionaux perturbateurs tels que la crise des réfugiés (dont il sera longuement question dans cet article).

S’il y a une façon dont ces derniers pays pourraient jouer un rôle dans les guerres hybrides, elle n’est pas particulièrement pertinente pour les scénarios qui seront éventuellement discutés, sauf pour la pression structurelle que la Bulgarie peut exercer sur une Macédoine affaiblie (comme elle a essayé de le faire en mai 2014). Si important que soit ce facteur, il n’est toujours pas l’une des variables fondamentales de la guerre hybride en soi, et peut plutôt être considéré comme une action complémentaire afin de maximiser toute déstabilisation en cours au sein de l’État ciblé. La Roumanie pourrait remplir le rôle opposé. Elle pourrait un jour se retrouver victime d’une guerre hybride soutenue par une Hongrie hyper-nationaliste, désireuse d’attiser des troubles dans un emplacement centré autour de Szekely Land, essentiellement habité par sa diaspora ethnique. Même si c’est certainement une possibilité intéressante à explorer plus en profondeur pour les chercheurs (et il y a quelques raisons pour lesquelles cela peut éventuellement se produire), il n’y a pas de connexion directe avec la loi de la guerre hybride stipulant que :

Le grand objectif derrière chaque guerre hybride est de perturber les projets transnationaux conjoints multipolaires à travers des conflits d’identité (ethniques, religieux, régionaux, politiques, etc.) provoqués de l’extérieur au sein d’un État de transit ciblé.

Aucun projet conjoint transnational multipolaire n’est en projet en Bulgarie [À priori si, le South Stream, mais il est bloqué ?? – NdT] et / ou en Roumanie, ce qui les retire donc de l’équation primaire des guerres hybrides en ce qui concerne l’objet spécifique de cette recherche. Cela dit, cela ne justifie pas l’inclusion de la Hongrie à la place, car Budapest est le nœud le plus au nord de la Route de la soie des Balkans. De même, les pays des Balkans occidentaux, qui ne sont pas directement ciblés par les guerres hybrides par exemple, seront inévitablement affectés (et certains auront un rôle à y jouer) par une telle guerre contre les pays des Balkans centraux, étant donné le caractère indissociable des relations régionales. Par conséquent, eux aussi seront inclus dans ce chapitre, comme la Grèce, bien entendu, qui relie les deux projets multipolaires proposés dans le couloir des Balkans centraux.

Le chapitre commence par détailler les trois variables les plus régionalement perturbatrices potentiellement susceptibles d’exploser à tout moment, avant d’aborder dans le chapitre suivant ce qui décrit les trois facteurs les moins volatils (mais pas les moins importants) qui ont également une incidence négative sur les Balkans. Ensuite, un chapitre examine les vulnérabilités socio-politiques particulières de chaque pays susceptibles de déclencher des guerres hybrides ou d’être exacerbées par celles-ci. Certains scénarios prévus seront présentés ensuite, mais pas avant le dernier chapitre qui décrit le scénario le plus probable du groupe, une guerre hybride contre la Macédoine, qui sera exploré en profondeur.

Crise des réfugiés


La plus grande migration humaine que l’Europe ait connue depuis la Seconde Guerre mondiale fait partie intégrante d’une stratégie américano-turque d’affaiblir l’UE et, comme prévu, elle a également eu d’énormes conséquences pour les pays de transit des Balkans. Pour décrire sommairement ce qui a transpiré, les États-Unis et le chef de file secret de ses alliés du Moyen-Orient ont créé les conditions destructrices nécessaires pour inviter une énorme vague d’émigration en provenance de Syrie. Alors que les citoyens de ce pays se sont dispersés dans toutes les directions, la Turquie a fini par en recueillir la plus grande quantité, plus de 2 millions. La plupart des gens qui ont fui vers la Turquie étaient des sympathisants anti-gouvernementaux, des terroristes et des islamistes, chacun ayant quitté le pays dans les premiers jours du conflit, craignant le châtiment légal devant l’avance de l’armée arabe syrienne libérant les territoires et les villes occupés précédemment. Un enlisement s’est rapidement produit, cependant, et il aurait perduré si l’intervention anti-terroriste russe n’avait changé toute la dynamique du conflit sur le terrain.


Pendant ce temps, cependant, la majorité des réfugiés de la Syrie ont toujours été des déplacés de l’intérieur. Ils sont largement composés de personnes fuyant les zones sous contrôle terroriste pour des emplacements administrés par le gouvernement, où plus de 70% de la population du pays réside en toute sécurité. En ce qui concerne les réfugiés (les sympathisants anti-gouvernementaux, les terroristes et les islamistes, pour la plupart) qui ont fui en Turquie, ils ont été détenus dans des camps pré-construits pendant des années et on leur a strictement interdit de quitter les lieux. Cette politique a été appliquée avec l’espoir que les individus de facto emprisonnés pourraient être plus facilement cajolés par les services de renseignement américains et turcs et former une grande armée anti-gouvernement pour être redéployés dans leur patrie. Cette politique n’a pas réussi et la Turquie s’est donc retrouvée avec une masse grandissantes de bouches à nourrir tout en ne recevant rien d’eux stratégiquement en retour, et confrontée au ressentiment croissant de la majorité de la population dû à leur présence. En réponse à l’échec de leur plan politico-militaire visant à l’utilisation des réfugiés contre la Syrie, les États-Unis et la Turquie ont ainsi décidé de les rediriger contre l’Europe, chacun pour ses propres fins égoïstes.

Les armes de la migration de masse

L’utilisation stratégique préconçue à grande échelle de flux de population humaine dirigée comme une arme asymétrique a été officiellement théorisée par Kelly M. Greenhill dans son livre de 2010 Les armes de la migration de masse : les déplacements forcés, la coercition et la politique étrangère, mais il est probable que sa publication n’a pas été une première pour qu’une telle stratégie néfaste soit pensée. L’importance du référencement de son travail est de prouver que le concept de l’utilisation des réfugiés comme des armes stratégiques délibérées ou involontaires et facilement niables n’est pas sans précédent, et le livre de Greenhill peut avoir joué un rôle déterminant pour convaincre les décideurs américains de bricoler avec sa théorie et de la mettre en pratique. Les théâtres des Révolutions de couleur à l’échelle du Printemps arabe et la guerre hybride ultérieure en Syrie ont donné lieu à des conditions socio-politiques parfaites pour tester une application réelle du concept, et les prochaines sous-sections vont documenter les intérêts particuliers que la Turquie et les États-Unis essayent de promouvoir au moyen de cette arme post-moderne.

Le lecteur doit garder à l’esprit que la plupart des réfugiés qui ont été lancés contre l’Europe n’étaient pas ce qu’une imagination stéréotypée en aurait pensé au premier abord. Beaucoup d’entre eux ne sont pas des gens de tous âges en guenilles et mal nourris (en dépit de la fausse perception que les médias américains d’influence ont construite dans les grandes largeurs), mais des jeunes hommes plutôt en bonne santé avec des milliers d’euros en espèces à leur disposition. Ces individus agressifs et bien nourris sont l’exemple type des personnes qui ont pris d’assaut l’Europe et on fait leur chemin de la Grèce vers l’Allemagne avec un air de défi. La plupart d’entre eux l’ont fait dans l’espoir de recevoir une généreuse compensation et / ou d’exploiter la mentalité sociale libérale progressiste de leurs nouveaux hôtes afin de mettre en place une base d’opérations pour la diffusion de l’islamisme (qui n’est pas la bienvenue dans les zones libérées par l’armée arabe syrienne laïque). Bien que de véritables réfugiés soient certainement pris dans le flux, la description précédente résume bien la situation de la majorité de ceux qui sont déjà entrés en Europe de cette manière et qui ont, de facto, favorisé la Turquie et les objectifs stratégiques des États-Unis contre le continent.



La motivation la plus importante d’Ankara en militarisant les réfugiéscontre l’UE était de faire chanter le bloc pour faire redémarrer le processus d’admission de la Turquie, qui était au point mort, et de se faire payer grassement pour supprimer le problème socio-politique qu’elle avait intentionnellement déclenché. Ces deux objectifs principaux ont été remplis le dernier jour de novembre 2015, lorsque l’UE a déclaré un «nouveau départ» des relations bilatérales avec la Turquie, en promettant de «redynamiser» le processus d’adhésion à l’UE ainsi que 3 milliards d’euros pour faire face à la négociation de la crise des réfugiés. Près d’un million de réfugiés étaient entrés en Europe par ce point et, compte tenu des caractéristiques socio-idéologiques que la plupart d’entre eux incarnent, on peut aussi dire que la politique étrangère néo-ottomane de la Turquie y a gagné une cinquième colonne importante de soutien dans l’UE. C’est très important, étant donné que ces personnes pourraient se révéler des atouts précieux dans la poursuite de la projection probable de l’influence turque dans les Balkans comme une forme de compensation géopolitique pour l’échec des ambitions néo-ottomanes d’Ankara dans le Moyen-Orient.


Les objectifs des États-Unis dans la campagne des réfugiés sont beaucoup plus importants que ceux de la Turquie. Washington vise à semer les graines d’une perturbation démographique à long terme dans les principaux États membres de l’UE. L’idée est de d’affaiblir et de fragmenter selon des lignes identitaires certains pays aux compositions ethniques et / ou culturelles jusque-là quasi-homogènes (en particulier l’Allemagne, la Suède, la France dans une certaine mesure, et l’Italie à un faible degré). C’est envisagé pour fabriquer un état de siège tendu et persistant qui pourrait rendre les conditions sur le terrain plus faciles à manipuler pour une révolution de couleur qui serait lancée si l’un des leaders de ces pays se comportait de manière trop indépendante dans ses relations avec la Russie et la Chine. Un parfait exemple de cela dans le futur pourrait être la coopération énergétique de l’Allemagne avec la Russie à travers Nord Stream II. Si les Européens de l’Est ne parvenaient pas à saboter le projet, alors les tensions intérieures découlant du conflit migratoire déborderaient de plusieurs côtés, entre les réfugiés, leurs rivaux fascistes et les citoyens ordinaires. Ces tensions pourraient être mises à profit à large échelle via une Révolution de couleur pour atteindre cet objectif, même si celle-ci est menée sous un prétexte complètement différent.

En outre, la guerre des réfugiés que les États-Unis mènent contre l’Europe a incité de nombreux États à recourir à leurs forces armées comme première ligne de défense dans la manipulation et l’organisation des masses. Ceci, à son tour, a donné à leurs forces armées un rôle plus visible dans la protection de la société. Imprégnées d’une nouvelle importance, en particulier celle de recueillir le plus d’appui de leur population, il est prévisible que les dépenses de défense de nombreux États européens vont rester au niveau actuel ou, de manière prévisible, augmenter afin de répondre à leurs nouvelles exigences de sécurité. La pertinence de cet effet avec la grande stratégie américaine est que les États-Unis font pression sur leurs homologues de l’OTAN pour qu’ils augmentent autant que possible leurs budgets de défense, preuve en est le discours d’adieu de l’ancien secrétaire à la Défense, Robert Gates, en juin 2011. La campagne des réfugiés a rempli cet objectif stratégique, puisque les dépenses militaires européennes vont probablement augmenter pour cette raison. Elles seront ensuite partiellement redirigées vers l’OTAN et subventionneront les efforts des États-Unis pour contenir la Russie.

Le contrecoup des Balkans

L’arme américaine des migrations de masse ne cible pas uniquement l’UE, mais vise aussi à semer le chaos et la discorde tout le long de la voie de transit des Balkans. La part du lion de près d’un million de réfugiés devenus cette arme qui a coulé vers l’Europe a voyagé vers sa destination par la route des Balkans centraux, en traversant la République de Macédoine et la Serbie, les deux principaux États clés pour le Balkan Stream et la Route de la soie des Balkans. Ce ne fut pas fortuit, parce qu’ils auraient pu voyager par l’Albanie ou la Bulgarie, mais les trafiquants d’êtres humains (dont beaucoup agrémentent aussi leur commerce de contrebande de drogue et d’armes et sont des actifs du renseignement américain) ont été avertis que l’accès à ces routes entraînerait leur arrestation (et pas seulement la détention de leur clientèle). Ils ont donc évité cette voie et ont concentré tous leurs efforts pour s’infiltrer en Macédoine et davantage à contre-courant.


Le flux régulier et concentré de milliers d’êtres humains, à travers les points de contrôle frontaliers préparés à n’en traiter qu’une fraction, a rapidement submergé les autorités de tutelle et a créé des coûts financiers, sociaux et politiques inattendus pour les États de transit. La manière désordonnée dont la plupart des réfugiéssont entrés et ont traversé chacun de ces États avant que la Macédoine ne construise une clôture à sa frontière à la mi-novembre 2015, a contribué au chaos, et la tension régionale qui en a résulté était prévisible. La Hongrie, la Slovénie et la Croatie ont construit leurs propres clôtures frontalières. Cela a conduit à une recrudescence ultra-déstabilisante de réfugiés, en amont, en Macédoine et en Serbie, depuis leur porte géographique d’accès, la Grèce, qui a refusé de faire quoi que ce soit pour arrêter la flambée de ce flux humain vers le nord. L’effet de cette clôture a aiguisé le dilemme de sécurité entre les Balkans occidentaux et centraux . En effet, ils se sont sentis littéralement emmurés par ces derniers, qui leur promettaient d’avoir à gérer des camps de réfugiés dans tout le pays pour abriter les individus que l’Europe ne serait pas capable de recevoir.

Les perturbations sociales qu’un tel plan pourrait créer seraient suffisantes pour faire s’effondrer l’ensemble des Balkans centraux, car l’afflux de simplement 100 000 réfugiés non intégrables et non assimilables dans leurs sociétés, du fait de leurs différences civilisationnelles, aurait surchargé les tensions domestiques et inévitablement mené, d’une manière ou d’une autre, à une forme de déstabilisation à grande échelle. Par exemple, quelques réfugiés mécontents ont brûlé une partie de leur camp en Slovénie à la fin octobre, simplement parce qu’ils étaient mécontents de voir leur entrée en Autriche retardée. Cela laisse imaginer l’ampleur de la violence que des milliers d’entre eux pourraient libérer s’ils étaient piégés dans les Balkans centraux, et encore plus si certains d’entre eux étaient armés par des groupes terroristes comme un UCKréactivé ou une organisation similaire.

Ces réfugiés bloqués sont donc susceptibles de développer une mentalité d’assiégés et d’être incités à une violence à grande échelle par une poignée de provocateurs professionnels habiles à la psychologie des foules. Ces masses en armes pourraient alors être facilement dirigées pour participer, aux côtés des éléments nationaux, à une Révolution de couleur visant un changement de régime (soi-disant pour protester contre leurs conditions de vie), ou à une guerre non conventionnelle (une expression militante pure et simple de leur identité islamiste, peut-être en réponse à des pressions intérieurescontre eux). Une autre forme que cela pourrait prendre est celle d’une lutte enragée des réfugiés bloqués pour sortir de ces pays des Balkans centraux transformés en camppour rejoindre l’Europe centrale. Un peu à la manière dont la Légion tchécoslovaque a ravagé les restes de l’Empire russe pour atteindre le même emplacement (bien que beaucoup plus spectaculaire et sur une distance beaucoup plus longue).

En tout cas, il est impossible de prédire la forme exacte que toute déstabilisation substantielle par des réfugiés pourrait éventuellement prendre, mais ce qu’il faut comprendre à la lecture de cette section, c’est que les réfugiés pourraient facilement être transformés en bombes à retardement de type stay-behind par les États-Unis et des provocateurs régionaux. Les Balkans centraux ont besoin de les sortir de leurs pays d’une manière sûre et organisée autant que possible (à l’exception de ceux qui, bien sûr, veulent sincèrement faire partie des sociétés serbe et macédonienne et ont légalement le droit international de le faire comme de véritables réfugiés).

Grande Albanie

Les premières tentatives

Ce projet géopolitique séculaire a refusé de se mettre en sommeil depuis que les Ottomans ont pris officiellement des mesures pour l’actualiser en 1912. Dans l’intention de rester concentrée sur le sujet des guerres hybrides, cette section n’est pas une analyse historique approfondie des manipulations démographiques jusqu’à aujourd’hui, et elle traitera ce sujet comme le point de départ moderne pour la naissance de la Grande Albanie.

Les Ottomans, alors dans une phase de retraite impériale multidirectionnelle, voulaient adopter une politique classique de diviser pour mieux régner, dans une tentative désespérée de conserver leur empire des Balkans. La fusion des quatre vilayets séparés (divisions provinciales de l’époque ottomane) dans un vilayet albanais était censée faire de ce groupe ethnique le kapo régional du Sultan, en lui donnant une participation dans le Califat par intérêt pour la préservation de leur unité territoriale artificiellement agrandie. Mais si on regarde le temps historique, la guerre pour l’indépendance des Balkans a éclaté presque exactement à ce moment-là, écrasant les ambitions de la Grande Albanie et libérant toute l’Europe de la domination ottomane, sauf un petit ruban de la Thrace orientale.


A la suite de cette guerre et de celle qui a suivi après que la Bulgarie eut trahi ses voisins et alliés, le gouvernement provisoire albanais a tenté en vain de faire valoir que ses frontières devaient correspondre à peu près à celles de l’Albanie du temps du grand Vilayet, cette structure impériale ottomane qui était censée faire avancer les intérêts de la Grande Albanie. Mais cette politique a échoué. Heureusement, cet effort a été repoussé par l’intervention diplomatique étrangère au cours de la Conférence de Londres de 1912-1913, et les frontières du pays ont été officiellement délimitées dans leurs formes actuelles. Néanmoins, les ambitions irrédentistes de Tirana n’ont jamais cédé, et les dirigeants du pays sont restés encore fanatiquement accrochés à la promotion de leur projet géopolitique.

Seconde Guerre mondiale, néo-fascisme

Le radicalisme racial qui imprégnait la mentalité albanaise à l’époque était idéologiquement compatible avec le fascisme, et les seuls opposants principaux à ce Zeitgeistétaient les guérillas communistes qui, il faut le dire, se sont battues courageusement contre leurs occupants italiens. La plus grande partie de la population, cependant, a été séduite par le nationalisme racial promu de force par Rome, qui a pris la décision stratégique de faire revivre le diviser pour mieux régner des rêves du sultan en soutenant le projet géopolitique de la Grande Albanie. Dans les deux cas, l’hégémon impérial a cherché à utiliser cette construction artificielle afin d’attiser les divisions des Balkans et d’empêcher la région de s’unir contre lui. Si on regarde les frontières modernes, cette itération du vilayet albanais a vu Tirana annexant une partie du Monténégro, de la Serbie et de la République de Macédoine, qui faisait partie du Royaume de Yougoslavie à l’époque. L’illégalité suprême et les prétextes totalement fabriqués par lesquels l’Italie fasciste a ravivé la Grande Albanie sont les raisons pour lesquelles les puissances alliées ont révoqué son imposition génocidaire après leur victoire et ont exigé un retour aux frontières de l’Albanie à leur emplacement d’avant-guerre.

Incubation communiste

Au cours du demi-siècle, entre la fin de la Seconde Guerre mondiale et la guerre de l’OTAN contre la Yougoslavie en 1999, la conspiration pour une Grande Albanie a trompeusement donné l’impression que cela n’avait été qu’un accroc. Sous Enver Hoxha, l’Albanie est devenue l’un des pays les plus isolés au monde, perdant l’URSS comme allié et finalement aussi la Chine, sans faire de percées diplomatiques occidentales pour compenser. La situation absolument lamentable du pays a contribué à un flux d’immigrés, dont beaucoup se sont installés dans ce qui était alors le district autonome du Kosovo-Metohija (1945-1963) et ensuite la province autonome du Kosovo-Metohija (1963-1974).

Avec des taux de natalité plus élevés que la population indigène, les Albanais migrateurs ont pu rapidement devenir une majorité écrasante en peu de temps. Cependant, compte tenu de l’adhésion du gouvernement aux préceptes du communisme, il a refusé de reconnaître ces changements démographiques comme un problème de sécurité nationale. Bien au contraire, en conformité avec l’idéologie communiste aveugle à toute idée de nationalité, les Albanais ont célébré le fait que le district / province était une entité majoritairement non slave en Yougoslavie (littéralement la terre des Slaves du Sud) en lui accordant une autonomie encore plus importante qu’auparavant. La Constitution yougoslave de 1974 a transformé la division administrative de la province socialiste autonome du Kosovo, un statut qu’elle a conservé jusqu’à ce que Slobodan Milosevic l’annule pour revenir à son état antérieur en 1990.

Serbian Orthodox Patriarchate in Pec (Kosovo-Metohija), burnt on March 16, 1981
Patriarcat orthodoxe Serbe à Pec (Kosovo-Metohija), brûlé par les Albanais le 16 Mars 1981

L’effet cumulatif des années communistes a permis de faire incuber l’idée de la Grande Albanie et de transmettre les conditions d’actualisation géopolitique dans la province du Kosovo à la suite de la dissolution de la Yougoslavie. L’État croupion qui en est issu était beaucoup plus vulnérable à une guerre terroriste dirigée de l’extérieur que la République fédérative socialiste de Yougoslavie des dernières décennies, relativement plus forte et beaucoup plus unifiée. Le nouveau contexte international a également été plus favorable pour mener des conflits identitaires. En toute justice, les autorités yougoslaves n’ont sans doute jamais pensé qu’un scénario réaliste pourrait se produire, où le Kosovo pourrait être volé de force à leur pays. Pensant plutôt qu’elles pourraient utiliser les Albanais, elles ont favorisé cette cinquième colonne pour exercer une influence sur leur patrie d’origine voisine. Quelle qu’ait été leur raison de départ, les calculs des autorités yougoslaves au Kosovo se sont lamentablement retournés contre elles et ont finalement facilité le rappel du démon de la Grande Albanie par la force de l’OTAN.

La renaissance de l’OTAN

La fin de la Guerre froide a entraîné un nouveau calcul géopolitique partout dans le monde, en particulier dans les Balkans avec la dissolution de la Yougoslavie, provoquée par les États-Unis. Cela a ouvert des possibilités pour la promotion de la grande stratégie américaine dans la région, fondée d’abord et avant tout sur la diminution des capacités de projection de puissance de la Serbie, le cœur des Balkans. Prenant en compte les six vulnérabilités socio-politiques (séparation ethnique, historique, religieuse, administrative, socio-économique et géographique) les plus susceptibles d’être manipulées dans le déclenchement d’une guerre hybride ou de ses composants séparés, la Révolution de couleur et la guerre non conventionnelle, les États-Unis ont choisi de cibler la province du Kosovo et d’en faire leur prochaine priorité dans la guerre contre la Serbie (elle-même un sous-élément de la guerre asymétrique contre la Russie).

Après avoir incubé et avoir été activement autorisés à se renforcer pendant des décennies, les facteurs socio-politiques les plus favorables à une guerre albanaise non conventionnelle contre la Serbie étaient déjà en place, et tout ce qui était nécessaire était un commandement externe tactiquement habile pour prendre les devants dans la gestion de l’insurrection terroriste. Les États-Unis ont allègrement rempli ce rôle, car ils étaient désireux d’établir ce qui allait se révéler l’une de leurs plus grandes bases à l’étranger, le Camp Bondsteel, crucialement situé à un carrefour géostratégique et capable de projeter sa puissance sur toute la péninsule. Ainsi a commencé la campagne terroriste pour l’éclatement de la patrie serbe historique, loin du reste de l’État serbe, avec l’espoir que cet acte d’une violence géopolitique dramatique aurait un impact psychologique sur des générations de citoyens serbes et laisserait infuser en leur sein une conception malveillante de l’auto-culpabilité qui les rendrait beaucoup plus faciles à manipuler dans le futur.

La guerre de l’OTAN contre la Yougoslavie de 1999 a été lancée avec l’appui traditionnel des terroristes albanais pratiquant le nettoyage ethnique qui, sinon, auraient été vaincus par les forces armées serbes. A ce niveau, les insurgés ont bénéficié d’un soutien clandestin considérable des États-Unis, mais même avec cela, ils n’ont pas été en mesure de faire basculer la dynamique des combats de manière décisive et de réussir dans leur campagne militaire. En réponse, les États-Unis ont commencé à promouvoir des mensonges dans les médias facilement manipulables, montrant que toutes les victoires militaires serbes contre les terroristes étaient en fait des cas de génocide sans motif. Ils ont capitalisé, grâce au travail de la presse, sur l’image négative et fausse de la Serbie et de son président Milosevic, montrée pendant la guerre civile de Bosnie, afin de rendre ces mensonges crédibles. En pratique, l’effet produit a été une vision unilatérale du conflit soigneusement élaborée, qui a été promue par les grands médias américains d’influence mondiale et a convaincu l’opinion publique internationale que les Serbes commettaient de scandaleuses violations des droits de l’homme contre des civils albanais sans défense. S’appuyant sur un pré-conditionnement d’après-guerre froide sans précédent, les États-Unis ont donc été en mesure d’exploiter cette fabrication largement diffusée afin de vendre leur première grande intervention humanitaire, dont les conséquences ont été la rupture de la province du Kosovo de la Serbie et la construction à suivre du Camp Bondsteel, ses deux buts géopolitiques envisagés.

Mouvement contre la Macédoine

arton2039Après avoir réussi en Serbie, au moins pour le moment, le projet géopolitique de la Grande Albanie a orienté ses ambitions contre la République de Macédoine. L’une des étapes les plus significatives à prendre en compte dans ce sens a eu lieu lorsque 360 000 réfugiés albanais ont inondé le le pays pendant la guerre contre la Yougoslavie en 1999. Cela a complètement bouleversé l’équilibre démographique existant dans ce pays (66,6% de Macédoniens et 22,7% d’Albanais dans le recensement de 1994, soit 1 295 964 et 441 104 respectivement), créant temporairement une situation où les Albanais ethniques étaient anormalement plus de 40% de la population à la mi-1999.

Bien que ces chiffres tendent plus tard à se dégonfler avec un grand nombre de Serbes albanais rapatriés dans la province maintenant occupés du Kosovo (lors du recensement de 2002, le plus récent du pays, les Albanais constituaient 25,1% de la population soit 509 083 individus), ils se sont brièvement enhardis avec l’organisation sœur de l’UCK, l’Armée de libération nationale (NLA), lançant une insurrection terroriste violente en Macédoine en 2001. Tout comme c’était arrivé en Serbie, les médias occidentaux ont immédiatement commencé à dénigrer les contre-offensives libératrices du gouvernement comme une forme de génocide, et au bord de la défaite de l’ALN, les États-Unis sont intervenus pour sauver les terroristes assiégés dans Aracinvo et faire appliquer une résolution occidentale dictée aux parties au conflit, connue comme l’Accord d’Ohrid.

Ce texte est largement reconnu comme l’octroi de la plus grande quantité de droits politiques à une minorité dans le monde, et il exige essentiellement que presque aucune décision importante ne puisse être prise par le gouvernement macédonien sans l’approbation de la majorité des parlementaires ethniques albanais. Cette configuration démographique garantit la représentation proportionnelle en fonction de leur part dans la population, donc théoriquement, les législateurs doivent actuellement des comptes à seulement 12,5% de la population qui détient un pouvoir de veto sur ce que le reste de leurs homologues décident et qui, eux, représentant 87,5% de la population. Aussi disproportionné que cela puisse paraître, c’est la solution que les États-Unis ont cherché à appliquer à la République de Macédoine, en grande partie en raison de leur conviction qu’ils pouvaient réussir à utiliser la population albanaise en tant que proxy éternel pour contrôler le comportement du pays.

Il s’est avéré que les USA ont mal évalué la base albanaise de Macédoine, puisque la majorité a constaté l’échec construit dans la province voisine occupée du Kosovo et n’a pas voulu cela dans son pays, qui était stable. De nombreux Albanais ont désavoué le projet de Grande Albanie appuyé par Tirana et ont commencé à coopérer avec le gouvernement démocratiquement élu et légitime, pensant qu’ils pourraient gagner plus pour eux-mêmes en travaillant avec les autorités dans le nouveau cadre d’Ohrid qu’en luttant militairement contre elles dans la poursuite irréaliste de quelque chose de mieux. Depuis lors, deux partis albanais concurrents se sont formés dans le pays : le Parti démocratique d’Albanie (DPA), qui est dans une coalition gouvernementale avec le VMRO, beaucoup plus grand; et l’Union démocratique pour l’intégration (DUI), qui est alignée avec l’opposition SDSM, des révolutionnaires colorés qui ont essayé de renverser l’État au début de 2015.

La population albanaise en Macédoine n’est pas naturellement encline à la révolte contre l’État, ce qui est la raison pour laquelle Tirana et Washington ont redéployé l’UCK en mai 2015 pour lancer des attaques coordonnées contre le gouvernement, en appui à la révolution de couleur en cours à l’époque. S’ils avaient réussi leurs plans, le pays aurait sûrement plongé dans une guerre hybride, mais les autorités macédoniennes ont attaqué le repaire des terroristes à Kumanovo et évité ce scénario destructeur. À son crédit, le peuple albanais n’a pas pris la présence de l’UCK en Macédoine comme un signal pour des émeutes en soutien terroriste de la Grande Albanie, ce qui prouve que la grande majorité de ce groupe démographique veut sincèrement continuer à faire partie de la République de Macédoine (au grand dam des États-Unis et des plans géostratégiques de l’Albanie). Néanmoins, comme on le verra dans le dernier chapitre se concentrant sur le scénario de guerre hybride en Macédoine, on ne peut écarter que les partisans du DUI puissent être convaincus de changer d’avis et de prendre les armes contre l’État. Des efforts sérieux de Tirana et Washington sont en cours pour les faire basculer dans cette direction.

Le révisionnisme de Dayton

La guerre civile de Bosnie

Les origines du conflit le plus sanglant en ex-Yougoslavie remontent très loin dans le passé, mais le déclencheur le plus direct a été la sécession de la Bosnie-Herzégovine de la Yougoslavie après un référendum contesté tenu entre le 29 février et 1er mars 1992. Le leader musulman Alija Izetbegovic, qui était également directeur de la présidence, a déclaré l’indépendance de l’entité le 3 mars, attisant l’agitation immédiate de la communauté serbe qui était absolument opposée au changement et avait largement boycotté le vote précédent. Le soi-disant accord de Lisbonne qui a été discuté avant le référendum a pris une nouvelle dimension dans l’urgence, car il a semblé être la seule alternative à une guerre civile dans le nouvel État non reconnu. Pendant un bref moment et après d’intenses négociations, les trois côtés (musulmans, Croates et Serbes) l’ont finalement signé à des conditions modifiées. Le succès diplomatique a été soudainement gâté par Izetbegovic qui, après une rencontre avec l’ambassadeur américain en Yougoslavie Warren Zimmerman, a retiré inopinément sa signature le 28 mars et a incité la vague d’agitation qui allait bientôt dégénérer en guerre civile.



L’idée américaine derrière l’encouragement à pousser à l’échec de l’accord de Lisbonne était de provoquer les conditions d’une guerre anti-serbe à l’intérieur du pays. Les Serbes ont habité une grande partie de la Bosnie moderne et même des parties de la Croatie depuis des siècles, et cette situation démographique était un fait internationalement reconnu et bien documenté en 1991. Les États-Unis avaient peur que les communautés serbes – qui se retrouvaient brusquement citoyennes involontaires de ces deux États nouvellement déclarés – se liguent pour rallier une réunification avec leurs frères serbes. Si elles réussissaient, cela donnerait à Belgrade une profondeur stratégique précieuse pour lui permettre de conserver son statut de leader régional. La seule façon d’empêcher cela était de nettoyer ethniquement les Serbes de ces territoires clés et de repeupler ceux-ci avec des Croates et des musulmans. Les données démographiques modifiées devraient alors perturber ce scénario et supprimer un obstacle majeur au contrôle des Balkans par les proxy des États-Unis. Afin de lancer les événements de nettoyage ethnique anti-serbe, les États-Unis avaient besoin de susciter un conflit armé, et la meilleure façon de le faire était de convaincre Izetbegovic de se retirer brusquement de l’accord de Lisbonne. En échange, il recevrait la reconnaissance américaine de l’indépendance de la Bosnie, qui bien sûr est intervenue peu de temps après, le 6 avril.

L’OTAN change le jeu

Tout comme les États-Unis s’y attendaient, le conflit qui en a résulté s’est avéré extrêmement sanglant, provoquant une déstabilisation sans précédent pour l’ensemble de ses participants. Ce qu’ils n’avaient pas anticipé, cependant, était que les Serbes garderaient la haute main et fixeraient la plupart de leurs territoires ethniquement habités en Bosnie et Croatie, respectivement appelée Republika Srpska et République serbe de Krajina. Cela a représenté un problème majeur pour les États-Unis, qui avaient encouragé un conflit armé dans le but de nettoyer ethniquement les Serbes de ces régions précises, mais ceux-ci avaient étonnamment fortifié leurs positions et bien gagné leur droit d’y rester. Cet état de choses était totalement inacceptable pour les États-Unis, car cela a également révélé que les hommes de Washington par procuration étaient mal formés et incapables de gagner la guerre par eux-mêmes. Les luttes intestines entre eux étaient désastreuses pour la cause anti-serbe globale que les États-Unis avaient envisagée, et plus les Croates et les Bosniaques se battaient entre eux, plus il est devenu évident qu’une alliance imprévue entre les Serbes et les Croates se formait pour diviser la Bosnie entre eux et invalider totalement les plans géostratégiques pour un «protectorat tampon pro-américain» entre eux.

Par conséquent, afin de déplacer toute la dynamique du conflit, les États-Unis ont mené une initiative diplomatique pour mettre fin à l’aspect croato-musulman de la guerre civile en Bosnie et rabibocher les deux côtés dans une alliance anti-serbe coordonnée sous la stricte supervision américaine. Le fruit de l’élaboration de cette stratégie a été l’accord de Washington, signé le 18 mars 1994. À partir de là, le conflit s’est réduit à deux camps opposant les Croates et les musulmans aux Serbes, comme les USA l’avaient envisagé à l’origine. Les contours remodelés du conflit bosniaque étaient avantageux pour la promotion de la grande stratégie américaine, car ils avaient maintenant une coalition de terrain semi-coordonnée qui pourrait être dirigée de façon décisive contre les communautés serbes de Bosnie et de Croatie, accomplissant ainsi le nettoyage ethnique que les États-Unis avaient initialement prévu par procuration.

L’OTAN, en ayant joué un rôle actif dans le combat depuis la fin de 1992, a largement aidé les Croates et les musulmans. La participation du bloc s’est intensifiée progressivement au fil des ans. Elle avait commencé avec l’opération Garde maritime en novembre 1992, destinée à inspecter les cargaisons maritimes, puis a évolué vers l’opération Deny Flight en avril 1993 pour faire respecter une zone d’exclusion aérienne au-dessus du pays. L’OTAN s’est engagée dans une politique de conformité sélective dans chaque cas, en adoptant des doubles normes pour faire basculer l’avantage contre les Serbes à chaque fois que c’était possible. L’accord de Washington a évoqué la possibilité pour la première fois depuis le début du conflit qu’une offensive coordonnée OTAN-Croatie-musulmans, dont l’enjeu final serait d’éliminer les Serbes. Dès ce moment, les trois côtés ont commencé à intriguer pour savoir comment y parvenir. La façon la plus simple, ont-ils pensé, serait pour l’OTAN de prendre les devants avec le bombardement des positions serbes. Des attaques sporadiques ont eu lieu tout au long de 1994.

Ce que la coalition trilatérale a finalement préparé, cependant, est l’opération Tempêtede la Croatie et l’opération Deliberate Force de l’OTAN, qui ont secoué les communautés serbes à l’été 1995 et produit une catastrophe humanitaire à grande échelle, obligeant la Serbie à se rendre. Pour la mettre en perspective historique, l’alliance OTAN-Croate-musulmans a été officialisée en mars 1994. Il a fallu près d’un an et demi pour la former décemment et fournir des forces sur le terrain avant le début des deux opérations. Les conseillers américains ont été d’une importance critique et les entrepreneurs militaires privés MPRI ont aidé les Croates dans leur attaque en août. Celle-ci a finalement été lancée du 4 au 7 août 1995 et a abouti à la destruction complète de la République serbe de Krajina. Suite à l’offensive, l’OTAN a entamé l’opération Deliberate Force du 30 août au 20 septembre 1995, dans un effort pour effacer la Republika Srpska et compliquer encore la crise humanitaire déjà écrasante frappant des centaines de milliers de réfugiés serbes, qui ont inondé le territoire de la Krajina serbe. Chose intéressante, les États-Unis ont utilisé le prétexte soigneusement manipulé d’une intervention humanitaire pour répondre à l’information déformée diffusée par les médias dominants du massacre de Srebrenica afin de justifier leur intervention. Celle-ci a changé la donne, amenant la guerre civile de Bosnie à une conclusion dramatique.

Les accords de Dayton

bosnia_sfortroop_97La guerre civile de Bosnie a finalement pris fin avec les Accords de Dayton qui ont été signé entre la Bosnie, la Croatie et la Serbie le 14 décembre 1995. Le document lui-même est assez vaste, mais ses composantes les plus notables sont les suivantes:

  • Une nouvelle Constitution bosniaque avec des systèmes présidentiel et parlementaire compliqués.
  • Une fédéralisation du pays entre la Bosnie-Herzégovine et la Republika Srpska.
  • Une élaboration des compétences et des responsabilités fédérales et étatiques.
  • L’imposition de non-citoyens dans des positions juridiques clés.
  • Et la formation non citoyenne de l’Office du Haut Représentant pour superviser l’accord.

Même les plus mal informés des observateurs politiques peuvent conclure de ce qui précède que l’Accord de Dayton a été méticuleusement conçu pour préserver artificiellement l’unité nominale de l’État bosniaque, tout en le rendant globalement ingouvernable et sous la domination des États étrangers. Aucune des parties belligérantes qui ont signé l’accord ne s’attendait probablement à ce qu’il dure aussi longtemps. Elles ne le voyaient pas comme une solution permanente, mais plutôt comme une mesure temporaire pour désamorcer les tensions et retourner à un semblant de normalité jusqu’à ce qu’une meilleure approche puisse être acceptée ultérieurement.

Ce document profondément vicié a engendré beaucoup de discorde entre tous les côtés depuis sa mise en œuvre, et il a été clair dès le départ qu’il est loin d’être une panacée politique. La seule évolution positive à laquelle il a conduit, cependant, est la grande autonomie de la Republika Srpska, qui a largement permis d’apaiser la population serbe et de préserver la paix. Bien que certains détails de l’Accord de Dayton, comme les particularités législatives et l’autorité juridique déraisonnable – compte tenu du fait que certains non-citoyens peuvent potentiellement être mis en place pour la renégociation entre les parties –, la seule clause non négociable est l’autonomie de la Republika Srpska. Mais malheureusement, l’annulation de ce principe garanti par la Constitution est exactement ce que Sarajevo semble sournoisement désireux de faire, sous le commandement de ses clients occidentaux.

Réécriture de la paix, retour de la guerre

2015 a été l’année qui a vu les tentatives les plus inflexibles pour réviser l’Accord de Dayton au détriment de la Republika Srpska. La première provocation a été la résolution unilatérale du Royaume-Uni à l’UNSC condamnant les événements de Srebrenica, dépeignant trompeusement les Serbes comme les seuls agresseurs et impliquant que leur entité fédérale a été fondée sur des motifs génocidaires. La Russie a opposé son veto à la proposition au début de juillet pour ces mêmes raisons, mais l’effort britannique a révélé que les puissances occidentales dans leur ensemble ont des intentions sérieuses pour secouer le cocotier en Bosnie et créer un faux prétexte juridique pour déposséder la Republika Srpska de sa souveraineté. Dans le même temps, Sarajevo a annoncé que le Bureau de la Cour et du procureur avaient autorité sur la Republika Srpska, ce qui est manifestement contraire à la Constitution de Bosnie, incitant le président Dodik à proclamer qu’il soumettrait la question à référendum si les Bosniaques persistaient dans cette voie.

Quelques mois plus tard, en novembre, Sarajevo a sorti une autre agression juridique contre la souveraineté de la Republika Srpska, au moment où la Cour constitutionnelle décidait que la Journée annuelle de la République de l’entité était discriminatoire et ne devait plus être célébrée. Le verdict a été divisé selon des lignes ethniques, avec les juges musulmans et internationaux passant outre le vote de la majorité des Serbes et des Croates, qui étaient opposés à l’initiative. En réponse, le président Dodik a déclaréque la Republika Srpska organiserait un référendum sur l’opportunité de reconnaître la décision de la Cour constitutionnelle. Il a exigé que les juges étrangers soient définitivement retirés du cadre juridique du pays et que la décision antérieure soit inversée, menaçant de retirer les représentants de son État des institutions fédérales si les modifications n’étaient pas introduites dans les 120 jours.

Il est évident qu’il y a une poussée coordonnée par Sarajevo pour provoquer la Republika Srpska en prenant des mesures constitutionnelles autour des garanties de souveraineté qui pourraient ensuite être perversement retournées dans une sorte d’action anti-bosniaque agressive dans le cadre d’une campagne de diffamation coordonnée. Les autorités fédérales ne font pas cela de leur propre initiative, cependant, car il est évident qu’elles y sont poussées par les puissances occidentales à qui elles sont redevables, à savoir les États-Unis. C’est la raison pour laquelle leur partenaire le plus proche au Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU, le Royaume-Uni, a essayé de pousser la Résolution Srebrenica, formulée de manière délibérément trompeuse pour créer un prétexte permettant d’abolir la souveraineté de la Republika Srpska en vertu d’un scénario à venir. L’objectif global est d’éliminer cette entité serbe diasporique comme cela a été fait avec la République serbe de Krajina en 1995, peut-être par des moyens similaires et sous un faux prétexte autour de  la Constitution. Les allégations, fabriquées de toutes pièces, que la Republika Srpska tente de réviser unilatéralement l’Accord de Dayton sont hypocrites à l’extrême, car c’est Sarajevo et la partie croato-musulmane du pays qui le fontt, pas l’entité serbe. La grande vision des États-Unis est d’utiliser la violence à venir en Republika Srpska (que ce soit au niveau fédéral ou via du terrorisme) comme un piège inversé de type Brzezinski pour aspirer la Serbie et la détruire une fois pour toutes. Car en fin de compte une victoire américaine dans la guerre contre la Serbie seraient une défaite irréversible pour la Russie dans la région.

Andrew Korybko est un commentateur politique américain qui travaille actuellement pour l’agence Sputnik. Il est en troisième cycle de l’Université MGIMO et auteur de la monographie Guerres hybrides: l’approche adaptative indirecte pour un changement de régime(2015). Ce texte sera inclus dans son prochain livre sur la théorie de la guerre hybride

Andrew Korybko

Le livre est disponible en PDF gratuitement et à télécharger ici 

Article original en anglais :


Hybrid Wars: Breaking the Balkans. Intense New Cold War Competition

Traduit par Hervé, vérifié par Wayan, relu par Diane pour le Saker francophone

  • Posted in Francais @fr
  • Commentaires fermés sur Guerres hybrides: Briser les Balkans. Concurrence intense de la nouvelle guerre froide.

«La pitié n’est que justice amputée.»

Gibran Khalil Gibran


A quoi sert un G 7 serions-nous tentés de dire? Le G7 était à l’origine un G6 créé en 1975; il regroupait la France, l’Allemagne de l’Ouest, les États-Unis, l’Italie, le Japon, le Royaume-Uni. Ensuite, le Canada en 1976 (G7). En 1998, on offre une place à la Russie (G8). En 1999, 11 pays ont été invités: l’Afrique du Sud, l’Arabie saoudite, l’Argentine, l’Australie, le Brésil, la Chine, la Corée du Sud, l’Inde, l’Indonésie, le Mexique et la Turquie. Et l’Union européenne. Le G20 représentait en 2015, 85% du PIB mondial et deux-tiers de la population de la planète. De ces 20 pays est né le BRICs. En 2013 on exclut la Russie du G8 devenue G7

Le G7, sommet de l’hypocrisie occidentale

Pour Thierry Meyssan auteur d’un article sur l’hypocrisie occidentale :

« l’histoire du G7 reflète l’évolution des relations internationales. Durant la Guerre froide, c’était un club de chefs d’État et de gouvernement qui se réunissaient discrètement pour apprendre à travailler ensemble. Après l’effondrement de l’Union Soviétique, il se transforma en sommet des grands de ce monde qui entendaient le régenter en dehors des Nations Unies. (…) Les réunions du G7, qui étaient originellement de simples conversations à bâtons rompus entre leaders occidentaux, ont ambitionné de se transformer en gouvernement mondial, avant de sombrer et de devenir un training de communication. Le sommet d’Ise-Shima a passé en revue les principaux problèmes du monde définissant, pour chacun d’entre eux, les éléments de langage à employer. (…) En 2000, le G8 soutint la proposition de Paul Wolfowitz et de la Banque mondiale d’annuler la dette des pays les plus pauvres. Il y avait cependant une petite condition : ils devaient libéraliser totalement leur économie, de sorte que les multinationales puissent les piller sans restriction. Sur 62 pays concernés, seuls 9 États acceptèrent ce marché de dupes » (1).

« Mais en 2013 les choses tournèrent au vinaigre: Vladimir Poutine était de retour au Kremlin et les Occidentaux venaient de relancer la guerre contre la Syrie malgré les engagements négociés par Kofi Annan et confirmés par le Communiqué de Genève. Le sommet de Lough Erne se transforma en affrontement à 1 contre 7.   (…) Sur les 9 membres officiels du G7, 2 ont une double voix: les États-Unis peuvent compter sur le président de la Commission européenne, le Luxembourgeois Jean-Claude Juncker, qui a dû démissionner de ses fonctions de Premier ministre après que l’on eut révélé son appartenance au Gladio (service secret de l’Otan). L’Allemagne, quant à elle, s’appuie sur le président du Conseil européen, le Polonais Donald Tusk, dont la famille est liée depuis le début de la Guerre froide à celle des Merkel (..) Désormais, le G7 est une simple rencontre de formatage. Les États-Unis et l’Allemagne indiquent des éléments de langage que leurs vassaux sont priés d’adopter. (…)  Un petit enfant comprend sans difficulté que ces « grandes personnes », en affirmant que leur priorité est la croissance économique globale, se moquent des idéaux et des objectifs qu’ils affichent » (1).

Pour rappel, la Russie est exclue depuis 2014, sanctionnée. Pourtant, il n’y a pas eu de coup de force russe en Crimée, comme il y a eu une intervention militaire de l’Otan au Kosovo. Les citoyens de Crimée ont voté démocratiquement leur rattachement à la Russie. On aurait pensé que depuis, ce sera au G7 à se réunir. Eh bien non! On se replie d’une façon chauvine sur le coeur. Les dirigeants du G7 ont entamé au Japon un sommet à l’ordre du jour chargé, entre les défis posés par une croissance mondiale atone, la lutte contre le terrorisme, les revendications maritimes disputées de la Chine ou les migrations. Les sept pays se sont engagés à éviter toute dévaluation compétitive de leur devise, en mettant en garde contre les mouvements de change incontrôlés. Les chefs d’Etat et de gouvernement promettent en outre de tout faire pour que l’accord de Paris sur le climat entre en vigueur avant la fin de l’année. En fait et comme on le dit trivialement, cela ne mange pas de pain. On se retrouve entre gens de bonnes questions qui sont au préalable d’accord sur tout.

Comme l’écrivent Marc Semo et Phillipe Mesmer: «Ces réunions sont l’occasion d’échanges d’autant plus libres qu’il n’y a pas de décision à prendre», explique un haut diplomate français. «Depuis le départ de la Russie, les participants sont à peu près d’accord sur tout, notamment en matière de politique étrangère. Et comment évoquer les questions économiques, alors que les grands émergents, à commencer par la Chine et l’Inde, n’en font pas partie?»(2)

La Chine dans le collimateur

La Russie que le G7 croit avoir terrassé, notamment en intimant l’ordre à l’Europe de la boycotter en vain, se rebiffe. C’est en fait Poutine qui vient de décider que le contre-embargo qu’il a mis en place est prorogé jusqu’à fin 2017. C’est le même Poutine qui signe un accord avec la Grèce au grand dam du FMI et de l’Union européenne, exception faite de l’Allemagne qui n’a jamais arrêté sa coopération, contrairement à la France qui ne sait pas revenir dans les bonnes grâces du Kremlin, elle qui voulait punir la Russie pour cause d’Ukraine. Dans le même ordre ce qui arrive au Brésil est une tragédie, c’est dit-on un coup d’Etat réalisé par des députés dont les préférences vont au grand capital. Il est à craindre que les coups de boutoir contre les membres du Brics à terme fragiliseront cette aspiration au monde multipolaire.

«La Chine est absente du G7, mais l’ombre de la deuxième économie mondiale plane sur les discussions, Barack Obama rappelant que doivent prévaloir la ‘liberté de navigation et la résolution pacifique des différends ». En cause notamment, la situation en mer de Chine orientale où Pékin et Tokyo se disputent âprement la souveraineté de territoires inhabités. Pékin revendique aussi la quasi-totalité de la mer de Chine méridionale, au grand dam d’autres pays comme le Vietnam, les Philippines, la Malaisie et Brunei.»(2)

«Et comment évoquer les questions économiques, alors que les grands émergents, à commencer par la Chine et l’Inde, n’en font pas partie? C’est la raison pour laquelle fut créé, lors de la crise financière de 2008.» Ces sommets, qui sont des lieux de concertation plus que de décision, où les représentants des grandes puissances se retrouvent entre eux, sont devenus l’archétype de la diplomatie de connivence», relève pour sa part Bertrand Badie, professeur à Sciences Po Paris. Le G7, donc, se cherche. Le sujet le plus important pour Tokyo reste la sécurité en Asie. Pour cela, le Japon et ses partenaires devraient aborder les programmes nucléaire et de développement de missiles de la Corée du Nord. Ils devraient aussi rappeler l’importance du respect du droit, notamment pour la circulation maritime et aérienne. Ce point cible indirectement la Chine, critiquée pour ses agissements en mers de Chine méridionale et orientale, qui suscite des tensions avec les pays voisins.» (3)

C’est maintenant la Chine qui est dans le collimateur! «Dans un jeu à peine dissimulé, les dirigeants des pays du G7 ont souvent évoqué la Chine, sans toutefois la citer. Les échanges ont notamment porté sur la liberté de navigation en mers de Chine méridionale et orientale, un point directement lié aux tensions territoriales avec Pékin. Les chefs d’Etat et de gouvernement disent leur inquiétude quant à la situation en mer de Chine méridionale, où la Chine a poldérisé ces deux dernières années des récifs, et insistent sur «l’importance fondamentale d’une gestion et d’un règlement pacifiques des contentieux». (4)

La réalité de la richesse qui n’explique pas l’ostracisme

Evaluant la force de chacun Alexeï Pouchkov, président de la commission des Affaires internationales de la Douma écrivait en 2015: «En 2014, le produit intérieur brut cumulé des pays du groupe BRICS a atteint 30%. Selon le Fonds monétaire international (FMI), le PIB global du BRICS s’élève à 32 500 milliards de dollars et celui du G7 à 34 700 milliards de dollars. Vu le fait que les pays du Brics accusent dans leur majorité un rythme de croissance plus élevé que les Etats du G7, on peut supposer que d’ici deux à trois ans leur PIB global surpassera celui du G7.» (5)

De la même façon que le G7 se réunit, les pays du BRICS EN font de même, mais qui en parle dans la presse main stream? La contribution suivante met en perspective le dilemme de l’humanité: «Les deux paradigmes posés à l’humanité ont été clairement affichés hier, le premier Forum parlementaire des nations BRICS réunis à Moscou, tandis que les «États défaillants» du G7 se sont réunis en Bavière. Valentina Matvienko, a écrit un article pour Tass: «Alors que Obama a dit à la presse au clown spectacle du G7 que la Russie continue d’être ‘isolé » de la communauté internationale, et que leur économie est en récession en raison des sanctions occidentales, Matvienko a écrit: «La condamnation par les pays Brics de la politique de sanctions contre la Russie, notre présidence du BRICS, la tenue du sommet BRICS sur notre territoire sont une démonstration convaincante d’un échec des plans visant à isoler la Russie de la communauté internationale.»  (5)

Dans L’article, intitulé: «BRICS: grandes lignes d’un ordre mondial équitable», on lit:

«Les BRICS ont émergé comme Un certain format de la coopération entre les cinq pays ayant un programme commun… (y compris)… la défense de leur souveraineté, la protection et la promotion de leurs intérêts nationaux sur la base des principes d’égalité, de non-ingérence dans les uns des autres des affaires intérieures, la non-acceptation d’un monde unipolaire…en poursuivant une politique indépendante sur la scène internationale, en rejetant toute tentative de pression à l’extérieur.» En outre, le journal RT a publié un article par le journaliste irlandais Bryan MacDonald qui a souligné que le G7 représente maintenant «un simple 32% de la tarte du PIB mondial, et est maintenant chemin passé sa date de vente par. «Compte tenu de la réalité du Brics nations, il a écrit que si le G7 était basé sur la force économique des nations, «Il serait composé des États-Unis, la Chine, l’Inde, le Japon, la Russie, l’Allemagne et le Brésil. Cette gamme aurait une influence remarquable. Les membres se vantaient 53% de l’ensemble du PIB de la planète et trois véritables superpuissances militaires de la planète seraient représentées.» (6)

Les résolutions

Plusieurs résolutions ont eu trait à tout ce qui se passe dans la planète et qui  intéresse les membres du G7 dans leur stratégie de main-mise sur le destin des peuples. Parmi les résolutions celle concernant l’Iran est hypocrite : Thierry Meyssan nous en parle :

« Avec aplomb, le G7 se félicite de l’accord 5+1 conclu il y a un an avec l’Iran. Or, celui-ci prévoyait la levée des sanctions états-uniennes, européennes et internationales, ce qui aurait dû permettre à l’Iran de jouir à nouveau de 150 milliards de dollars bloqués un peu partout dans le monde. Cependant, si de petits pays ont effectivement débloqué les fonds qu’ils avaient été contraints de geler —par exemple, la Suisse pour 12 millions de dollars—, l’Iran n’a toujours pas vu la couleur du moindre centime bloqué aux États-Unis ou dans l’Union européenne. Pire, alors qu’officiellement Washington venait de faire semblant de débloquer 450 millions de dollars, ils ont immédiatement été placés sous séquestre par un juge états-unien « indépendant » au motif de dédommager les victimes des attentats du 11-Septembre dont les États-Unis n’avaient jamais accusé l’Iran durant les 15 dernières années.  (…) Le G7 poursuit en condamnant les recherches iraniennes en matière de missiles qui contreviendraient à la résolution 2231. Or, cette résolution n’aborde pas cette question. L’ambassadrice Samatha Power avait d’ailleurs rappelé lors du débat au Conseil de sécurité que l’Iran devrait non seulement se conformer à la résolution mais aussi appliquer d’autres règles internationales en matière de missiles balistiques »  (1)

S’agissant de la Russie, :

« Le G7 réaffirme l’obligation de respecter « la souveraineté, l’intégrité territoriale et l’indépendance » de l’Ukraine. Puis, il condamne l’annexion illégale de la Crimée par la Russie. C’est un exemple de plus de l’hypocrisie occidentale. Car, ce sont les membres du G7 qui ont organisé le coup d’État à Kiev (…) On observera juste une phrase critiquant la corruption du gouvernement ukrainien , signe que les membres du G7 sont bien encombrés par leur nouvel allié ».(1)

Le Brexit: une ingérence intolérable

Si les Britanniques votent pour la sortie de leur pays de l’Union européenne, l’économie mondiale en pâtira, ont averti les dirigeants du G7. Un Brexit serait une menace sérieuse pour l’économie mondiale, ont averti les dirigeants du G7 dans une déclaration commune diffusée le 27 mai, relate The Guardian. Une sortie du Royaume-Uni de l’UE serait une menace sérieuse pour la croissance.Angela Merkel aurait dit: «Toutes les personnes ici présentes souhaitent que la Grande-Bretagne continue à faire partie de l’UE.» La déclaration est considérée comme un soutien pour la campagne anti-Brexit, et du même coup c’est une ingérence dans les affaires internes du peuple anglais qui ne s’appartient plus.(7).

La tragédie des migrants

La crise des migrants à laquelle fait face l’Europe est un problème «mondial» qui doit être traité à l’échelle «mondiale», ont jugé les dirigeants du G7. Le G7 reconnaît que les mouvements à grande échelle de migrants et de réfugiés représentent un défi mondial qui nécessite une réponse mondiale», selon la déclaration finale publiée à l’issue d’un sommet au Japon. «Nous nous engageons à augmenter l’aide mondiale pour répondre aux besoins immédiats et à long terme des réfugiés et des autres personnes déplacées ainsi qu’à ceux des communautés hôtes», ont dit les dirigeants des sept pays industrialisés. «Le G7 encourage les institutions financières et les donateurs bilatéraux à renforcer leur aide financière et technique», dit le texte. En 2015, environ 1,3 million de migrants, dont bon nombre venus de pays déchirés par les conflits comme la Syrie et l’Irak, ont demandé l’asile à l’Union européenne, dont plus d’un tiers à l’Allemagne.»(8)

Depuis le début de l’année, d’après l’Office des migrations internationales (OIM), environ 190.000 migrants sont arrivés en Europe par la mer, gagnant l’Italie, la Grèce, Chypre et l’Espagne. En 2015, environ 1,3 million de migrants ont demandé l’asile à l’Union européenne, dont plus d’un tiers à l’Allemagne.

Souvenons-nous de la tragédie des migrants déjà en 2015 et les bonnes résolutions prises. Nous lisons dans la contribution suivante:

«La crise des migrants à laquelle fait face l’Europe est un problème ´´mondial» qui doit être traité à léchelle «mondiale». Le G7 reconnaît que les mouvements à grande échelle de migrants et de réfugiés représentent un défi mondial qui nécessite une réponse mondiale», selon la déclaration finale publiée à l’issue d’un sommet au Japon. En 2015, environ 1,3 million de migrants, dont bon nombre venus de pays déchirés par les conflits comme la Syrie et l’Irak, ont demandé l’asile à l’Union européenne, dont plus d’un tiers à l’Allemagne. «Nous nous engageons à augmenter l’aide mondiale pour répondre aux besoins immédiats et à long terme des réfugiés et des autres personnes déplacées ainsi quà ceux des communautés hôtes», ont dit les dirigeants des sept pays industrialisés.«Le G7 encourage les institutions financières et les donateurs bilatéraux à renforcer leur aide financière et technique», dit le texte.(9)

Selon le Haut-Commissariat de l’ONU, quelque 972.000 personnes avaient traversé la mer Méditerranée en 2015 au péril de leur vie pour rejoindre l’Europe, des arrivées par la mer cinq fois plus nombreuses qu’en 2014. Depuis le début de la semaine, pas moins de 5000 personnes ont été secourues au large de la Libye, dont 562 ont été sauvées mercredi par la marine italienne après le naufrage spectaculaire de leur bateau. La presse européenne s’apitoie sur Favour une bébé malienne de 9 mois qui a perdu ses deux parents dans le naufrage. Ce bébé a eu plus de chance que Aylan el Kurdi vieux de trois ans. Personne ne parle de la tragédie de cette semaine qui a vu la mort d’une centaine de personnes du fait d’un chavirement d’une barque surchargée. Souvenons-nous qu’en 2015 le nombre de migrants qui seraient morts en Méditerranée avait avoisiné les 2000 sur les quatre premiers mois de l’année 2015. Soit environ 30 fois plus que durant la même période en 2014. L’année 2015 est plus meurtrière que la précédente (2014).

Il faut dire que la fin récente de Mare Mostrum a considérablement diminué les moyens de l’Europe dans ce dossier.

«Le projet Mare Nostrum, qui avait permis de sauver en mer environ 170.000 migrants, avait été mis en place par la seule Italie pour 9 millions d’euros par mois. Depuis le 1er novembre 2014, il a été remplacé par le programme européen Triton, qui n’investit que 3 millions d’euros, alors que 19 pays y participent» (…) Si l’agence Frontex a obtenu de Bruxelles une rallonge de 106 millions en 2015, cette somme reste en priorité destinée à la surveillance et non au sauvetage.» (10)

On aurait pensé à une prise de conscience mondiale en dehors des voeux pieux et des larmes de crocodile. Même L’ONU avait accusé l’UE de transformer la Méditerranée en «vaste cimetière» «Pour La responsable de la diplomatie de l’UE, l’Italienne Federica Mogherini «nous n’avons plus d’alibi. L’Union européenne n’a plus d’alibi, les Etats membres n’ont plus d’alibi, a-t-elle martelé en arrivant. Les tragédies de ces derniers jours, de ces derniers mois, de ces dernières années, c’en est trop». «On a besoin de mesures immédiates de la part de l’UE et des Etats membres. Nous ferons tout pour empêcher que de nouvelles victimes meurent devant notre porte de la façon la plus cruelle, en Méditerranée», a de son côté promis Angela Merkel lors d’une table ronde avec des ONG à Berlin. Le secrétaire général des Nations unies Ban Ki-moon avait  appelé l’Union européenne à soutenir davantage les efforts des pays riverains pour prendre en charge les migrants qui risquent leur vie en Méditerranée. «La Méditerranée se transforme rapidement en une mer de souffrances pour des milliers de migrants», «l’Europe tourne le dos à certains des migrants les plus vulnérables dans le monde, et risque de transformer la Méditerranée en un vaste cimetière.» La Méditerranée, est devenue un naufrage des «valeurs autoproclamées» de l’Europe, l’indifférence européenne.

L’hypocrisie du cimetière  pour les épaves

C’était il y a un an mois pour mois! Selon l’ONU, 8 362 hommes, femmes et enfants sont morts en tentant de rejoindre l’Europe par la mer depuis 2014. Pour l’année 2016, ce chiffre atteint 1 370 personnes. Sans les 700 disparus de cette semaine.

Depuis  l’année dernière rien de concret! Tragiquement rien!  Ou plutôt si ! un cimetière !! A défaut  donc de les sauver en les accueillant on donne hyprocritement de la dignité à leur mort:

« Voir tous ces cercueils et tous ces gens sans nom, parce qu’ils ont été enterrés et continuent d’être enterrés avec un numéro, est inhumain. Nous devons leur donner de la dignité, au moins dans la mort. » Le village de Tarsia, dans la région italienne de Calabre, veut être la dernière demeure des hommes, femmes et enfants qui meurent noyés au large de l’Italie en tentant d’entrer en Europe.  Toutes ces personnes mortes au large de l’Italie sont enterrées dans divers cimetières du sud du pays, quand les corps ont pu être récupérés par les gardes-côtes. Ils sont alors numérotés, et un échantillon ADN est prélevé pour ceux qui n’ont aucun élément d’identification. Parfois, des familles entières meurent, et personne ne viendra reconnaître les corps. Le projet de cimetière d’un hectare coûterait 4,3 millions d’euros, et nécessite un cofinancement, qui se fait attendre » (11)

Depuis Aylan, il y a eu Favour, il y a eu un autre bébé de quelques mois mort avec une  image insoutenable,  il y aura ad nauseam des épaves humaines sur des épaves dans l’indifférence de l’Occident qui a amené ces hères à venir tenter leur chance pour atteindre la forteresse Europe et en mourir en mer. Cette Europe qui n’arrête pas de donner des leçons au Monde…Cet Occident plus obnubilé par l’avoir a délaissé l’être.

Le poète Louis Aragon constatait en son temps, le dérèglement éthique du monde, en proclamant son «  Est-ce ainsi que les hommes vivent ? » mutatis mutandis nous proclamons à sa suite, devant cette anomie du monde doublée d’un chauvinisme de la prospérité  des puissants, indifférents à la misère du monde et à ces morts sans sépulture : « Est-ce ainsi que les hommes meurent ? » La question reste posée.

Professeur Chems Eddine Chitour

Ecole Polytechnique


1.Thierry Meyssan :




5.Alexei Druzhinin








Article de référence : chitour/242638-des-riches-indifferents-a-la-tragedie-humaine.html


  • Posted in Francais @fr
  • Commentaires fermés sur Kermesse du G7. Chauvinisme de la prospérité contre misère du monde.

With the increasingly likelihood of a presidential contest between the generally despised Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, millions of angry voters are considering protesting the lineup by either sitting out the election or writing in alternatives. With almost one-third of all eligible voters already failing to participate in elections, a greater abdication of voting responsibility in an election between the lesser of two evils could lead to a tyranny of the minority. On the other hand, by carefully writing in the names of their true choices, voters can exercise the only power available to them. If sufficiently widespread, such a protest could have a lasting effect on the course of the Nation, including the abandonment of the two major political parties and the emergence of new—more relevant—alignments.

The beauty of a massive write-in protest vote is its bipartisan appeal. There may be as many « Never Trump » Republicans unwilling to hold their noses and vote for Donald Trump, as there are progressive Democrats who are proclaiming « Bernie or Bust » in their opposition to Hillary Clinton. Even those voting for Libertarian and Green Party presidential candidates, in states where they are not qualified, might consider doing so by writing in their choices. The only problem is that—with the control of voting left up to the states by the Constitution and with tabulation taking place on the local and county level—most write-in votes would not be counted.

Under state laws, political parties must « qualify » for their candidates to be listed on the ballots and counted. The two major parties are qualified in every state, but the Libertarian Party candidates will appear on the ballots in only 33 states, the Green Party in 21, and the Constitution Party in 13.

By definition, the names of write-in candidates are not listed on ballots; however, interested candidates must still file various forms of paperwork in 35 states for their votes to be counted, and seven states do not allow write-in votes for presidential candidates. While permitted in the remaining eight states, votes for write-in candidates may not be counted or reported by local registrars.

Even after the end of this year’s political conventions and the statutory period to qualify for the ballots in individual states, steps could still be taken by alternative candidates, such as Bernie Sanders or an establishment Republican, to register a willingness to accept write-in votes in those states where they are permitted.

All of this could change with the enactment of the U.S. Voters’ Rights Amendment (USVRA), which will finally guarantee that every citizen has the right to cast effective votes in all elections. In addition, the USVRA mandates a national, hand-countable paper ballot in all federal elections, allows write-in candidates for all federal offices, and requires that all such votes be counted. Moreover, for presidential elections, the ballots would list the 12 most critical questions facing the Nation, compelling all candidates to actually address the true issues. The People would be better informed and empowered to make their own national policy—and to elect representatives most qualified to carry out their policies.

A national policy referendum, in conjunction with presidential elections, would create broad federal guidelines, rather than binding laws. Elected representatives would be expected to carry out the policies and direction of the People, and could be held accountable if they fail to do so.

Rather than responding to billions of dollars in negative advertising about the inadequacies of opposition candidates, a barrage of slick promotional propaganda concealing those deficiencies, and misleading party platforms, voters in the 2016 election should have the power to create policy for themselves. They should decide whether international trade pacts should be approved; the cap on Social Security withholding taxes should be eliminated; a supplemental national retirement system should be enacted; space-solar energy should be generated to energize the national highways in lieu of a reliance on polluting petroleum products; and whether the crumbling national infrastructure should be repaired and upgraded.

The People should have a direct say about whether the war on drugs should end and private prisons should be prohibited. Those most affected by domestic policies should decide whether everyone has a right to national health care; whether paid maternity leave should be provided; women should have the freedom of choice in childbearing; and everyone should have the right to marry whomsoever they chose. Voters who are smart enough to earn a paycheck and pay taxes are certainly qualified to decide if a national minimum wage should be guaranteed; all existing student loans should be forgiven; the right to education extended through college; and whether military spending should be reduced.

Instead of an income tax disproportionally imposed on salaried workers and small business owners, the People should have the right to decide whether government initiatives are to be paid for by a tiny tax on the movement of all money in the economy, including stock and currency transactions and the financial manipulations of all banks, insurance companies, and other corporations. In doing so, the burden of taxation would be lifted from those who work the hardest and shifted to those who profit the most from our economy.

Those who founded the United States and drafted its Constitution did not trust the vast majority of its citizens to vote. They left voting questions up to the states and established the Electoral College—rather than a majority vote of the People—to elect the president and vice president.

At first, only white males owing sufficient property were permitted to vote, but slowly over the years, others have been allowed to participate. These rights are fragile and can be taken away at the whim of state legislatures—as is being done by the widespread enactment of voting suppression schemes, such as voter identification laws.

The USVRA will eliminate the Electoral College and implement a national popular vote for the offices of president and vice president. It also establishes a uniform presidential primary, limits the length of campaigns, requires universal voter registration, and outlaws voter suppression. Finally, it declares that corporations do not have constitutional rights and that campaign contributions are not the same as free speech.

If America is to continue as a representative democracy, it must transform its government into one that actually represents and cares for those who elect it—rather than the corporations and financial elites who are now paying for election campaigns and bribing the candidates. The USVRA provides a constitutional basis for the transformation of the United States government; however, the energy to compel its enactment will come from the incredible power of the pen literally held in the hands of the People.

William John Cox, a retired public interest lawyer, is the author of « Transforming America: A Voters’ Bill of Rights. »


  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur « Evil » Presidential Candidates: Write-in Voting and Political Protest

The US Supreme Court granted the long-standing aspirations of the local Ministry of Justice and the US intelligence agencies to “hack” computers around the world- to combat terrorism of course. However, any clarification is unlikely to appease people who value the integrity of personal space. The US Justice Department insisted on the introduction of relevant amendments to the federal criminal law since 2013. The agency’s position can be divided into two components:

  • It is necessary to fight against terrorism, and all legal means are good for that
  • The existing legislation is vulnerable, and it allows villains to insolently use “anonymizing” software and other technical gadgets to conceal their identities.

The proposed expansion of rights to special services in the Ministry of Justice of the United States is considered “minor” by the Establishment.

It also seems that they are genuinely puzzled about the ferocity of the cries of human rights defenders and their shouts to go back to the “Constitution”. The constitution contains a direct prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures.

Opponents of the legislation do not also hide the expectationthat the FBI will now be carrying out a massive hacker attack on computer networks around the world. An important detail, which follows from the document itself: a subject can theoretically be anywhere, including China, Iran or Russia. But does this legislation really matter? The Washington believes in the principle of its total jurisdiction all over the world. Why are they letting the Supreme Court make this call, when the US special services can invade the privacy of any computer user in the world without any formal approval from the Court. All of us have long been told so by Assange and Snowden.

Recent cyber-security and privacy alarms from around the world are becoming more regular. In November 2015, the UK saw echoes of the current decision of the US allowing intelligence agencies to monitor networking activities of their targets on the Internet, and even without a court order. Another widely known incident was in 2010 when, a malicious computer worm, Stuxnet, was identified.

Although neither state has confirmed this openly, anonymous US officials speaking to the Washington Post claimed the worm was developed during the Obama administration to sabotage Iran’s nuclear program with what would seem like a long series of unfortunate accidents. The very same time, the US blames its geopolitical opponents for cyber attacks on a constant basis. If these reports are true, even partly, it becomes clear that all sides are involved in the silent cyber standoff. Ironically, these efforts have nothing to do with improving their own citizens’ security.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Video: Global Cyber-Security Standoff: US Intelligence « Hacks » Computers To « Combat Terrorism »

US-NATO’s Fake “Humanitarian” “War on Terrorism”, Defiant Syria

By Mark Taliano, May 31 2016

There’s really no excuse for supporting the NATO/terror position. We’ve seen the destruction of Iraq, Libya, Ukraine, now Syria, all built on lies, all beneath the guise of “humanitarian interventions”. Since people with any sense of historical memory can not…


Video: The Dirty War on Syria – Prof. Tim Anderson on GRTV

By Prof. Tim Anderson and James Corbett, May 31 2016

Government propaganda and NGO misinformation have coloured the story of the war on Syria from its inception. Stepping in to set the record straight, Dr. Tim Anderson explores the real beginnings of the conflict, the players behind it, and their agenda

The Dirty War on Syria

Reject Censorship at Conference on Refugees. The “Dirty War on Syria” is the Cause of the Refugee Crisis

By Syria Solidarity Movement, May 31 2016

All voices should be welcome at the “Crossing Borders” conference on refugees, 7-10 July 2016, organized by the Cooperative Institute for Transnational Studies (CITS) in collaboration with the University of the Aegean, and taking place on the Greek island of…


The Unique Risks of GM Crops: Pro-GMO Lobby Engages in Fraud, Smear Campaigns and the Debasement of Science

By Colin Todhunter, May 31 2016

The purpose of this piece is to draw readers’ attention to an important chapter from a document by Aruna Rodrigues that discusses the unique risks associated with GM crops. Contrary to what supporters of GM often claim, it shows that…


Anglo-America: Regression and Reversion in the Modern World

By Prof. James Petras, May 31 2016

The Anglo-American drive to establish a global regressive social order has pushed billions of workers on five continents into destitution, insecurity and lifelong exploitation.


Six Giant Corporations Control the Media, and Americans Consume 10 Hours of ‘Programming’ a Day

By Michael Snyder, May 31 2016

If you allow someone to pump hours of “programming” into your mind every single day, it is inevitable that it is eventually going to have a major impact on how you view the world.  In America today, the average person…

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Selected Articles: Anglo-American Regression and US-NATO « Dirty Wars »

An article last week in the British-based Guardian reported that the Chinese military “is poised to send submarines armed with nuclear missiles into the Pacific Ocean for the first time, arguing that new US weapons systems have so undermined Beijing’s existing deterrent force that it has been left with no alternative.”

While the timing is uncertain, the move ups the ante in an intensifying nuclear arms race between the US and China that heightens the risk of war. Since coming to office, the Obama administration has engaged in a military build-up and strengthening of alliances throughout Asia in preparation for war with China. It has committed more than $1 trillion over 30 years to the upgrading and expansion of the US nuclear arsenal and delivery systems.

The Chinese regime has responded by taking measures to maintain its ability to launch a reprisal in the event of a US nuclear attack on its military apparatus, cities and leadership. The decision to send nuclear-armed nuclear submarines (SSBNs) on patrol in the Pacific Ocean is the latest step in Beijing’s efforts to protect its relatively small nuclear force—estimated at 260 warheads, as compared to 7,000 for the US.

According to the Guardian, Chinese military officials insist that such patrols are “inevitable” following the announcement by the US and South Korea in March to deploy a Terminal High Altitude Area Defence (THAAD) anti-ballistic missile system to the Korean Peninsula. While Washington’s pretext is the supposed threat posed by North Korea, the THAAD deployment is part of the US anti-missile system build-up in North East Asia aimed against China.

There is nothing defensive about the Pentagon’s anti-ballistic missile installations, which are an integral component of its strategy for fighting a nuclear war against China. Unlike Beijing, Washington has never renounced a nuclear first strike—that is, being the first side in a war to unleash nuclear weapons. The Pentagon’s plan is to seek to obliterate the entire Chinese nuclear arsenal in a first strike, rendering China incapable of retaliating. The relatively small number of THAAD interceptors could not counter a Chinese first strike and only have significance as the means of destroying stray Chinese missiles that escaped the initial American onslaught.

In other words, the US is no longer seeking to maintain a balance of terror—the strategy known during the Cold War as Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)—but is aiming to achieve nuclear primacy, which means the use of nuclear weapons to render a rival completely defenceless against further attacks.

An article in the prestigious US-based Foreign Affairs magazine a decade ago entitled “The Rise of US Nuclear Primacy” provoked furious denials by the Pentagon and the White House. Nevertheless, behind a phony campaign of championing nuclear disarmament, the US has been striving to achieve nuclear primacy over any potential rival—especially Russia and China.

The article focussed primarily on Russia, which has a far more extensive and sophisticated nuclear force. Nevertheless, its analysis of Chinese nuclear capabilities goes a long way to explaining China’s moves to ensure that its nuclear weapons would not be completely wiped out in a US attack. It stated:

“China’s nuclear arsenal is even more vulnerable to a US attack [than Russia’s]. A US first strike could succeed whether it was launched as a surprise or in the midst of a crisis during a Chinese alert. China has a limited strategic nuclear arsenal. The People’s Liberation Army currently possesses no modern SSBNs or long-range bombers. Its naval arm used to have two ballistic missile submarines, but one sank, and the other, which had such poor capabilities that it never left Chinese waters, is no longer operational.

“China’s medium-range bomber force is similarly unimpressive: the bombers are obsolete and vulnerable to attack. According to unclassified US government assessments, China’s entire intercontinental nuclear arsenal consists of 18 stationary single-warhead ICBMs. These are not ready to launch on warning: their warheads are kept in storage and the missiles themselves are unfueled. (China’s ICBMs use liquid fuel, which corrodes the missiles after 24 hours. Fuelling them is estimated to take two hours.) The lack of an advanced early warning system adds to the vulnerability of the ICBMs. It appears that China would have no warning at all of a US submarine-launched missile attack or a strike using hundreds of stealthy nuclear-armed cruise missiles.”

Over the past decade, the Chinese military has taken strenuous steps to remedy these major deficiencies. It has built solid-fuel missiles, constructed four Jin-class nuclear ballistic missile submarines, reportedly developed a mobile rail-mounted missile, improved its early warning systems and taken other counter measures. However, China’s arsenal remains small and vulnerable and many of the technologies are generations behind those of the United States.

Wu Riqiang, a Chinese academic from Renmin University in Beijing, told theGuardian that China’s Jin or Type 094 nuclear submarines were too noisy and easily located by US attack subs, and would never get to the mid-Pacific to enable them to hit continental America. “My argument is that because of the high noise level of the Type 094 and China’s lack of experience of running a SSBN fleet, China cannot and should not put 094 in deterrent patrol in the near future,” he said.

The concern in the Pentagon about China’s nuclear submarines is one of the real reasons behind its “freedom of navigation” provocations in the South China Sea. The US is determined to maintain its free access to these waters, which are directly adjacent to Hainan Island, where the Chinese submarine fleet is based. The Pentagon is determined to be able to track the movements of China’s nuclear submarines and thus have the ability to destroy them before they reach the open waters of the Pacific.

US nuclear supremacy poses difficult dilemmas for the Chinese leadership, which up until now has been reluctant to relinquish tight control over its nuclear arsenal, and has therefore stored warheads and missiles separately. By arming nuclear submarines, warheads and missiles would be stored on board, posing the question: would the commander be authorised to launch in the event of a US “decapitation” strike on the Chinese leadership in Beijing?

While the Chinese nuclear posture is largely defensive, the scramble to build a nuclear arsenal is nevertheless reactionary and dangerous. The Chinese leadership defends the interests of a tiny super-rich oligarchy and is organically incapable of making any appeal to workers in the United States or internationally. Its whipping up of Chinese nationalism and militarism further divides the international working class, the only social force capable of halting the slide toward a nuclear holocaust.

The nuclear arms race is compounding the increasingly volatile and unpredictable situation in Asia. As American academic Jeffrey Lewis, from the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, told the Guardian: “The law of unintended consequences is in danger of taking the upper hand. The two sides may thus be stumbling blindly into severe crisis, instability and growing competition by China with respect to strategic forces. A competition between unevenly matched forces is inherently unstable.”

In its own cautious way, Lewis’s comment is another warning of the rising risks of a nuclear war.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur China Prepares to Send Nuclear Submarines into Pacific Ocean

La guerre multidimensionnelle qui exclut pour le moment la voie militaire directe — les USA contre la Russie et la Chine — a changé de niveau. Washington la livre sur trois fronts, de façon aussi obscène que brutale :
1. la guerre énergétique,
2. la guerre géo-financière,
3. la guerre des devises, sans compter encore d’autres opérations en cours, au plan de la cybernétique et de la propagande.

C’est dans ce cadre que s’inscrit une annonce récente, fort timorée : celle de relancer la bourse pétrolière russe de Saint-Pétersbourg, la Spimex, dans le but de briser le suprématisme énergétique anglo-saxon et l’hégémonie du dollar  [1] ; parallèlement, il y a des velléités d’indépendance boursière et de libération énergétique de la part de la Chine.

Il y a quelques jours, l’agence Bloomberg News a souligné que l’ouverture de la bourse pétrolière chinoise sur la place de Shanghai, où seraient signés les premiers contrats, tarde à se concrétiser, plus de vingt ans après qu’elle ait été annoncée [2].

Le motif allégué, peu crédible, en est la volatilité des marchés, comme si c’était là quelque chose de nouveau, alors que c’est intrinsèque à la création de bulles, propres au marché néo-libéral global, comme vient de l’avouer Jacques de Larosière de Champfeu, ex-directeur exécutif malheureux du FMI, parlant pour la Banque centrale européenne.

Annoncée pour la fin 2015, l’ouverture de cette bourse pétrolière de Shanghai briserait l’arrogance anglo-saxonne qui marchandise le brut à travers le Nymex et l’IPE sur les places respectives de New York et de Londres. Or elle vient d’être reportée à une date indéterminée en 2016.

En 1993, le gouvernement chinois avait introduit un contrat à usage interne pour le brut, mais l’opération fut interrompue un an plus tard lors de « l’évaluation » de son industrie énergétique.

Maintenant, les importations chinoises ont augmenté de façon substantielle : 7,9 millions de barils par jour, soit 8,3 % de plus depuis cinq mois ; et cela est destiné principalement à alimenter les réserves stratégiques chinoises [3].

La Chine d’aujourd’hui n’est plus celle d’il y a vingt ans, quand elle commençait à peine à décoller dans la géo-économie globale ; et elle n’avait pas encore mis en place l’association stratégique avec la Russie, dans la phase capitale de réhabilitation et de restauration relative entreprises par le tsar Vladimir Poutine.

Aujourd’hui, les mousquetaires chinois fort habiles se positionnent comme la première superpuissance géo-économique globale (quant au pouvoir d’achat) et ils ont implanté l’association stratégique nucléaire et gazière avec la Russie pour empêcher l’étranglement humiliant par les US ; la portée véritable de leur accord reste secrète.

Comme une image dans le miroir, les exportations de la Russie vers la Chine ont battu tous leurs records [4], ce qui consolide la complémentarité éventuelle entre les deux projets de nouvelles bourses pétrolières : une bourse russe à Saint-Pétersbourg, la Spimex, et une autre à Shanghai.

Il semblerait que Poutine applique l’apophtegme des biologistes selon lequel « la fonction crée l’organe », comme il l’a énoncé fin 2014, à l’occasion du sommet de l’APEC à Pékin, avant la mise en place des sanctions asphyxiantes par Obama et la guerre contre le rouble, par le biais de l’effondrement des prix du brut. Il avait déclaré : « l’usage du rouble et du yuan pourraient réduire l’influence du dollar ».

Presque un mois après les vœux tripolaires de Poutine, son féroce adversaire Obama, qui a jusqu’à présent opté de façon efficace et presque muette pour la guerre financière et la guerre des devises, en lieu et place des désastreuses aventures militaires, portait des coups sévères au rouble.

La transition vers le nouvel ordre tripolaire USA-Russie-Chine ne sera pas facile, dans la mesure où les faucons US tant financiers que militaires, s’acharnent à maintenir une unipolarité qui n’est pas viable.

La Chine est en compétition avec les États-Unis, en tant que premier importateur global de brut, et elle a besoin d’avoir plus d’influence quant à la cotation de l’or noir, mais elle a aussi besoin de promouvoir l’utilisation du yuan/renminbi. C’est pourquoi elle a assoupli les règles qui permettent aux raffineries « indépendantes » d’importer du pétrole [5].

La participation des raffineries chinoises n’est pas à dédaigner, car elles ont déjà pu traiter près de 10,6 millions de barils par jour.

Au-delà de la marchandisation vulgaire autant que réductionniste, les conjonctures géo-politiques sont cruciales pour la prise de décision de la part du gouvernement chinois, alors que le mandarin Xi met en œuvre son singulier modèle mixte (public-privé) en gérant à la fois, dans l’étape actuelle, floraison, consolidation et sauvegarde.

Lu Feng, fonctionnaire de la Shanghai International Energy Exchanges, a fait savoir que la bourse énergétique doit finir d’adopter des règles et des conduites de simulation mercantile (au bout de vingt ans !) sans oublier qu’il lui faut l’approbation de la Commission de régulation des valeurs cotées en bourse de la Chine.

Selon Bloomberg, les turbulences boursières et la volatilité des marchés financiers —où se jouent la guerre des devises et la guerre géo-financière entre le dollar et le yuan/renminbi— même si elles ne se déclarent pas comme telles, ont apaisé le gouvernement chinois, qui a besoin d’acquérir une influence plus grande sur la cotation du pétrole, contrôlée actuellement de façon anormale par les places de New York et de Londres.

Est-ce que la Chine redoute une guerre géo-financière assénée sans pitié à partir des places financières et énergétiques de Londres et New York associées ?

Lors du dernier heurt entre le dollar et le yuan/renminbi, la Chine s’est encore vue obligée de lâcher 100 milliards de dollars tirés de ses réserves en devises, qui ne sont plus maintenant que de 3 000 milliards de dollars, même si elles restent toujours les premières au monde.

Gabe Collins, du site The Diplomat (très proche du Japon) fait le commentaire suivant : « l’accent mis sur la hausse du pétrole d’Amérique du Nord (sic ; l’auteur oublie que le Mexique aussi fait partie de l’Amérique du Nord, du point de vue de la géographie physique), d’Arabie saoudite et des jihadistes de Daech cache une tendance énergétique croissante et nouvelle : le fait que la production chinoise est en passe d’atteindre son pic »  [6] ; cela expliquerait son spectaculaire rebond tout récent, depuis l’effondrement à 25 dollars le baril jusqu’aux environs de 50 dollars aujourd’hui, ce qui « aura des implications profondes sur le marché pétrolier, car la Chine n’est pas seulement un importateur massif de brut, mais se trouve aussi au rang des cinq principaux producteurs globaux, juste après les USA, la Russie, l’Arabie saoudite, et pratiquement à égalité avec le Canada » [7].

JPEG - 53.5 ko


Le pétrole de schiste (shale oil) constitue un chapitre spécial : la Chine en possède des réserves pléthoriques, avec un énorme potentiel, selon l’U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) (qui informe de façon souvent fort biaisée) : soit 32 milliards de barils techniquement accessibles.

Comment le président Obama sortant répondra-t-il aux velléités boursières de la Russie et de la Chine ?

Pour le moment, dans le cadre ambigu et confus des relations de coopération/confrontation entre Obama et le mandarin Xi, il faut relever que les USA ont levé l’embargo sur la vente d’armes au Viêt Nam [8], leur ancien ennemi, et ce, dans l’optique d’une confrontation avec leur nouveau rival, la Chine.

Alfredo Jalife-Rahme

Article original en espagnol : ¿Por qué China no lanza su anunciada bolsa petrolera en Shanghai? La Jornada, 25 mai 2016.

Traduction Maria Poumier, le Réseau Voltaire

[1] « Rusia abrirá su bolsa petrolera en rublos », Alfredo Jalife-Rahme, La Jornada, 22 de Mayo de 2015.

[2] “China’s 20-Year Crude Oil Futures Wait Drags On Amid Volatility”, Bloomberg News, November 19th, 2015

[3] “China’s April Oil Imports Second Highest On Record As Nation Builds Reserves”, Kenneth Rapoza, Forbes, May 9th, 2016.

[4] “Russian oil exports to China hit record high in April”, Russia Today, May 23th, 2016.

[5] « China’s Oil Buying Rules Further Loosened Amid Record Imports », Bloomberg, July 23th, 2015.

[6] « China Peak Oil : 2015 Is the Year », Gabe Collins, The Diplomat, July 7th, 2015.

[7] “Total Petroleum and Other Liquids Production – 2014”, U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).

[8] “Obama Lifts Arms Embargo on Former Enemy Vietnam”, Cindy Saine, Voice of America, May 23th, 2016

  • Posted in Francais @fr
  • Commentaires fermés sur La création chinoise d’une bourse pétrolière en yuan annoncé tarde à se concrétiser

MH17: The Continuing Charade

mai 31st, 2016 by James ONeill

The Sun Herald (Sydney) of 22 May 2016 reported that the Australian families of the MH17 disaster had “served” the European court of Human Rights (ECHR) with a claim seeking compensation of $10 million for each victim.

The report referred to the “proposed respondents” to the claim being the Russian Federation and its President Vladimir Putin. The solicitor acting for the plaintiffs was quoted in a separate report (1) claiming, “we have facts, photographs, memorandums (sic), tonnes of stuff.” He also claimed that the claim document ran to “over 3500 pages in length.”

These reports closely followed the publication of the New South Wales Coroner’s Court report into the deaths of six of the victims who were resident in New South Wales. The Coroner’s findings closely followed those of the Report of the Dutch Safety Board of 13 October 2015, attributing the deaths of those aboard MH17 to a BUK missile detonating close to the aircraft, causing the plane to disintegrate and a consequent immediate loss of life to all aboard.

It was not part of the Coroner’s jurisdiction to attribute blame, that being the subject of a separate criminal investigation (JIT). The results of that investigation are expected to be announced later this year.

The Dutch head of the JIT investigation, Mr Fred Westerbeke wrote to all the Dutch victim’s families in February 2016 giving them an update on the investigation. A query to the Australian Federal Police as to whether the Australian families might receive a similar briefing was effectively ignored.

Something Mr Westerbeke did say that was of particular interest was that the United States had released their satellite data to the Dutch Security Services. Whether that data could be used and if so in what format, was for security reasons an unresolved issue.

Those data are of considerable significance. It is known that there were three US satellites overhead the Donbass region at the material time. They had the undoubted capability of determining exactly what was fired at MH17, from precisely where, and by whom. US Secretary of State John Kerry claimed as much in an interview with NBC shortly after the tragedy.

The American refusal to publically release the data leads to the very strong inference that it is being concealed for the reason that it does not support the “blame Russia” meme so favoured by the western media.

The incuriosity of the Australian media was again on display when they gave extensive coverage to the report of the alleged claim being filed in the ECHR.

There are a number of problems with this purported claim, accepted so uncritically be the Australian media. There was a clue in the use of the phrase “proposed respondents”. If proceedings had been filed in any court, then the respondents are not “proposed”. They either are or they are not.

A check with the ECHR website on 26 May 2016 showed that there was no record of any such claim having been filed. John Helmer, on his website (2) reports a similarly negative result when a query was made with the ECHR’s Registrar.

The problems with the alleged claim do not stop there. As noted above, the plaintiff’s solicitor said that the claim ran to more than 3500 pages. Rule 47 of the ECHR’s Rules state that the application must contain:

(e) a concise and legible statement of the facts;

(f) a concise and legible statement of the alleged violation(s) of the Convention; and

(g) a concise and legible statement confirming the applicant’s compliance with the admissibility criteria laid down in Article 35(1) of the Convention.

Whatever else they may be, a 3500-page claim does not remotely comply with any definition of “concise.”

The ECHR Rules further provide that any additional submissions do not exceed 20 pages (Rule 47 (2) (b)) in length.

The plaintiffs have failed to provide any relevant details from their 3500 page claim (or at all) that would enable an independent observer to assess what “facts, photographs and memoranda” they have that were not available to the Dutch Safety Board Inquiry. Given the combined resources available to the Dutch led inquiry, it would be remarkable that a firm of solicitors would be able to state their claims so categorically when a major government report was not able to do so.

The plaintiff’s difficulties do not end with their lack of credibility.

The ECHR Rules further provide that any application made under Article 34 of the Convention is required to be made (Article 35(1)) within six months of the event giving rise to the application.

As the relevant event occurred on 17 July 2014, the six months expired on 17 January 2015. No explanation has been forthcoming nor any inquiry made by the incurious mainstream media as to how this potentially fatal flaw in the proceedings could be overcome.

That is not the end of the plaintiff’s woes. Rule 10(b) governs Article 34 applications to the Court. That rule requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that “the applicant has complied with the exhaustion of available domestic remedies.”

One of the plaintiffs named in the purported ECHR proceedings is Mr Tim Lauschet, a relative of one of the victims. Mr Lauschet is also the plaintiff in proceeding 2015/210056 filed in the New South Wales Supreme Court. Malaysian Airlines System Berhad is the respondent in those proceedings.

The original pleadings sought various declarations that would facilitate a claim for damages under the relevant provisions of the Civil Aviation (Carriers Liability) Act 1959. That limits liability to a maximum of special drawing rights equivalent to approximately A$215,000. There is a two year time limit for the making of such claims, so that right expires on 17 July 2016, only a few weeks away.

The purported proceedings in the ECHR makes no attempt to reconcile their $10 million claim with the liability of international air carriers which is considerably less by an order of magnitude. Neither did the media bother to ask.

The Judge politely pointed out a number of deficiencies in Mr Lauschet’s pleadings (2015) NSWSC 1365) and adjourned the matter with various timetable orders to enable the plaintiff to remedy the many deficiencies in the pleadings.

The matter has been back before the Court a further four times since that hearing, with the only apparent progress being that the plaintiff has now filed a statement of claim. (3) It is now scheduled for a further Directions Hearing on 30 May 2016.

The conclusion for present purposes must be that Mr Lauschet has not achieved “the exhaustion of available domestic remedies.” Whether any of the other Australian plaintiffs in the purported ECHR proceeding have even started, let alone exhausted, their domestic legal remedies is unknown. But in Mr Lauschet’s case (and possibly all of the others) he therefore faces another fatal flaw.

There is one other element in this case that the mainstream media is either unaware of or has chosen to ignore. In 2012 the then Gillard government made amendments to the Social Security Act 1991 to enable payments of up to $75,000 to victims of terrorism.

Eligibility for those payments (the acronym for which is AVTOP) were backdated to 11 September 2001. A necessary pre-condition for the payment is a declaration by the Prime Minister of the day that the event concerned was a “terrorist act.”

To date there have been nine such declarations, the latest being the 13 November 2015 attacks in Paris, France. The shooting down of MH17 should qualify under most definitions as a “terrorist act.”

The relevant Prime Ministers since 17 July 2014, Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull, have not made such a declaration, which would then entitle victim’s families to claim compensation under the Act.

Requests to the Prime Minister’s office for information as to whether such a declaration was going to be made, and if not, why not, were ignored. A Freedom of Information Act request has therefore been made and is currently pending.

There may be a number of reasons why such a declaration has not been made. The overwhelming weight of evidence is that only the military units of the Ukrainian armed forces had the means, motive and opportunity to shoot down MH17 (4).

As a recently joined member of Ukrainian President Poroshenko’s “advisory council” former Prime Minister Tony Abbott would be in a difficult position if the shoot down was declared to be a terrorist act and the JIT investigation put the blame where it rightly belongs, on the Ukrainian government. It is not surprising that the announcement at the recent ASEAN-Russia meeting that Malaysia and Russia were cooperating in an investigation of the MH17 tragedy caused concern in US and Ukrainian circles. (5)

Although the current Australian Prime Minister Turnbull has been more circumspect than his predecessor in making ill-conceived allegations against Russia and its President, he will not wish to expose himself to a finding by the JIT that does not fit the propaganda meme so assiduously pursued by the western media.

There are a number of losers in this charade, not least the victims of the atrocity and their families who deserve better than to be exploited by both politicians and dubious claims in the ECHR. The public, who might reasonably expect to be better served by their media, are also the losers.

James O’Neill, an Australian-based Barrister at Law, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur MH17: The Continuing Charade

G7, the Summit of Western Hypocrisy

mai 31st, 2016 by Thierry Meyssan

The G7 meetings, which were originally little more than simple informal conversations between the Western leaders, flirted for a while with the idea of becoming a world governement before falling back to organising a sort of public relations training course. The Ise-Shima summit reviewed the world’s main problems, and defined, for each of them, the elements of language which should be employed.

e G7 has just met at Ise-Shima (Japan). But although we had been swamped with information about the preceding summits, this one was hardly mentioned by the international Press. The fact is that the objective of this meeting is profoundly different.

In the context of the first oil crisis of 1974, five Ministers of Finance (Western Germany, France, Japan, the United Kingdom, USA) met without an agenda in the library of the White House, simply to exchange their points of view. This was the «Library Group».

On this model, the only two survivors of this group, Valery Giscard d’Estaing, who had become the President of the French Republic, and Helmut Schmidt, who had become the Chancellor of Western Germany, took the initiative of inviting the heads of State and government of the same countries, plus Italy, for the following year (1976), to Rambouillet castle, in order to exchange their points of view on the major subjects of the moment. At that time, international summits were rare and extremely formal. The G6 differentiated itself by its lack of protocol, its simple, relaxed and friendly nature, the atmosphere of a private club. The discussions were in English – directly, without translators. The meeting was announced at the last moment. There was no agenda, and no journalists were present.

The first G5 meeting in Rambouillet, France (1975).

In 1977, the Prime Minister of Canada was invited (G7), and as from 1978, the President of the European Commission. In 1994, the Russian President was also invited, and was officially integrated in 1997 (G8). The Western powers were convinced that after the collapse of the USSR, Russia was about to join with them to create a unipolar world which they would dominate together. This was the era of the creation of an international ruling party whose ambition was boundless. It imagined that it could do away with international law and substitute itself for the UN Security Council, in order to govern the world without control.

In 2000, the G8 supported the proposition by Paul Wolfowitz and the World Bank to cancel the debt of the poorest nations. There was however one small condition – these countries would have to completely liberalise their economy, leaving them open for unrestricted pillage by the multinationals. Of the 62 countries concerned, only 9 accepted this fools’ bargain. The G8’s stand on this issue raised a universal wave of anti-globalisation. During the following summit in Naples (2001), repression of the demonstrations caused one death. It was decided that as from now, these summits would be held outside of major cities, under military and police protection. Anything could therefore be plotted out of the view of the public.

But in 2013, things took a turn for the worse – Vladimir Putin was back in the Kremlin, and the Western powers had just relaunched the war against Syria, despite the engagements negotiated by Kofi Annan and confirmed by the Geneva Communiqué. The summit at Lough Erne became a confrontation, 1 against 7. It should have been dealing with the struggle against tax havens, but the discussion was monopolised by the Western reversal against Syria. The following year (2014), after the coup d’état in Kiev, the division of Ukraine, and the adhesion of Crimea to the Russian Federation, Germany noted that trust between the participants had been destroyed, and that the meeting could not be held in its usual form. In panic, the Western powers decided to cancel their participation in the Sotchi summit, and met, without Russia, at The Hague (Holland). The G8, minus 1, became once again the G7.

42 years ago, the summit was concluded by a short declaration indicating the economic subjects which had been discussed, and stressed the cohesion of the Western block. Quickly, these Press releases were lengthened in order to reassure international investors that no important decisions were being taken within the confines of this secret meeting. As from the invitation of Russia, and the mass arrival of journalists, a political declaration was added, aimed at demonstrating that the world was united around Washington. Then came the publication of long dissertations on the state of the world and the holy desire of the powerful to improve it. But never, absolutely never, was any decision taken by the G8. At the very best, announcements were made and quickly forgotten (the eradication of world hunger, for example) or questions about the promulgation of Charters which would quickly be violated (concerning open sources, for example).

JPEG - 49.8 kb

As from 2001, the G8, which presents itself as a world government parallel to the United Nations, has in fact become a meeting of consultation without risk. In this photograph, which was banned from publication in a number of countries, we see President Dmitri Medvedev drunk at the 21011 summit.© Voltaire Network

What has become of the G7 ?

Of the 9 official members of the G7, 2 have a double voice – the United States can count on the President of the European Commission, the Luxemburger Jean-Claude Juncker, who was obliged to resign from his functions as Prime Minister after it was revealed that he belonged to the Gladio network (NATO secret services). As for Germany, it counts on the President of the European Council, the Pole Donald Tusk, whose family has been linked to the Merkel family since the beginning of the Cold War.

From now on, the G7 is no more than a simple formatting class, where the United States and Germany indicate the language fomulae that their vassals are required to adopt. Thousands of journalists are present at this high mass. In the end, the Ise-Shima summit published a long economico-political declaration and six appended documents which reflect the language of the US elites. Everything is perfect, at least in appearence, because upon careful study – as we are about to see – the truth is revealed to be scandalous.

In the introduction to their declaration, the members of the G7 stress their common values, the four main subjects being:

the rule of Law
respect for Human Rights.

Next, they affirm their capacity to guarantee:

and the Prosperity of the world.

Finally, they reveal their priority:

Global Economic Growth.

Even a small child can understand without difficulty that these «adults», by affirming that their priority is global economic growth, care little for the ideals and the objectives they display.

JPEG - 51 kb

The 9 members of the G7.

The final declaration of the G7

I will limit myself here to the study of the passages in the declaration relative to international politics as seen by these 9 people, who intend to become the most powerful people in the world [1]. It is a catalogue of the 18 most prevalent Western lies today. It provides the occasion for a review of the main subjects of conflict.

The «war against terrorism and violent extremism» [2].

It is now unfortunately a commonly-held belief in international summits that terrorism, according to their declaration, is the fruit of violent extremism. It is nothing more than the maturation of certain personal psychological problems in non-resolved political contexts. Terrorism is therefore not a military strategy, no state organises it, and it is financed exclusively by private gifts and various forms of trafficking. Such is the theory defended since December 2015 by UN General Secretary Ban Ki-moon, who came to join the G7 to give the impression of world consensus [3] : the only enemy is «radicalisation». A formula which enables those who organise terrorism to fight any form of opposition on the pretext of fighting terrorism.

As we have been developing in our columns since 2001, at least 8 of the 9 members of the G7 are directly implicated in support for Al-Qaïda and Daesh in Iraq, Syria and Libya. Only Justin Trudeau’s Canada seems to have ceased participating in this secret war.

«Migration and the refugee crisis» (and not «the refugee and migrant crisis»).

We should note the semantic distinction between the flow of migrations and the refugee crisis. Migrants choose to move elsewhere. They are considered as a tide, not as people. On the contrary, refugees are forced to move, and have the right to international protection.

However, in reality there are very few real refugees. The great majority of Syrians who have fled their country refused to defend it against the jihadists because they were convinced that the Republic was going to be overthrown by NATO. Others fled the combats hoping to come back after the victory of the jihadists and the construction of a true Islamic state. But international Law does not apply the status of refugees to insurgents who refuse to bear arms to defend their country when it is attacked from abroad, nor to those who hope for a victory for which they will not fight.

There is no doubt that the phenomenon of the flight of Syrians was encouraged by the states who were attacking them, who thereby hoped to win by emptying the country of its inhabitants. All members of the G7 participated in this plan.


Le G7 categorically condemns the violations of the cessation of hostilites by the «Syrian régime». Fair enough, but it says not a word about the violations committed by the armed groups beforehand, nor – and this is what matters – about the violations that it first committed itself. I am speaking, for example, about the delivery of 2,000 tonnes of arms and munitions by the US Departement of Defense, attested to by Jane’s magazine – arms and munitions of which at least half were handed on to Al-Qaïda and Daesh, whom the G7 clamied to be fighting a few lines earlier [4].

The G7 also condemns «the régime» (a pejorative expression used to decribe a member-state of the United Nations Organisation, and aimed at pointing out that the goal of G7’s war is «régime change» on the grounds that the «régime» had blocked the access to international humanitarian aid. However, the cases quoted by the UN reveal a non-respect by the UN itself of the dates and routes previously agreed upon with the Syrian government. Apart from the fact that the G7 does not condemn the armed groups for having blocked the access to several locations, it announced that it will use the excuse of what it abusively attributes to the «régime» to authorise the World Food Programme to parachute aid into jihadist-controlled zones. Since the WFP does not have the means to carry out this sort of mission, it will sub-contract the job to the US Air Force, which not only parachutes food and medical supplies, but also weapons and ammunition. This type of operation has only the appearance of being humanitarian, since the food and medical supplies parachuted into the jihadist-controlled zones will immediately be confiscated by the armed groups, who will sell them at exorbitant prices to the populations under their control, or even export them to Turkey, as we have seen recently.

Finally, the the G7 evokes the question of chemical weapons, without poining the finger at anyone in particular – a sign that it can always use this accusation against any party at any time, including the armed groups and Turkey. It is a means of potential blackmail against the unpredictable Erdoğan government.


The G7 supports «the unity, the sovereignty and the territorial integrity» of the nation. It congratulates the Iraqi government for its struggle against Daesh, and announces that it will help Baghdad to come to the aid of the populations in the liberated zones. However, since it has not also congratulated the «Syrian régime» for its victories against Daesh, we may conclude – contrary to the Resolutions of the UN Security Council – that its main objective is not the war against terrorism.

The members of the G7 announce that they are currently spending more than 3.6 billion dollars to help the Iraqi authorities, including the Kurds. But by stating this, they contradict what they stated a few lines earlier – indeed, they pretend to support the unity of the country, but deliver arms directly to a province which they encourage to no longer obey central power.


The G7 unhesitatingly congratulates itself for the 5+1 agreement concluded a year ago with Iran. This accord called for the lifting of US, European and international sanctions, which should have allowed Iran to gain access to the 150 billion dollars blocked all over the world. However, although certain small countries have indeed unblocked the funds which they had been obliged to freeze – Switzerland, for example, liberated 12 million dollars – Iran has still not seen a single centime of the money still blocked in the United States or the European Union. Worse, although Washington officially pretended to unblock 450 million dollars, they were immediately impounded by an «independent» US judge as compensation for the victims of the 11th September attacks, for which the United States have never once accused Iran over the last 15 years. The stand by the 9 members of the G7 comes in response to the complaint registered by Iran with the Security Council with the support of the Non-Aligned Movement [5].

The G7 continues by condemning Iranian research on missiles, which contravenes Resolution 2231. However, this Resolution has nothing to do with the missile question. During the Security Council debate, Ambassador Samatha Power pointed out that Iran was not only obliged to conform to the Resolution, but also to apply other international rules concerning ballistic missiles [6]. The United States know that they can not link the question of ballistic missiles and the question of nuclear energy, and in fact, since the 5+1 agreement, have registered no complaints against Iran.

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

The G7 condemns nuclear research by what it calls «North Korea», suggesting by this title that the United States are still at war with it since 1950. Consequently they can base themselves on several Resolutions by the Security Council. But in the absence of a peace treaty, and considering the pressure brought to bear over the last 10 years on Iran, which had no military nuclear programme, it is understandable that Pyongyang has not conformed.


The G7 reaffirms the obligation to respect «the sovereignty, the territorial integrity and the independence» of Ukraine. Then it condemns the illegal annexation of Crimea by Russia. This is one more example of Western hypocrisy. It was the members of the G7 who organised the coup d’etat in Kiev, which violated the sovereignty and the independence of Ukraine. The citizens who refused the putsch first of all attempted to enter into resistance. They quickly understood that the population was divided geographically between pro-Atlantists and pro-Russians. The pro-Russians – Crimea, Donbass and Louhansk – proclaimed their independence, but only Crimea reacted quickly enough to request its incorporation into the Federation of Russia.

We note one phrase criticising the corruption of the Ukrainian government – a sign that the members of the G7 are already embarrassed by their new ally.


The G7 gives its support to the government presided by Fayez al-Sarraj – the only authority recognised today by the UNO – in order to pacify the country, to enable the exploitation of the oil resrves and the fight against Daesh.

Since the country no longer has a legitimate leader, it has divided into tribal factions. The al-Sarraj government was constituted by the UNO during the Skhirat Accords (April 2015). But it has never been invested by the Chamber of Representatives which was created by NATO after the murder of Mouamar el-Kadhafi. As a result, it is no more legitimate than the others, even though it is more obedient. In any case, the members of the G7 announce that they support the lifting of the embargo on weapons for the al-Sarraj government, which should enable it either to massacre its rivals or relaunch the civil war.


The members of the G7 support any «peace process animated by the Afghans», which is truly alarming, 15 years after the Anglo-US invasion and the Bonn agreemeents imposed by the winners. They applaud the participation of Afghanistan in the NATO summit, next July in Warsaw, which says a lot about this peace process «animated by the Afghans» and about the G7’s intention to continue the military encirclement of Russia.

«The peace process in the Near East»

The G7 admits by this formula that the Israelo-Palestinian conflict is in fact an Israelo-Arab conflict. Given the poor state of relations with the present Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, the G7 supports the French initiative for an international conference – without the Israelis or the Palestinians – the only way, according to them, to move ahead with the «two-state solution».


Advancing with precaution, the G7 affirms that peace in Yemen must be sought through a political transition. An indirect formulation to signify that it supports the transitional President, Abd Rabbo Mansour Hadi, who was ejected by popular opinion, and is maintained entirely by Saudi Arabi and Israël.


While the G7 treated the preceding states in detail, it did not bother to bring the same attention to bear on Burkina Faso, Burundi, Mali, Nigeria, the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Somalia and Southern Sudan, as well as a few other states, not even mentioned, of the Chad Basin, Sahel and the Horn of Africa. They are all tossed off in a single paragraph which lists a quantity of problems and invites them to reinforce their inter-governmental organisations in order to resolve them. The Pentagon has still not swallowed the fact that AfriCom was not afforded a warm welcome by Africans when it was created.

This paragraph was drawn up in the presence of the President of Chad, Idriss Deby, who had been invited on the fringes of the summit. The sacrosanct US rule according to which no head of state should seek more than two consecutive mandates does not apply in this country. Mr. Deby, who has been in power for an uninterrupted period of more than 25 years, is accused of numerous crimes in his own country and in Darfur, but is the best ally for a military deployment on the African continent.


The G7 calls for both a dialogue between the government and the citizens, and between the government and the parliament. This formula cleverly suggests that the government is an authoritarian régime, contested by both the population and the political parties.

In reality, since Washington failed to organise the riots (the «Guarimba») in 2014 [7], to manage a coup d’etat in February 2015 [8], and decreed that Venezuela was a «threat to its national security» [9], it then fabricated a dossier accusing one of the main Bolivian leaders, Diosdado Cabello, of being a drug trafficker [10]. Despite President Obama’s courtesy when he met with his Venezuelan opposite number, he renewed his decree in 2016. On the 25 February, SouthCom and the US Special Forces drew up a plan for the destabilisation of the country, which was unfortunately leaked [11]. Its objective, in the years to come, is to provoke chaos, as was done in the Levant.

Maritime Security

The G7, which presents itself as a guarantor of maritme security, despite the fact that its members organised the pirates from the Horn of Africa in 2009-10 [12], criticises the claims by Beijing in the China Sea by basing its arguments on maritime law, which is absolutely not the problem.

Beijing’s claims are historically legitimate, and had never bothered anyone until the oil fields were discovered. The Spratley and Paracel islands were considered to be Chinese until the 18th century. But since they were mostly uninhabited, the Emperor never sent a representative. The islands were abandoned during the colonisation of China in the 19th century. Consequently they may be claimed by either Taipei or Beijing, depending on the interpretation of the word «decolonisation». And of course, the old colonial powers do not read the events in the same way as the Chinese people, who kicked them out of their country.

Non-proliferation and disarmement

We expect the G7 to be favourable to nuclear non-proliferation and disarmement, since its discourse is always peaceful, although its practice is imperialist.

Western hypocrisy is incarnated here by Barack Obama, who received the Nobel Peace Prize for having announced his desire to see an end to nuclear weapons, but who, once in power, on the contrary modernised and extended the US nuclear arsenal. Just after the summit, he went to Hiroshima, where he gave a speech. Of course, he did not apologise – he is not responsible for the actions of his predecessor – but he did not answer the question of the legitimacy of atomic bombing, which leaves no doubt as to what he really thinks.

The G7 pretends not to know that last year, a certain family managed to procure the atomic bomb, and has already used at least two tactical bombs in Yemen [13]. Yet this is a tangible danger, far more serious than that represented by the North Korean tests. Besides, the fact that the Saud family acquired this technology as a private customer, and not in the name of their state, Saudi Arabia, opens another breach in the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Reform of the United Nations and peace operations

Appropriately, the G7 is favourable to an evolution of the United Nations Organisation. It takes the opportunity to reaffirm its support for the summit on Peace Operations which was presided at the UN by President Obama.

The problem is that the very principle of operations for the maintenance of peace is contrary to the UN Charter. During its creation, the founders had planned for observation missions to verify the application of the peace agreements. These were only useful – and indeeed, possible – in the case of agreement between the belligerents. On the contrary, today, the Security Council imposes its solution on the parties involved, in other words, it takes one side or the other, and deploys an armed Force to force respect for its decision. This is simply colonial practice disguised as international law.

Human Rights

This short paragraph perfectly illustrates my point – who is against Human Rights ? No-one. However, the text presents the respect for these Rights as a «partneship between states and civil societies». By saying so, it is re-adopting the British definition of Rights, and Emmanuel Kant’s definition of civil societies.

According to the G7, Human Rights are a protection for individuals faced with reasons of state. Everyone should be able to take legal action against the abuse by which they suffer. The «civil society», in other words, the political actors – in earlier times, the commoners – who did not participate in the life of political parties, should therefore be able to represent citizens against the state. This gibberish is the negation of the French, Russian, Cuban and Iranian Revolutions, for which the first Human Right is to question the legitimacy of Power, not to prtotect oneself from it. By doing so, the G7 affirms that the new international ruling class does not intend to allow itself to be overthrown.

Nuclear Security

The G7 distinguishes here between technical safety and the political security of the installations. It calls on the shareholders of the multinational companies concerned to respect the International Convention which governs their activity. And it applauds the summit organised by the White House on the prevention of the theft of nuclear weapons by terrorist groups.

By distinguishing between the question of atomic weapons possibly held by terrorist groups and the question of non-proliferation, the G7 clearly demonstrates that it is making no serious effort to acheive either of these goals. Non-proliferation is simply the refusal by the nuclear powers to allow non-nuclear powers to enter their club. The White House summit was a pretext for the Pentagon to «help» every state, and thus better control them.

The future of the G7

The history of the G7 reflects the evolution of international relations. During the Cold War, it was a club for state leaders and the heads of goverment who met discretely in order to learn how to work together. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, it was transformed into a summit for the great and powerful who intended to rule apart from the United Nations. Paradoxically, its current collapse is not due to a political cause, the Russian revolt, but a sociological distinction – the Russian leaders are of the same calibre as those who were once in power in the West, they have nothing to do with the new ruling class which meets in Davos.

Thierry Meyssan

Pete Kimberley



  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur G7, the Summit of Western Hypocrisy

Syrian Border Chaos as NATO Aims to Win Proxy War

mai 31st, 2016 by Tony Cartalucci

An engineered drama unfolds along the Turkish-Syrian border as terrorists armed and backed by a US-led coalition including NATO-member Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar allegedly battle both the self-proclaimed “Islamic State” (ISIS) and Syrian-backed “Syrian Democratic Forces” (SDF) near and around the Syrian city of Azaz.

Reuters in a recent article titled, “Islamic State advance near Turkish border, civilians trapped,” reports that:

Islamic State fighters captured territory from Syrian rebels near the Turkish border on Friday and inched closer to a town on a supply route for foreign-backed insurgents fighting the jihadists, a monitoring group said.

The hardline group has been fighting against rebels in the area for several months. The rebels, who are supplied via Turkey, last month staged a major push against Islamic State, but the group counter-attacked and beat them back.

Reuters, however, leaves out very crucial information – information that if concludes, would raise suspicions about the entire narrative alleged across Western media outlets like Reuters.

If rebels are being directly supplied across the Turkish-Syrian border by a multinational coalition, how is it possible that ISIS forces are somehow better equipped and able to overwhelm these forces? The length of any ISIS logistical line supporting its fighters in this alleged battle – if not also extending over the Turkish-Syrian border in the immediate vicinity of the fighting, must be hundreds of miles long and in itself an immense strain on ISIS’ fighting capacity.

It would be rather remarkable, in fact, unbelievable for ISIS to somehow not be being aided and abetted from directly across the Turkish-Syrian border where allegedly “foreign-backed insurgents” are allegedly receiving aid from nations like the US, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar.

And in fact, ISIS, as well as Al Qaeda’s Al Nusra Front, are accused of receiving such aid via Turkey – most recently with the Russian General Staff accusing Al Nusra of receiving “daily arms shipments across the border from Turkey.”

Not Merely “Russian Propaganda” 

While some will easily dismiss accusations of NATO involvement in arming, aiding, and abetting listed terrorist organizations amid the ongoing war in Syria as “Russian propaganda,” it should be noted that as early as 2007, Western journalists themselves had attempted to warn the public of an unfolding criminal conspiracy among Western special interests to do precisely this.

In the New Yorker’s 2007 article, “The Redirection Is the Administration’s new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on terrorism?,” Pulitzer Prize-winning veteran journalist Seymour Hersh would warn (emphasis added):

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda. 

Hersh’s sources, which included former CIA agent Robert Baer, warned of an impending “cataclysmic conflict” being engineered between Sunni and Shia’a Muslims as part of this conspiracy. He predicted the necessity of Shia’a groups forming the front lines against sectarian genocide carried out by US and Saudi-backed extremists with the responsibility of protecting not only Shia’a Muslims, but also Christians and other ethnic minorities, falling upon groups like Hezbollah.

The Meaning Behind Border Chaos… 

In hindsight, Hersh’s words now appear prophetic. Warnings of Western support of extremists in 2007 manifested as open warfare in 2011, and between the beginning of the war and now, an incremental revelation of US, Turkish, Saudi, and Qatari complicity in the rise and perpetuation of extremists like Al Nusra and the many terrorist organizations fighting along side it, including openly US-backed terrorist organizations like Ahrar Al-Sham and Jaysh al-Islam.

This begs the question as to whether or not ISIS’ departure from Al Nusra was more political than any actual strategic, organizational, or ideological schism. Rhetoric aside, examining the logistical necessities of ISIS’ current “war” with US-backed terrorists in northern Syria, it is clear that the group, along with Al Nusra, are receiving support from Turkish territory.

What is unfolding in northern Syria is yet another attempt by the US and its allies to create and exploit chaos, rather than stem it.

Continued support of extremists by either neglecting border security, or directly and intentionally supplying, arming, and otherwise supporting terrorist organizations ensures maximum violence, humanitarian catastrophe, and a continued pretext for further incursions by both US and Turkish forces along Syria’s borders in pursuit of long-desired “safe havens” where terrorist forces can better be protected and positioned to project their destruction deeper and more effectively into Syrian territory.

In reality, the chaos the US and its allies are citing as justification for further involvement in Syria’s conflict could easily be brought to an end simply by securing Turkey’s borders within Turkish territory. Turkish forces are arrayed along the border alongside US special forces, the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and myriad of European and Persian Gulf military and intelligence assets. Failure to secure the border and cut off Al Nusra and ISIS’ supply lines is intentional.

Securing the Borders 

For Syria, securing its own borders has been infinitely problematic. Attempts to approach and retake territory along the borders has been met not only by obviously Turkish-backed terrorist forces, but also by NATO-backed Turkish military provocations. Turkey regularly shells Syrian territory. Its aircraft and anti-aircraft systems have regularly been deployed along the border attempting to deter first Syrian, then Russian aircraft from targeting the streams of supplies being sent into Syrian territory to sustain terrorist groups including ISIS and Al Nusra.

Attempting to avoid a more direct and costly confrontation with Turkey has forced Syria and its allies to take a more indirect means of securing the borders, using SDF fighters to occupy and face off against Turkish and NATO forces without implicating Damascus directly.

Conversely, the use of these irregular forces has given NATO apparent leeway to make incursions of its own into Syrian territory – as they can claim they are not fighting Syrian forces, but merely “Kurdish terrorists.” While this chaffs directly with America’s alleged support of Kurdish groups elsewhere in the country, this is mitigated by a feigned political fallout between Washington and Ankara – despite US forces still graciously being hosted in Turkey and the two still clearly working in tandem toward the destruction of neighboring Syria.

A multinational peacekeeping force placed along Syria’s northern border or Syrian-Russian bases placed further north may force one of two moves by the US and its collaborators. Directly attacking peacekeepers or Syrian-Russian bases from Turkish territory risking a wider war, or using proxies in Turkish territory, but at the cost of further exposing Washington and Ankara’s hands in propping up and perpetuating Al Qaeda and ISIS.

Either option is fraught with complications and obstacles to overcome – perhaps even insurmountable obstacles. Additional covert resources supplied to SDF fighters along the Syrian-Turkish border could also be an attractive alternative. Syria and Russia could also work further on exposing the precise nature of Al Nusra and ISIS supply lines originating in Turkey – as well as in Jordan and through Iraq via Saudi Arabia directly.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine New Eastern Outlook”.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Syrian Border Chaos as NATO Aims to Win Proxy War

The FT reports that Bayer, which has made a bid to take over Monsanto, has a relatively squeaky-clean brand, with ‘lots of positive connotations’. This, despite the company being rocked by scandal in 2001 when its cholesterol drug Lipobay was found to have serious side-effects and its production of a neonicotinoid insecticide which may have contributed to the decline in the bee population.

“Its oldest brand is aspirin, after all,” says Torben Bo Hansen, head of Philipp und Keuntje, a German advertising agency, adding “But for large parts of the population Monsanto is evil personified.”

In another FT article, Dirk Zimmermann explains:

“Bayer is by no means an exemplary company. After all, their business model is the same as Monsanto’s — they also sell genetically modified seeds that are resistant to the herbicides they produce. None of this is compatible with the idea of sustainable agriculture, or at least our understanding of it.”

Monsanto is opposed because of its leadership in producing and promoting genetically modified organisms – Germany is one ‘no-go’ area where 1m hectares of land are farmed organically. Countries producing GM crops are shown below (in dark blue):

countries growing gm crops 15

Monsanto is also widely associated with the production and promotion of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, which the World Health Organisation said last year was probably carcinogenic. The EU is currently debating whether to relicence glyphosate, with many European governments opposed.

countries ban label gm crops 14Countries banning or labelling GMOs (compiled by Canadian campaigner)

“One option for Bayer would be to drop the Monsanto name if the transaction went through”. Is rebranding the answer?

The Brand Failures blogspot recalls that when massive amounts of radioactive material were released from the UK’s Windscale atomic works in 1957, following a serious fire, the local community in Cumbria were understandably terrified about the health implications of uncontained radiation. Rather than close the plant down, the government believed the best way to put distance between the disaster and the nuclear plant as a whole was to change the name, from Windscale to Sellafield.

“The potential is definitely there for Bayer’s brand to suffer in a takeover,” adds Hansen. “One option for Bayer would be to drop the Monsanto name if the transaction went through, to prevent that “negative sentiment carrying over to the new company” said Jeffrey Stafford, analyst at Morningstar (investment management).


But as Brand Failures records, in many cases, including Windscale/Sellafield and the Post Office/Consignia, the 99% are no longer so easy to fool.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur The Rebranding of Monsanto. « Evil Personified », Will the Public be Fooled?

Dans une initiative qui a surpris, le Premier ministre israélien Benjamin Netanyahu a récusé la semaine dernière son ministre de la Défense de longue date, Moshe Yaalon.

Alors qu’il annonçait sa démission, Yaalon a mis en garde : « Les extrémiste et les éléments dangereux ont mis la main sur Israël. »

Il faisait allusion en partie à son successeur Avigdor Lieberman, le chef du parti fasciste Yisrael Beiteinu, dont les déclarations explosives comprennent des exigences que l’Égypte soit bombardée et que soient décapités les citoyens palestiniens jugés déloyaux [à l’État sioniste].

Mais Yaalon a également condamné l’extrémisme plus proche de ses accointances, dans le parti Likoud de Netanyahu. Comme Yaalon parle de faire une pause dans la politique, de façon terriblement ironique son siège à la Knesset sera pourvu dans les rangs du Likoud par Yehuda Glick, un colon dont la lutte pour détruire la mosquée al-Aqsa à Jérusalem et la remplacer par un temple juif, a le potentiel de mettre le feu au Moyen-Orient.

Les commentateurs israéliens ont souligné qu’avec la nomination de Lieberman, le gouvernement sera le plus extrême dans l’histoire d’Israël – une nouvelle fois.

Le Premier ministre français Valls, qui a commencé une visite dans la région ce samedi, est susceptible de faire face à un mur inexpugnable d’hostilité de la part du gouvernement israélien, alors qu’il espère susciter de l’intérêt pour une conférence française.

Moins remarquée a été la prise en charge progressive et en parallèle des institutions répressives israéliennes par ceux qui épousent l’idéologie des colons – connus en Israël comme le camp national-religieux.

Rien de tout cela n’est accidentel. Depuis deux décennies, les colons se sont donnés pour objectif les institutions clés d’Israël. Sous les sept années de Netanyahu comme Premier ministre, le processus s’est accéléré.

Naftali Bennett, chef du parti de colons Jewish Home et ministre de l’éducation, a récemment vanté le fait que le camp national-religieux – bien que ne représentant qu’un dixième de la population – tenait « des positions de responsabilité dans tous les domaines en Israël ».

Un des succès chantés par Bennett est la nomination l’année dernière de Roni Alsheikh comme chef de la police. C’est un habitant de longue date de Kiryat Arba, l’un des villages où la répression est des plus violentes dans les territoires occupés.

La campagne la plus récente « Croire en la police », est conçue pour recruter des religieux parmi les plus extrémistes. A l’origine du programme se trouvent des politiciens-colons qui ont traité les Palestiniens de « sous-hommes » et ont exprimé leur sympathie pour ceux qui ont brûlé à mort une famille palestinienne, dont un bébé, l’été dernier.

Les autres agences de sécurité sont transformées aussi. Les nationalistes religieux détiennent maintenant un grand nombre de postes de haut niveau dans le service de renseignement du Shin Bet et le Mossad, l’agence d’espionnage d’Israël.

Dans l’armée également les colons sont aujourd’hui fortement représentés dans les corps des officiers et des unités de combat. Depuis plus d’une décennie leurs rabbins ont dominé l’éducation religieuse dans les corps militaires, en invoquant la volonté de Dieu sur le champ de bataille.

Mais, en dépit de ces évolutions, l’élite laïque traditionnelle d’Israël – majoritairement d’origine européenne – s’est désespérément accrochée aux échelons supérieurs du commandement de l’armée.

Netanyahu a toujours subi avec amertume leur présence et leur contrôle. Ils se sont opposés à lui dans deux occasions mémorables : quand il a voulu abroger les accords d’Oslo à la fin des années 1990 et quand il a voulu bombarder l’Iran il y a cinq ans.

Dans le but de limiter leur influence, Netanyahu a essayé l’année dernière de promouvoir le religieux Yair Naveh en tant que chef de l’armée, mais il a été bloqué par les hauts gradés.

L’arrivée de Lieberman comme ministre de la Défense, cependant, peut marquer un tournant.

Une cruauté qui n’est pas nouvelle

À certains égards, le bouleversement est moins notable que Yaalon ne le suggère. Pendant des décennies, les généraux laïques ont été en charge d’une occupation qui a écrasé les droits des Palestiniens et les a encagés dans des enclos toujours plus restreints. Ces généraux ont été tout aussi cruels que les officiers religieux qui les remplacent aujourd’hui.

Néanmoins, les effets attendus de cette révolution tranquille ne doivent pas être ignorés.

Les anciennes élites se sont engraissées sur les meilleures terres des kibboutz, les communautés agricoles spacieuses établies par Israël sur les ruines de centaines de villages palestiniens nettoyés ethniquement en 1948.

Après la guerre de 1967, les heureux généraux de ces kibboutz ont exporté le même modèle de vol à grande échelle des terres palestiniennes dans les territoires occupés.

Mais leurs obsessions sécuritaires se sont finalement enracinées en Israël, où ils craignent d’avoir à rendre compte des crimes de 1948 dont ils ont profité. Leur pire cauchemar est un droit de retour en Israël des propriétaires d’origine des terres qu’ils ont jadis volées, à savoir les réfugiés palestiniens qui se chiffrent aujourd’hui par millions.

Les priorités du camp religieux sont différentes. Les terres qu’ils défendent avec le plus d’acharnement ne sont pas en Israël, mais en Cisjordanie et à Jérusalem-Est. C’est là où beaucoup vivent et où sont situés les lieux sacrés qui sanctifient leur cupidité territoriale.

La propagation de ces zélotes dans l’armée a profondément humilié ses éléments les plus libéraux. Au cours des dernières années, un petit nombre de dénonciateurs ont vu le jour – issus de l’unité de renseignement militaire 8200 – par le biais d’un groupe appelé Breaking the Silence.

L’Allemagne des années 30

La vidéo récente du meurtre d’un Palestinien grièvement blessé par un soldat de l’armée, Elor Azaria – et l’épanchement d’un soutien public en sa faveur en Israël – n’a fait qu’aggraver ces tensions. Ce mois-ci, le chef adjoint de l’armée, Yair Golan, a comparé Israël à l’Allemagne nazie dans les années 1930. Lieberman, quant à lui, est le partisan le plus tonitruant du soldat Azaria.

Le but des nationalistes religieux est affiché sans complexe : éliminer les dernières restrictions à l’occupation, et construire leur Grand Israël – qui serait une volonté divine – en éliminant la société palestinienne.

Cela ne signifie pas qu’il n’y a aucun espoir d’une résolution pacifique du conflit d’Israël avec les Palestiniens – sauf si cela est précédé d’une guerre civile entre juifs laïcs et religieux en Israël même.

Jonathan Cook


Article original en anglais :


Religious Extremists Waging a Quiet Revolution in Israel, 23 mai 2016

Traduction :


JPEG - 3.4 koJonathan Cook a obtenu le Prix Spécial de journalisme Martha Gellhorn. Il est le seul correspondant étranger en poste permanent en Israël (Nazareth depuis 2001). Ses derniers livres sont : « Israel and the Clash of Civilisations : Iraq, Iran and the to Remake the Middle East » (Pluto Press) et « Disappearing Palestine : Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair » (Zed Books). Voici l’adresse de son site :


  • Posted in Francais @fr
  • Commentaires fermés sur La nomination de Liberman officialise la main-mise de l’extrême-droite religieuse sur l’armée israélienne

Le G7, sommet de l’hypocrisie occidentale

mai 31st, 2016 by Thierry Meyssan

Les réunions du G7, qui étaient originellement de simples conversations à bâtons rompus entre leaders occidentaux, ont ambitionné de se transformer en gouvernement mondial, avant de sombrer et de devenir un training de communication. Le sommet d’Ise-Shima a passé en revue les principaux problèmes du monde définissant, pour chacun d’entre eux, les éléments de langage à employer.

Photo :  La première réunion du G5 à Rambouillet (1975).

Le G7 vient de se réunir à Ise-Shima (Japon). Mais alors que nous avons été abreuvés par les sommets précédents, celui-ci a été à peine couvert par la presse internationale. C’est que cette réunion a profondément changé d’objectif.

Dans le contexte du premier choc pétrolier, en 1974, cinq ministres des Finances (Allemagne fédérale, France, Japon, Royaume-Uni, USA) se réunirent sans ordre du jour à la bibliothèque de la Maison-Blanche, juste pour échanger leurs points de vue. C’était le « Library Group ».

Sur ce modèle, les deux seuls survivants de ce groupe, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing qui était devenu président de la République française et Helmut Schmidt qui était devenu chancelier d’Allemagne fédérale, prirent l’initiative d’inviter l’année suivante (1976), au château de Rambouillet, les chefs d’État et de gouvernement des mêmes pays, plus l’Italie, afin d’échanger leurs points de vue sur les grands sujets du moment. À l’époque, les sommets internationaux étaient rares et extrêmement formels. Le G6 tranchait par son absence de protocole, son caractère simple, détendu et amical, dans une atmosphère de club privé. Les discussions avaient lieu directement en anglais, sans traducteurs. La réunion était annoncée au dernier moment. Il n’y avait pas d’ordre du jour, ni de journalistes.

En 1977, on invita également le Premier ministre du Canada (G7), et à partir de 1978 le président de la Commission européenne. En 1994, le président russe fut invité et officiellement intégré en 1997 (G8). Les Occidentaux étaient en effet persuadés qu’après l’effondrement de l’URSS, la Russie était en train de les rejoindre de sorte qu’ils allaient, ensemble, créer un monde unipolaire et le dominer. C’était l’époque où se constituait une classe dirigeante transnationale à l’ambition sans limite. Elle imaginait pouvoir balayer le droit international et se substituer au Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies afin de gouverner le monde sans contrôle.

En 2000, le G8 soutint la proposition de Paul Wolfowitz et de la Banque mondiale d’annuler la dette des pays les plus pauvres. Il y avait cependant une petite condition : ils devaient libéraliser totalement leur économie, de sorte que les multinationales puissent les piller sans restriction. Sur 62 pays concernés, seuls 9 États acceptèrent ce marché de dupes. La prise de position du G8 souleva un mouvement mondial anti-globalisation. Lors du sommet suivant, à Naples (2001), la répression des manifestations fit un mort. Il fut alors décidé que désormais ces sommets se tiendraient hors des grandes villes, sous une importante protection policière et militaire. On pourrait y ourdir ce que l’on souhaite à l’abri des regards.

Mais en 2013 les choses tournèrent au vinaigre : Vladimir Poutine était de retour au Kremlin et les Occidentaux venaient de relancer la guerre contre la Syrie malgré les engagements négociés par Kofi Annan et confirmés par le Communiqué de Genève. Le sommet de Lough Erne se transforma en affrontement à 1 contre 7. Il devait porter sur la lutte contre les paradis fiscaux, mais la discussion fut accaparée par le retournement occidental sur la Syrie. L’année suivante (2014), après le coup d’État à Kiev, la division de l’Ukraine et l’adhésion de la Crimée à la Fédération de Russie, l’Allemagne constata que la confiance entre les participants était rompue et que la réunion ne pouvait pas se tenir dans sa forme habituelle. Les Occidentaux décidèrent d’annuler en catastrophe leur participation au sommet de Sotchi et se retrouvèrent sans la Russie, à La Haye (Pays-Bas). Le G8 moins 1 redevenait le G7.

Il y a 42 ans, le sommet se concluait par une brève déclaration indiquant les sujets économiques qui avaient été abordés et soulignant la cohésion du bloc occidental. Rapidement, ces communiqués furent allongés, pour rassurer les investisseurs internationaux qu’aucune décision importante ne se prenait dans cette réunion secrète. À partir de l’invitation de la Russie et de venue en nombre de journalistes, on adjoint une déclaration politique visant à montrer que le monde s’unifiait autour de Washington. Puis on commença à publier de longues dissertations sur l’état du monde et la bonne volonté des puissants pour l’améliorer. Mais, jamais, absolument jamais, aucune décision ne fut prise par le G8. Tout au plus annonça-t-on des engagements que l’on s’empressa d’oublier (comme éradiquer la faim dans le monde) ou promulgua-t-on des Chartes que l’on s’empressa de violer (sur les Sources ouvertes par exemple).

JPEG - 49.8 ko
À partir de 2001, le G8, qui s’affiche comme un gouvernement mondial parallèle aux Nations unies, devient en réalité une réunion de concertation sans enjeux. Sur cette photographie, interdite de publication dans plusieurs pays, on voit le président Dmitri Medvedev ivre au sommet de 2011. 
© Réseau Voltaire

Ce qu’est devenu le G7

Sur les 9 membres officiels du G7, 2 ont une double voix : les États-Unis peuvent compter sur le président de la Commission européenne, le Luxembourgeois Jean-Claude Juncker, qui a dû démissionner de ses fonctions de Premier ministre après que l’on eut révélé son appartenance au Gladio (service secret de l’Otan). L’Allemagne, quant à elle, s’appuie sur le président du Conseil européen, le Polonais Donald Tusk, dont la famille est liée depuis le début de la Guerre froide à celle des Merkel.

Désormais, le G7 est une simple rencontre de formatage. Les États-Unis et l’Allemagne indiquent des éléments de langage que leurs vassaux sont priés d’adopter. Des milliers de journalistes assistent à cette grande messe. En définitive, le sommet d’Ise-Shima a publié une longue déclaration économico-politique et six documents annexes qui reflètent le langage des élites US. Tout y est parfait en apparence tout au moins, car une lecture approfondie —nos allons le voir— est au contraire scandaleuse.

Dans l’introduction de leur déclaration, les membres du G7 soulignent leurs valeurs communes dont les quatre principales sont :
- la liberté
- la démocratie
- l’état de droit
- le respect des Droits de l’homme.
Puis, ils affirment leur capacité à garantir
- la paix
- la sécurité
- et la prospérité du monde.
Enfin, ils désignent leur priorité :
- la croissance économique globale.

Un petit enfant comprend sans difficulté que ces « grandes personnes », en affirmant que leur priorité est la croissance économique globale, se moquent des idéaux et des objectifs qu’ils affichent.

JPEG - 51 ko
Les 9 membres du G7.

La déclaration finale du G7

Je me bornerais ici à étudier les passages de la déclaration relatifs à la politique internationale vue par ces 9 personnes qui aspirent à être les plus puissantes au monde [1]. C’est un catalogue des 18 principaux mensonges occidentaux actuels. Il fournit une occasion de passer en revue les principaux sujets de conflit.

- La « lutte contre le terrorisme et l’extrémisme violent » [2].

C’est désormais une chose malheureusement acquise dans les sommets internationaux, le terrorisme, y affirme-t-on, serait le fruit de l’extrémisme violent. Il s’agirait uniquement de la maturation de problèmes psychologiques personnels dans des contextes politiques non-résolus. Le terrorisme ne serait donc pas une stratégie militaire, aucun État ne le mettrait en œuvre et il serait exclusivement financé par des dons privés et des trafics divers. C’est la théorie défendue depuis décembre 2015 par le secrétaire général de l’Onu, Ban Ki-moon, venu se joindre au G7 pour y apporter l’illusion d’un consensus mondial [3] : le seul ennemi, c’est la « radicalisation ». Une formulation qui permet à ceux qui organisent le terrorisme de combattre n’importe quelle forme d’opposition, sous prétexte de prévenir le terrorisme.

Comme nous le développons à longueur de colonnes depuis 2001, au moins 8 des 9 membres du G7 sont directement impliqués dans le soutien à Al-Qaïda et à Daesh en Irak, en Syrie et en Libye. Seul le Canada de Justin Trudreau semble ne plus participer à cette guerre secrète.

- « Les migrations et la crise des réfugiés » (et non pas la crise des réfugiés et des migrants).

On notera la distinction sémantique entre le flux des migrations et la crise des personnes réfugiées. Les migrants choisissent de se déplacer. Ils sont considérés comme un flux, pas comme des personnes, au contraire des réfugiés qui sont contraints au déplacement et ont droit à une protection internationale.

Or, il y a en réalité très peu de réels réfugiés. La grande majorité des Syriens qui ont fui leur pays a refusé de le défendre face aux jihadistes parce qu’elle était persuadée que la République allait être renversée par l’Otan. D’autres ont fui les combats en espérant revenir après la victoire des jihadistes et la construction d’un véritable État islamique. Mais le droit international ne reconnaît pas la qualité de réfugiés aux insoumis qui refusent de porter les armes pour défendre leur patrie attaquée de l’étranger, ni à ceux qui espèrent une victoire sans avoir à se battre.

Il ne fait pas de doute que le phénomène de fuite des Syriens a été encouragé par les États qui attaquent le pays et espéraient ainsi le vaincre en le vidant de ses habitants. Or, tous les membres du G7 ont participé à ce plan.

- La Syrie

Le G7 condamne avec la plus grande fermeté les violations de la cessation des hostilités par le « régime syrien ». Certes, mais il ne dit mot ni sur les violations commises auparavant par les groupes armées, ni —et c’est cela qui est important— sur les violations qu’il a lui même commis en premier. Je parle par exemple de la livraison de 2 000 tonnes d’armes et de munitions par le département US de la Défense, ainsi qu’attesté par le revue Jane’s. Des armes et des munitions dont au moins la moitié ont été remises à Al-Qaïda et à Daesh que le G7 prétendait combattre quelques lignes plus haut [4].

Le G7 condamne également « le régime » (expression péjorative désignant un État membre de l’Onu et visant à souligner que le but de guerre du G7 est de « changer le régime ») pour avoir bloqué l’accès humanitaire international. Or, les cas cités par l’Onu correspondent à un non-respect par l’Onu elle-même des dates ou des trajets préalablement convenus avec le gouvernement syrien. Outre que le G7 ne condamne pas les groupes armés pour avoir bloqué l’accès de plusieurs localités, il annonce qu’il prendra prétexte de ce qu’il reproche abusivement au « régime » pour autoriser le Programme alimentaire mondial à parachuter de l’aide dans les zones jihadistes. Or, le PAM n’ayant pas lui-même les moyens de ce type d’opération, il les sous-traitera à l’US Air Force qui ne parachute pas que des vivres et des médicaments, mais aussi des armes et des munitions. Ce type d’opération n’a que l’apparence de l’humanitaire car les vivres et médicaments parachutés dans les zones jihadistes seront immédiatement confisqués par les groupes armés qui les revendront à prix d’or aux populations sous leur coupe, voire les exporteront vers la Turquie comme on l’a constaté récemment.

Enfin le G7 évoque la question des armes chimiques, sans désigner aucun camp ; signe qu’il pourra toujours utiliser cette accusation contre n’importe quel acteur, y compris les groupes armés et la Turquie. C’est un moyen de chantage sur l’imprévisible gouvernement Erdoğan.

- L’Irak

Le G7 soutient « l’unité, la souveraineté et l’intégrité territoriale » du pays. Il félicite le gouvernement irakien pour sa lutte contre Daesh et annonce qu’il soutient d’ores et déjà les efforts de Bagdad pour venir en aide aux populations dans les zones libérées. Cependant, vu qu’il n’a pas également félicité le « régime » syrien pour ses victoires contre Daesh, on en conclut que —contrairement aux résolutions du Conseil de sécurité de l’Onu— son objectif principal n’est pas la lutte contre le terrorisme.

Les membres du G7 annoncent dépenser actuellement plus de 3,6 milliards de dollars pour aider les autorités irakiennes, y compris kurdes. Ce faisant, il contredit ce qu’il écrivait quelques lignes plus haut : en effet, il prétend soutenir l’unité du pays, mais il livre des armes directement à une province qu’il encourage à ne plus obéir au pouvoir central.

- Iran

Avec aplomb, le G7 se félicite de l’accord 5+1 conclu il y a un an avec l’Iran. Or, celui-ci prévoyait la levée des sanctions états-uniennes, européennes et internationales, ce qui aurait dû permettre à l’Iran de jouir à nouveau de 150 milliards de dollars bloqués un peu partout dans le monde. Cependant, si de petits pays ont effectivement débloqué les fonds qu’ils avaient été contraints de geler —par exemple, la Suisse pour 12 millions de dollars—, l’Iran n’a toujours pas vu la couleur du moindre centime bloqué aux États-Unis ou dans l’Union européenne. Pire, alors qu’officiellement Washington venait de faire semblant de débloquer 450 millions de dollars, ils ont immédiatement été placés sous séquestre par un juge états-unien « indépendant » au motif de dédommager les victimes des attentats du 11-Septembre dont les États-Unis n’avaient jamais accusé l’Iran durant les 15 dernières années. La prise de position des 9 membres du G7 vient ici en réponse à la plainte déposée par l’Iran au Conseil de sécurité avec le soutien du Mouvement des États non-alignés [5].

Le G7 poursuit en condamnant les recherches iraniennes en matière de missiles qui contreviendraient à la résolution 2231. Or, cette résolution n’aborde pas cette question. L’ambassadrice Samatha Power avait d’ailleurs rappelé lors du débat au Conseil de sécurité que l’Iran devrait non seulement se conformer à la résolution mais aussi appliquer d’autres règles internationales en matière de missiles balistiques [6]. Les États-Unis savent qu’ils ne peuvent lier la question des missiles balistiques et celle du nucléaire, d’ailleurs depuis l’accord 5+1 ils n’ont déposé aucune plainte contre l’Iran.

- République populaire démocratique de Corée

Le G7, condamne les recherches nucléaires de ce qu’il appelle la « Corée du Nord », soulignant ainsi que les États-Unis sont en guerre contre elle depuis 1950. De fait, il peut s’appuyer sur plusieurs résolutions du Conseil de sécurité. Cependant, en l’absence de traité de paix et vu la pression exercée durant 10 ans contre l’Iran qui n’avait pas de programme nucléaire militaire, on comprend que Pyongyang ne s’y soit pas conformé.

- « Ukraine/Russie »

Le G7 réaffirme l’obligation de respecter « la souveraineté, l’intégrité territoriale et l’indépendance » de l’Ukraine. Puis, il condamne l’annexion illégale de la Crimée par la Russie. C’est un exemple de plus de l’hypocrisie occidentale. Car, ce sont les membres du G7 qui ont organisé le coup d’État à Kiev, violant ainsi la souveraineté et l’indépendance de l’Ukraine. Les citoyens qui refusaient le putsch ont d’abord tenté d’entrer en résistance. Ils se sont rapidement rendu compte que la population se divisait géographiquement entre pro-atlantistes et pro-russes. Les zones pro-russes, la Crimée, le Donbass et Lougansk ont proclamé leur indépendance, mais seule la Crimée a réagi assez rapidement pour demander son rattachement à la Fédération de Russie.

On observera juste une phrase critiquant la corruption du gouvernement ukrainien ; signe que les membres du G7 sont bien encombrés par leur nouvel allié.

- Libye

Le G7 apporte son soutien au gouvernement présidé par Fayez al-Sarraj —seule autorité aujourd’hui reconnue par l’Onu— de manière à pacifier le pays, à permettre son exploitation pétrolière et à lutter contre Daesh.

Le pays n’ayant plus de chef légitime s’est divisé en tribus. Le gouvernement al-Sarraj a été constitué par l’Onu lors des Accords de Skhirat (avril 2015). Mais il n’a jamais été investi par la Chambre des représentants qui avait été créée par l’Otan après l’assassinat de Mouamar el-Kadhafi. Il n’est donc pas plus légitime que les autres, même s’il est plus obéissant. Quoi qu’il en soit, les membres du G7 annoncent soutenir la levée de l’embargo sur les armes à son seul profit, ce qui devrait lui permettre soit de massacrer ses rivaux, soit de relancer la guerre civile.

- Afghanistan

Les membres du G7 soutiennent tout « processus de paix animé par les Afghans », ce qui est pour le moins effarant 15 ans après l’invasion anglo-US et les accords de Bonn imposés par les vainqueurs. Ils se félicitent de la participation de l’Afghanistan au sommet de l’Otan, en juillet prochain à Varsovie, ce qui en dit long sur ce processus de paix « animé par les Afghans » et sur la volonté de poursuivre l’encerclement militaire de la Russie.

- « Processus de paix au Proche-Orient »

Le G7 admet par cette formule que le conflit israélo-palestinien est en réalité un conflit israélo-arabe. Compte-tenu des mauvaises relations avec l’actuel Premier ministre israélien, Benjamin Netanyahu, le G7 soutient l’initiative française d’une conférence internationale… sans les Israéliens, ni les Palestiniens ; seul moyen selon lui de faire avancer la « solution à deux États ».

- Yémen

Avançant avec précaution, le G7 affirme que la paix au Yémen passe par la reprise de la transition politique. Une formulation indirecte pour signifier qu’il soutient le président de transition chassé par la rue, Abd Rabbo Mansour Hadi, qui est porté à bouts de bras par l’Arabie saoudite et Israël.

- Afrique

Alors que le G7 avait traité en détail des États précédents, il ne s’encombre pas de la même attention pour le Burkina Faso, le Burundi, le Mali, le Nigeria, la République centrafricaine, la République démocratique du Congo, la Somalie et le Soudan du Sud, ainsi que quelques autres États pas même nommés du Bassin du Tchad, du Sahel et de la Corne de l’Afrique. Tous sont expédiés en un seul paragraphe qui liste quantité de problèmes et les invite à renforcer les organisations inter-gouvernementales pour les résoudre. Le Pentagone n’a toujours pas digéré que l’AfriCom n’ait pas été accueilli à bras ouverts par les Africains lors de sa création.

Ce paragraphe a été rédigé en présence du président tchadien, Idriss Déby, qui avait été invité en marge du sommet. La sacro-sainte règle états-unienne selon laquelle aucun chef d’État ne doit briguer plus de deux mandats consécutifs ne s’applique pas dans ce pays. M. Déby, au pouvoir de manière interrompue depuis plus de 25 ans, est accusé de nombreux crimes dans son pays et au Darfour, mais c’est le meilleur allié pour un déploiement militaire sur le continent noir.

- Venezuela

Le G7 souhaite à la fois un dialogue entre le gouvernement et les citoyens et entre le gouvernement et le parlement. Cette formule suggère habilement que le gouvernement est un régime autoritaire contesté à la fois par son peuple et par les partis politiques.

En réalité, Washington ayant échoué à organiser des émeutes (la « Guarimba ») en 2014 [7], à réaliser un coup d’État en février 2015 [8] a décrété que le Venezuela était « une menace contre [sa] sécurité nationale » [9], puis a fabriqué un dossier pour accuser l’un des principaux leaders bolivariens, Diosdado Cabello, d’être un trafiquant de drogues [10]. Malgré les politesses du président Obama lorsqu’il rencontra son homologue vénézuélien, il a renouvelé son décret en 2016. Le 25 février, le SouthCom et les Forces spéciales US rédigeaient un plan de déstabilisation du pays qui a malheureusement fuité [11]. Son objectif est, dans les années à venir, de provoquer le chaos comme cela a été fait au Levant.

- Sécurité maritime

Le G7, qui se pose en garant de la sécurité maritime bien que ses membres aient organisé les pirates de la Corne de l’Afrique dans les années 2009-10 [12], critique les revendications de Pékin en mer de Chine en s’appuyant sur le droit de la mer, ce qui n’est absolument pas le problème.

Les revendications de Pékin sont historiquement légitimes et ne gênaient personne jusqu’à la découverte de gisements de pétrole. Les îles Spratleys et Paracels furent considérées comme chinoises jusqu’au XVIIIe siècle. Mais comme elles étaient largement inhabitées, jamais l’Empereur n’y envoya de représentant. Elles furent abandonnées lors de la colonisation de la Chine au XIXème siècle. De fait, elles peuvent donc être revendiquées aujourd’hui aussi bien par Taipei que par Beijing selon la manière dont on interprète la décolonisation. Et bien évidemment, les anciennes puissances coloniales n’ont pas la même lecture des événements que le peuple chinois qui les a boutées hors de son pays.

- Non-prolifération et désarmement

On se doute bien que le G7 est favorable à la non-prolifération nucléaire et au désarmement, puisque son discours est toujours pacifique, bien que sa pratique soit impérialiste.

L’hypocrisie occidentale est ici incarnée par Barack Obama qui reçut le prix Nobel de la Paix pour avoir annoncé sa volonté d’en finir avec les armes nucléaires, mais qui, une fois au pouvoir, a au contraire modernisé et étendu l’arsenal nucléaire US. Juste après le sommet, il s’est rendu à Hiroshima où il a prononcé un discours. Bien sûr, il n’a pas présenté d’excuses —il n’est pas responsable de ce que son prédécesseur a fait—, mais il n’a pas répondu à la question de la légitimité du bombardement atomique, ce qui ne laisse pas de doute sur le fond de sa pensée.

Le G7 feint d’ignorer que, l’année dernière, une famille a réussi à se procurer la bombe atomique et a déjà utilisé au moins deux bombes tactiques au Yémen [13]. C’est pourtant un danger tangible, bien plus grave que celui représenté par les essais nord-coréens. En outre, le fait que les Séoud aient acquis cette technologie à titre privé et non pas au nom de leur État, l’Arabie saoudite, ouvre une brèche supplémentaire dans le Traité de non-prolifération.

- Réforme des Nations unies et des opérations de paix

Comme il se doit, le G7 se montre favorable à une évolution de l’organisation des Nations unies. Il en profite pour réaffirmer son soutien aux décisions du sommet sur les Opérations de paix que le président Obama avait présidé à l’Onu.

Le problème, c’est que le principe même des opérations de maintien de la paix est contraire à la Charte de l’Onu. Lors de sa création, les fondateurs avaient prévu des missions d’observation pour vérifier l’application d’accords de paix. Elles n’étaient possibles et utiles qu’en cas d’accord entre les parties au conflit. Au contraire aujourd’hui, le Conseil de sécurité impose sa solution aux parties, c’est-à-dire se range d’un côté ou d’un autre, et déploie une Force armée pour contraindre à son respect. C’est simplement l’habillage en droit international d’une pratique coloniale.

- Droits de l’homme

Ce court paragraphe illustre parfaitement le fond de mon propos : qui serait opposé aux Droits de l’homme ? Personne. Cependant, le texte présente le respect de ces Droits comme « un partenariat entre les États et les sociétés civiles ». Ce faisant, il reprend la définition britannique de ces Droits et celle d’Emmanuel Kant pour la société civile.

Selon le G7, les Droits de l’homme sont une protection des individus face à la raison d’État. Chacun doit pouvoir ester en justice contre les abus qu’il estime subir. La « société civile », c’est-à-dire les acteurs politiques —autrefois, les roturiers— qui ne participent pas à la vie des partis politiques, doivent donc pouvoir représenter les citoyens contre l’État. Ce charabia est la négation des Révolutions française, russe, cubaine et iranienne pour qui le premier Droit de l’homme est de questionner la légitimité du Pouvoir et non de s’en protéger. Ce faisant, le G7 affirme que la nouvelle classe dirigeante internationale n’entend pas se laisser renverser.

- Sécurité nucléaire

Le G7 distingue ici la sécurité des techniques (safety) de la sécurité politique des installations (security). Il appelle les actionnaires des multinationales concernées à respecter la Convention internationale qui régit leur activité. Et il se félicité du sommet organisé par la Maison-Blanche sur la prévention du vol d’armes nucléaires par des groupes terroristes.

En distinguant la question d’éventuelles armes atomiques détenues par des terroristes de celle de la non-prolifération, le G7 montre clairement qu’il ne poursuit sérieusement aucun de ces deux objectifs. La non-prolifération, c’est uniquement l’interdiction faite aux puissances non-nucléaires de rejoindre le club des puissances nucléaires. Le sommet de la Maison-Blanche c’était un prétexte pour que le Pentagone puisse « aider » chaque État et donc mieux les contrôler.

L’avenir du G7

L’histoire du G7 reflète l’évolution des relations internationales. Durant la Guerre froide, c’était un club de chefs d’État et de gouvernement qui se réunissaient discrètement pour apprendre à travailler ensemble. Après l’effondrement de l’Union soviétique, il se transforma en sommet des grands de ce monde qui entendaient le régenter en dehors des Nations unies. Paradoxalement, son effondrement actuel n’est pas dû à une cause politique, la révolte russe, mais à une distinction sociologique : les leaders russes sont de la même trempe que ceux qui étaient jadis au pouvoir en Occident, ils n’ont rien en commun avec la nouvelle classe dirigeante qui se rencontre à Davos.

Thierry Meyssan


[1] “G7 Ise-Shima Leaders’ Declaration”, Voltaire Network, May 26th, 2016.

[2] “G7 Action Plan on Countering Terrorism and Violent Extremism”, Voltaire Network, May 27th, 2016.

[3] « Plan d’action pour la prévention de l’extrémisme violent », par Ban Ki Moon, Réseau Voltaire, 24 décembre 2015.

[4] « Les États-Unis violent le cessez-le-feu en Syrie et arment Al-Qaïda », Réseau Voltaire, 25 avril 2016. « Qui arme les jihadistes durant le cessez-le-feu ? », par Thierry Meyssan, Télévision nationale syrienne , Réseau Voltaire, 30 avril 2016.

[5] « Plainte de l’Iran au Conseil de sécurité », Réseau Voltaire, 6 mai 2016.

[6] « Résolution 2231 et débats (nucléaire iranien) », Réseau Voltaire, 20 juillet 2015.

[7] « États-Unis contre Venezuela : la Guerre froide devient chaude », par Nil Nikandrov, Traduction Roger Lagassé, Strategic Culture Foundation (Russie), Réseau Voltaire, 10 mars 2014. « Las “guarimbas” de Venezuela : derecha embozada », por Martín Esparza Flores, Contralínea (México), Red Voltaire , 28 de abril de 2014.

[8] « Obama rate son coup d’État au Venezuela », par Thierry Meyssan, Réseau Voltaire, 23 février 2015.

[9] “Executive Order – Blocking Property and Suspending Entry of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Venezuela”, by Barack Obama, Voltaire Network, 9 March 2015.

[10] « Washington fabrique un dossier contre Caracas », Réseau Voltaire, 21 mai 2015.

[11] « Operación Venezuela Freedom-2 », Red Voltaire , 22 de mayo de 2016.

[12] « Pirates, corsaires et flibustiers du XXIe siècle », par Thierry Meyssan, Оdnako (Russie) , Réseau Voltaire, 25 juin 2010.

[13] « Alarme rouge nucléaire », par Manlio Dinucci, Traduction Marie-Ange Patrizio, Il Manifesto (Italie) , Réseau Voltaire, 23 février 2016. « L’Arabie saoudite a la bombe atomique », par Giulietto Chiesa, Traduction, Réseau Voltaire, 1er mars 2016. « Le Proche-Orient nucléarisé ! » et « La bombe saoudienne (vidéo) », par Thierry Meyssan, Télévision nationale syrienne , Réseau Voltaire, 29 février et 7 mars 2016.

  • Posted in Francais @fr
  • Commentaires fermés sur Le G7, sommet de l’hypocrisie occidentale

Escalade USA contre la Chine

mai 31st, 2016 by Manlio Dinucci

« La révolution scientifique qui a conduit à la scission de l’atome requiert aussi une révolution morale » : avec cette phrase historique (forgée par les rédacteurs de discours présidentiels) a culminé la visite d’Obama en Asie, où depuis Hiroshima il a proclamé la volonté de « tracer une voie qui conduise à la destruction des arsenaux nucléaires ». Ce que dément la Fédération des scientifiques étasuniens, en démontrant que l’administration Obama a réduit moins que les précédentes le nombre de têtes nucléaires.

Les USA ont aujourd’hui 4500 têtes stratégiques, dont 1750 prêtes au lancement, plus 180 « tactiques » prêtes au lancement en Europe, plus 2500 retirées mais non démantelées. Avec les françaises et les britanniques, l’Otan dispose de 5015 têtes nucléaires, dont 2330 prêtes au lancement. Plus que la Russie (4490, dont 1790 prêtes au lancement) et que la Chine (300, aucune prête au lancement).

Essai d’un missile balistique intercontinental (ICBM) non armé : Lancement d’un missile nucléaire Minuteman III à partir d’un bunker souterrain sur la côte californienne (le 26 février 2016)


L’administration Obama -documente le New York Times (21 septembre 2014)- a promulgué un plan de 1000 milliards de dollars qui prévoit la construction de 400 autres intercontinentaux, 12 sous-marins et 100 bombardiers stratégiques d’attaque nucléaire. Pour la « modernisation » des têtes nucléaires, y compris celles stockées en Italie, est en phase d’expansion aux USA un complexe national composé de huit grands sites et laboratoires avec un personnel de plus de 40 mille personnes. La course aux armements nucléaires relancée, Obama a proclamé à Hiroshima la volonté d’ éliminer non seulement les armes nucléaires, mais la guerre elle-même : rappelant que « les gens ordinaires ne veulent plus de guerres », il a souligné que « c’est notre mentalité même sur la guerre que nous devons changer, pour prévenir les conflits grâce à la diplomatie ».


Le Secrétaire de la Défense Ash Carter et le secrétaire philippin de la Défense nationale Voltaire Gazmin examinent les futurs plans de coopération de défense  l’aéroport Princess Puerto à Palawan , Philippines, le 15 avril 2016 Avril. ( US Air Force / Adrian Cadiz )

Source :

Au même moment, à Washington, le Pentagone accusait la Chine de déployer des systèmes de défense en Mer de Chine Méridionale pour « contrôler cette mer et limiter notre capacité de nous déplacer dans la région Asie/Pacifique ». Région dans laquelle les USA sont en train d’accroître leur présence militaire, sur la base d’un plan qui prévoit de déployer aussi, au bord de la Chine et de la Russie, des navires et des bases Aegis analogues à ceux qu’ils ont en Europe, dotés de systèmes de lancement adaptés à la fois  à des missiles intercepteurs et à des missiles d’attaque nucléaire. Tandis que des unités lance-missiles étasuniennes croisent en Mer de Chine Méridionale, la US Navy prépare dans le Pacifique le Rimpac 2016, le plus grand exercice naval du monde. Les Philippines ont déjà mis à la disposition des USA cinq bases militaires et l’Australie, où sont déjà déployés les marines, se prépare à accueillir des bombardiers stratégiques étasuniens d’attaque nucléaire.

 Bases militaires US en Asie et Océanie

source :


Sur la position de Washington le G7 dans sa totalité (USA, Canada, France, Allemagne, Japon, Grande-Bretagne et Italie) qui, réuni au Japon, a demandé la « liberté de navigation et de survol » de la Mer de Chine Méridionale et Orientale, confirmant en même temps les sanctions contre la Russie pour l’ « agression » de l’Ukraine (pendant que l’Ue confirme celles contre la Syrie).

La stratégie USA/Otan en Europe contre la Russie est soudée à celle mise en acte par les USA contre la Chine et la Russie dans la région Asie/Pacifique, en alliance avec le Japon qui est en train d’assumer un rôle militaire croissant. C’est dans ce même cadre stratégique que s’insère la visite d’Obama au Vietnam, à qui les USA retirent leur embargo pour fournir des armes dans une fonction anti-chinoise. Plus les Peace Corps (dont est connue la connexion avec la Cia), qui iront au Vietnam enseigner l’anglais (ou plutôt l’américain), et l’Université Fulbright qui ouvrira un siège à Ho Chi Minh Ville pour fournir aux jeunes vietnamiens une « instruction de classe mondiale ».

Les USA, vaincus par l’héroïque résistance vietnamienne, reviennent avec d’autres armes.

Manlio Dinucci

Edition de mardi 31 mai 2016 de il manifesto


NdT sur le Programme Fulbright :

« Le programme Fulbright est un système de bourses d’étude (les bourses Fulbright) très compétitif et basé sur le mérite, subventionné conjointement par le département d’État des États-Unis et par les gouvernements des pays désireux d’y participer ». Voir notamment la liste des bénéficiaires du Prix Fulbright (dont notre brave «Organisation Non Gouvernementale » MSF -« neutre, indépendant et impartial »)

« A la différence du système français, l’enseignement supérieur américain est totalement décentralisé (sic). Ainsi, les établissements universitaires jouissent d’une très large autonomie dans l’organisation des programmes, le choix des méthodes d’enseignement, le recrutement des enseignants et le régime des examens ». .

Pour un aperçu de notre indépendance (grâce à la « décentralisation ») voir aussi la liste « des lauréats Fulbright français qui sont allés aux Etats-Unis et sont devenus célèbres grâce à leur parcours professionnel » :

  • Posted in Francais @fr
  • Commentaires fermés sur Escalade USA contre la Chine

Professor James Petras

What does it mean when the US and British financial systems launder hundreds of billions of dollars of illicit funds stolen by world leaders while their governments turn a ‘blind eye’, and yet the very same Anglo-American officials investigate, prosecute, fine and arrest officials from rival governments, rival banks and political leaders for corruption?

What does it mean when the US government expands a world-wide network of nuclear missiles on bases stretching from Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, the Gulf States to Japan, surrounding Russia, Iran and China, while the very same US and NATO officials investigate and condemn rival defense officials from Russia, China and Iran, as military threats to peace and stability?

What does it mean when Anglo-American economic officials devote decades to raising the age of retirement, reducing working and middle class household income, cutting workers compensation, expanding part-time work, setting the stage for mass layoffs slashing unemployment and health benefits and reducing social spending by the hundreds of billions of dollars and then turn around and investigate and threaten rival countries, like China and Argentina with loss of markets, investment and employment for not doing the same thing ?

The meaning of Anglo-America’s long-term, large-scale structural regression is clearly evident across the world.  From Europe to Latin America and from Asia to Africa, socio-economic and politico-military agendas have been reversed.

Since the end of the Second World War there had been incremental gains in labor rights, stable employment, poverty reduction and working conditions.

Recently, these have all been reversed:  Longer working days and weeks with reduced salaries and benefits; unstable temporary work replaces stable employment; employer-funded pensions are eliminated and replaced by multi-billion dollar corporate tax cuts and off-shore tax evasion.

Systematic structural swindles by the leading financial institutions have forced employees to delay retirement for years in order to ‘self-finance’ their own meager ‘pensions’, some expecting to ‘die at the job’.

Capitalist regression has been implemented by arbitrary state dictates and authoritarian decrees, erasing any pretense of democratic procedures and constitutional laws.

The regressive and retrograde leader-states from the imperial centers impose their conditions on follower regimes like Mexico and Russia forcing them to reverse their legacy of social progress while blackmailing these regimes’ oligarchs with the loss of lucrative markets, access to tax and money-laundering havens and impunity for their crimes and swindles.

Anglo-America:  Historic Reversion

For the past three decades, the US and Great Britain have led the global drive to undermine labor’s advances.  First, the economic structure sustaining labor organizations were dismantled and fragmented.  Then organized labor was decimated, co-opted and corporatized.

Capital proceeded to reverse labor and social welfare legislation and lower wages, in order to impose longer workdays and destabilize employment.

The mass media re-packaged the regression cycle as  ‘economic reform’, a euphemism, which disguised the re-concentration of power, wealth and income over the last three decades.

The growth of inequality and the concentration of wealth and assets to the 1% became ‘the standard’ for the Anglo-American era.  However, class organization and the vicissitudes of class struggles continued to constrain efforts to impose unchallenged Anglo-American capitalist rulership throughout the world.

The first decisive blow against  social reform resulted from the systematic Anglo-American breakdown of the former USSR and allied nations of the Warsaw Pact in East Europe.  This was followed by the endogenous dissolution of Communist Party rule in China, Russia, Eastern Europe, the Baltic and Balkan states and their conversion into capitalist satellites.  Social welfare, full employment, public pensions and health systems were shredded; labor lost all its rights except one – the right to emigrate to the West as cheap labor.

From Russia to Latvia and Poland to Bulgaria and Romania, there were massive layoffs, plant closures and the total dissolution of social security networks driven by the Anglo-America neo-liberal onslaught.  The Atlantic Alliance brought their new Eastern satellites to social submission.

Until the second decade of the 21st century, Western Europe’s centers for the defense of the progressive social agenda were in France, Italy, Spain, Greece and Portugal.  The social agenda in Latin America and China faced the Anglo-America offensive even earlier.

France:  The Strategic Key to Anglo-American Social Regression

France has been the center where the Anglo-American regressive attack on socio-economic policy and Southern Europe’s resistance has been playing out.

By 2015 the regressive alliance had overturned all progressive social policy in the former communist bloc countries.  Their alliance with Germany’s finance sector give them tight control of the EU and they successfully decimated the progressive social programs and labor legislation in Greece, Spain and Portugal.

France became the centerpiece for Western capitalism’s drive to incorporate Italy into the regressive orbit.  The conquest of France and Italy would completely reverse 70 years of incremental labor gains after the defeat of fascist capitalism.

The assault on  France’s progressive social agenda is spearheaded by the retro-Socialist President Francois Hollande and his troika of authoritarian hyper-capitalist ministers:  Financial Minister Michel Sapin, Prime Minister Manuel Valls and Economy Minister Emmanuel Macron.

The strategy of relying on a ‘nominal socialist’ to destroy the social welfare state is a classic ‘Trojan Horse’ operation. Hollande’s virulent anti-labor policy is implemented by decree under a joint plan developed in association with France’s leading industrialists.

The imposition of the regressive policy in France began in stages.  It first established the retrograde political leadership with Valls, a notorious authoritarian police-state official willing to over-ride any democratic niceties.  The Economy Minister, Emanuel Macron, a millionaire investment banker, is a direct associate of the financial elite, with no qualms in slashing labor programs.  The Finance Minister Michel Sapin, a long-time accomplice of the French bureaucratic-capitalist elite, is prepared to slash pensions and public services while reducing job security in order to lower the cost of labor to capital.

Once the Hollande and his troika took control of the centers of political power, (and after militarizing French society in response to the terrorist attacks), the regime launched its anti-labor offensive to shred the progressive social agenda.  Its first target was its most formidable – the mass of the French working class.

Declaring ‘anti-ISIS’ martial law powers, Hollande adopted an outright authoritarian strategy, bypassing the elected French Parliament in the legislature and imposed ‘rule by decree’ with the announcement of a highly regressive labor law against the French people.

The dictatorial labor decree was a first step to weaken organized labor’s capacity to protect wages and job security in order to give a powerful impetus to employer control over the French labor force.

Once Hollande’s labor decree established capitalist supremacy, his Troika would be in a decisive position to reverse seventy of incremental social advances.

The joint Hollande-Troika-capitalist bloc emasculated the legislature, leaving a weak, bleating chorus of so-called ‘left Socialists’ to bemoan their political impotence. Then an entirely new business anti-labor code was rolled out, which included the right of bosses to hire and fire workers at will, extend the workday , lengthen the work week, undermine labor’s bargaining power and restrain strikes and job actions.  This would open the way for a wave of irregular and contingent jobs for new workers . . . Using the pretext of terrorist attacks, the French capitalist class had begun to rule by decree to further expand and deepen their long planned assault on labor.

Hollande’s troika and France’s capitalists are lowering corporate taxes and employer contribution to social payments.   Regulations that restrained the concentration of elite power were eliminated.

With curfews and ‘anti-terrorist’ militarized police in the streets, French business elite could now freely begin to to imitate the Anglo-American capitalist elite and impose an iron-fisted New Order.

Without labor constraints on French capital, the bosses are is free to relocate factories and investments any and everywhere, under the most favorable wage, tax, employment and environmental conditions.

No longer required to invest in French industry, the business elite can transfer capital from industry to financial sectors, allowing hundreds of billions of euros to be laundered in off shore tax havens.

The Hollande troika will now also establish its own version of ‘Security and Exchange investigators’ to prosecute and fine its rival Anglo-American financial swindlers, just as the Anglo-Americans pursue their French competitors today.

The Hollande regime’s regressive social agenda has opened the door for an even more extreme Presidential prototype to follow and Alain Juppe is waiting.

The rabid Republican Party presidential candidate, Alain Juppe, promises to go ‘whole hog’ in utterly destroying the French welfare state, as it has existed since the fall of fascism.  If elected president, Juppe promised to slash 100 billion euros from the budget – double the amount that the Hollande regime currently seeks to cut.  Juppe has pledged to eliminate 250,000 civil service jobs in all vital social sectors; to delay the retirement age from 62 to 65; eliminate the 35-hour workweek; facilitate worker layoffs and decimate unemployment benefits.  Finally, Juppe has promised French capital that he would implement their entire business agenda, cut taxes for business and bankers and eliminate the tax on inheritance implemented nearly four decades ago.

In other words, the Hollande regime’s assault on labor and embrace of business has opened the door for the rise of the extreme right.  Moreover, Hollande has manipulated the incidents of Islamist terrorism to assume arbitrary decree powers wiping out any pretense of a democratic government.  The terrorist incidents are arguably related to Hollande’s colonialist embrace of the ‘regime change’ assaults against the secular nationalist governments of Libya and Syria and his policy of sending (or tolerating the recruitment of) marginalized French youth of North African ancestry to fight in the ensuing civil wars.  This has further strengthened the rise of the extreme right in France.

As the Socialist and Republicans compete for dictatorial powers to serve business’ regressive agenda, the nationalist, protectionist and social reformist policies of the National Front are emerging as the populist alternative in the coming presidential race.  Anti-fascist rhetoric has worn thin and important sectors of the working class will turn to the National Front in defense of their jobs and social legislation.  The anti-immigration rhetoric of the National Front is now part of the political vocabulary of the Republicans as well as Prime Minister Valls.

The only alternative to a power grab by the French hard right is a mass general strike and sustained street battles in order to resist the reaction by decree.

As throughout history, popular struggles in France begin in the streets – among the trade unions and young workers angrily facing low wages, austerity and the grim prospect of ‘permanently’ temporary jobs.

The outcome of the intensifying French labor-capital conflict will have a decisive impact on the future of labor throughout Europe, especially among all Left unionists.

Latin America:   The Labor-Capital Showdown

Beyond Europe, the Anglo-American onslaught against labor and the working class resonates most directly in Latin America and to a lesser extent in Asia and Africa.

The first country to fall victim to capital’s attack was Mexico with the implementation of the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).  By the early 1990’s NAFTA had demolished the independent Mexican trade unions, crippled social legislation, eliminated subsidies to small corn farmers, forced peasants into debt, reduced minimum wage, doubled poverty levels and turned the majority of the labor force into landless, indebted, casual workers.  On the other hand, NAFTA has been a bottomless source of wealth as capitalists accumulate double and triple digit profits and absolute power to hire and fire employees.  Mexico’s government, under Anglo-American capital, has allowed the illicit transfer of hundreds of billions of dollars of Mexican assets to US, English and other overseas banks, which have become immense money-laundering operations.  The proximity of Mexican drug cartels to the US banks has facilitated the extension of their networks into the US market.   The horrific expansion of drug cartel death squads, linked to Mexico’s political leaders, dates from the 1990’s and the signing of NAFTA.  This bloody nexus has consolidated neoliberal political power in Mexico and weakened the possibility of a viable mass electoral alternative.

Anglo-American dominance in Latin America in the 1990’s led to an entire panoply of regressive policies: privatizing and denationalizing the most lucrative natural and state resources, banks and industries; reducing wages and social spending for labor while increasing the concentration of capital.  By 2001 however the Anglo-American edifice collapsed throughout South America with the demise of its neo-liberal political leadership.

From Venezuela in 1999, to Argentina in 2002, Brazil 2003, Bolivia 2006 and Ecuador 2007, left and center-left parties capitalized on their mass support and were elected into power.  They took advantage of global economic conditions with the rising commodity prices, booming Chinese markets and new regional alliances to fund a variety of progressive social agendas, including increased social expenditures, guaranteed pensions, family allowances, minimum wages, wage increases for public sector and expanded labor rights.

The Anglo-American power elite was in retreat and isolated, but it was far from defeated.  They retrenched and prepared to re-mobilize their strategic business, banking and political allies when the opportunity arose.   They counter-attacked when global and regional conditions turned unfavorable to the social regimes.

The assault on Latin America was preceded by the Anglo-American neo-liberal take-over of Northern Europe from the 1990’s to the first decade of the 21st century.  This was followed by the sweep and grab of the Balkans and Southern Europe.  The combined Anglo-American-EU-NATO offensive now seeks to reverse the last social-welfare regimes in Europe: France and Italy with the help of President Hollande and Prime Minister Renzi.

Simultaneously the Anglo-American offensive has been launched throughout Latin America.  Their goal is to recover the imperial prerogatives, political power and economic privileges lost during the previous decade.  The primary Euro-American target is the ‘golden triangle’, Argentina, Brazil and Venezuela.  These countries constitute a global center of immense oil and agro-mineral wealth.

The Argentine neo-liberal restoration took off in December 2015 with the election of  far-right President Mauricio Macri (image left).   His junta wasted no time in stripping the state of its social legislation, dismantling job security through large-scale layoffs and assuming authoritarian rule by decree to devalue Argentina’s currency by 40% and to eliminate state subsidies and raising the price for gas, electricity, transport, and water between 300 and 800 %.

The regressive offensive was in full force.  Next, Brazil’s twice elected President Dilma Rousseff was ‘impeached’ and essentially overthrown by a bizarre legislative right-wing coup-d’état, designed to reverse a generation of progressive regulatory, labor and employment legislation.  It was also secretly designed to halt corruption investigations against many right-wing politicians.

Venezuela is next.  It will be the scene of a full-scale-elite coup-d’état with imperial backing, to overthrow the government of President Maduro and end decades of progressive social advances under the Chavista governments.

While in France and Italy, the great social reversal is being implemented by internal enemies from the ‘progressive’ political parties (“Trojan Horses”), in Latin America the reversal is led by openly hostile class enemies who depend on the arbitrary exercise of executive power.  The drive to put a definitive end to the ‘welfare state’ in Europe and Latin America is marked by the use of dictatorial decrees, (in the style of Mussolini in the 1920’s) as exercised by Argentina’s elected President Marci in January 2016 and Brazil’s ‘Interim (Coup) President’ Temer in April 2016.  Meanwhile capitalist lockouts, hoarding and sabotage are being used to crush Venezuela’s elected government.

This epochal confrontation has spread across Africa and Asia. China’s capitalist offensive has seen a four-fold increase in the number of new billionaires in less than a decade, at the expense of hundreds of millions of workers stripped of their rights and social programs.

South Africa, under the ANC government, turned its back on social gains promised by the liberation struggle and has imposed regressive social legislation and repressive anti-labor decrees.  A corrupt class of black and white billionaires now rule by guns and clubs over the black working class.

In Africa and the Middle East, the social welfare states of the nationalist regimes in Iraq and Libya have been completely shredded through imperialist military intervention and civil war.  Their once advanced societies have been thrown back into ethno-tribal warfare with no remaining modern social institutions in those two blighted, resource-rich nations.

Wither the Class Struggle:  Historical Reversal and Class Revolt?

The Anglo-American offensive to reverse decades of social advance has captured most of Europe.  They have incorporated or coopted the Social Democratic parties and are moving swiftly toward dismantling the decade-long center-left welfare states in Latin America.

In Africa, the centerpiece of Anglo-Americanization is South Africa, the continent’s most advanced bastion of international capitalism.

In Asia, China, the second most important capitalist economy in the world, has been leading the struggle to overturn the social agenda of the revolutionary past.

Large-scale, prolonged class resistance in several decisive centers is emerging to confront this Anglo-American process of reversion. The class confrontation however takes specific characteristics in each country.

In France, the major protagonists of street fighting and marches are young unemployed or casual workers, members of the strategic transport and oil unions and student-workers facing a bleak future of marginal employment and a shredded social safety net.

Trade unions and farmers’ association have joined the street struggles on numerous occasions, possibly in preparation for a general strike.

In Latin America, the center of the class struggle is Argentina.  Power-mad President Macri immediately imposed regressive policies against all sectors of the working class.  His actions managed to unite the four major trade union confederations, multiple retirees associations and small businesspeople bankrupted by exorbitant charges on gas and electrical use and regional neighborhood federations.  The widespread growth of job actions among public sector employees points to a general strike.

The regressive assault on long-term social legislation in Brazil immediately followed the thinly disguised capitalist coup.  The ousting of President Rousseff has provoked street demonstrations, led by the huge rural landless workers movement (MST), the confederation of industrial and service workers (CUT), social movements of the homeless workers and the recipients of Lula’s poverty programs.  New revelations, based on taped conversations among the coup plotters reveal their plans to oust the incumbent President Rousseff in order to derail official investigations into their own corruption scandals.  This has enraged the general public.

With the initial take-over, the Brazilian political-financial elite has prepared to launch its full-scale reversal of pensions and employment laws and wage guarantees.  The pro-business leadership plans to slash corporate and wealth taxes and to appoint business executives to all leading ministries.  The deep corruption scandal and the mass demonstrations suggest the rightwing power grab may not survive.

The regressive offensive in Venezuela has severely crippled the national economy and deeply eroded living standards of the vast majority of the working class.  The rightist Congress, backed by the US and allied with international mass media, industry and multinational banks, are trying to force the resignation of Socialist President Maduro.

Maduro has declared a state of emergency and mobilized the armed forces.  He  called on the military and popular militia to defend the constitutional order and has threatened to mobilize the workers to “take control of the means of production”.  Still, the leftist government vacillates over arming the militias and workers.   A wide gap remains before the word and the deed.

In the meantime Venezuela’s right wing and left-wing mass mobilizations face each other in the streets seething with class hatred and waiting to engage in a decisive confrontation.  The military thus far remains constitutionalist and on the side of the elected president.

In South Africa, the corrupt pro-business ANC led by President Zuma (image right) murdered dozens of striking mine workers.  It has impoverished millions of shantytown residents, while increasing the wealth and power of the black-white elite.  On April 30, 2016, 1.1.million South African activists, including civil society and community organizations and trade unions covering the mining, manufacturing and service sectors have organized to form a new confederation linked with informal, unemployed and poor workers.  The South African Workers Summit replaces the moribund and corrupt labor confederation, COSATU, the ‘labor desk’ for the neo-liberal ANC regime.  The new confederation will co-ordinate mass struggles and reclaim social programs as a central part of the anti-capitalist revolution.

In China, the growth and consolidation of the world’s second largest concentration of billionaires has led to the proliferation of large-scale industrial workers’ strikes, walkouts and confrontations with factory bosses, company unions and government officials.  China is becoming the epicenter of Asia’s working class struggles.  Chinese workers have forced the government to investigate and jail over 200,000 corrupt officials, high and low, and to concede substantial wage increases and social compensation to factory workers.  Fearing more social upheaval, China’s billionaires and multi-millionaires have transferred hundreds of billions of dollars of stolen assets abroad in a buying spree of high-end property in the ‘safe’ Anglo-American “heartland” of world reaction.

The continued advance of working class struggles against the public and private oligarchs has forced the Chinese Prime Minister to reform elite privileges and prosecute large-scale banking swindles and illegal seizure of farmland.  Especially important, millions of workers have successfully secured double-digit wage increases and the right to legally live in urban/industrial and construction centers.

As it gains momentum, class struggle in China can become the centerpiece for a wider Asian social transformation and a great leap forward to socialist values.


The Anglo-American drive to establish a global regressive social order has pushed billions of workers on five continents into destitution, insecurity and lifelong exploitation.  The capitalist world rules by fiat and violence, declaring that social regression and worker repression are the ‘wave of the future’. For the elite, the proper order of the universe is being ‘restored’!

In response, new working class organizations have emerged and engage directly to defend their historic social advances and economic rights.

In the course of defending their past progressive social legacy, the new working class militants can clearly see the imperative to challenge and overthrow the entire political and economic order.  From France to Latin America, from China to South Africa, class struggle is defining the present and future of class relations.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Anglo-America: Regression and Reversion in the Modern World

This year has seen the globally hottest-ever April, and indications point to the worst-ever summer. The media is reporting rock bottom reservoir water levels at the start of summer, and dire predictions of worse days to come for farmers and rural people, and also urban dwellers. Due to this worst drought in living memory that has hit most of India, around 300 million people, as estimated by one source, are migrating. One can only wonder why this on-going tragedy does not make it to the front pages of newspapers.

The callousness of many leaders towards this national crisis is revealed by their finding the time to pat themselves on the back, announce and celebrate their “achievements” at public expense and give themselves raises in their own salaries, but not finding time to visit drought-hit people or allocate sufficient funds for drought relief. It needed the Supreme Court of India to goad state and central governments to commence serious action to provide water to thirsty populations.

There are fears of water-based conflicts within and between the societies of rural and urban areas. These have happened in the past, but the scale of conflicts may be more intense and widespread in 2016 if, for example, the heated official exchanges regarding water demands of downstream Delhi and Haryana and upstream Punjab over the Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) Canal are any indication.

While there are several important aspects to the water issue, only two major aspects are addressed here due to space restrictions, namely, the governance involved in urban water supply, and the “solution” of interlinking rivers (ILR).

Water governance in urban areas

Governments are giving conflicting reports in the media, with some officials saying that it is possible to tide over the urban scarcity, and others saying that conditions are going to get much worse. Officials of course insist on anonymity, for fear of action against them, while politicians do their standard politicking, and grandly pass orders to the officials to “ensure that drinking water supply is not interrupted”.

Always at the receiving end of slipshod governance, most people get water for a few hours once in two or three or seven days while some get water daily, enabling their domestics to wash cars and driveways with a hose. When a water pipe bursts (not uncommon because of inferior materials and/or poor workmanship due to corrupt practices) the water supply authority reacts tardily, and millions of litres of precious water gush away into the drains, even while thousands line up with pots at street pipes, and the better-off purchase water from tankers operated by a water-tanker mafia.

Public announcements calling for water conservation are rare and, when issued, they politely call upon citizens to cooperate and use water carefully, even while non-working water meters, illegal water connections and unpaid water bills place financial strain on the water suppy system. The reason for politeness of tone and request for cooperation in a decidedly grim, even desperate situation, is clear evidence of weak governance stemming from systemic corruption. Public determination to handle the worsening situation is essential, to find a viable course of action.

Essential measures

When the sources of water fail, focus needs to shift from demand-driven supply augmentation to managing available water through realistic demand management. Some of its essential facets itemized are:

# Improve system efficiency including planning distribution and delivery, infrastructure and renewals, electrical energy costs, personnel training.

# Revise tariff with steep rates for high consumption.

# Enforce existing by-laws and rules regarding functioning of meters, illegal connections and unpaid bills, with appropriate penal action against defaulting consumers and staff.

# Address system water-loss and assure minimum supply timings.

# Periodic public programs for water conservation.

# Use IT management tools (GIS and MIS) for realizing revenue.

Interlinking rivers

The interlinking rivers (ILR) project estimated in 2002 to cost at least Rs.5,60,000 crores (but more likely Rs.10,00,000 crores), seeks to link 30 major rivers with 37 mega canals, involving acquiring an estimated 6,00,000 hectares of land, for mass-transfer of flood water from “water-surplus” areas to drought-prone “water-deficit” areas, to simultaneously relieve flood and drought. While the proposal appears attractive, it has serious inconsistencies, only two of which are outlined here. (For more details, please see References).

Firstly, flood water is to be sourced from Ganga near Bhagalpur which is at about 60-m elevation above MSL, where flood flow averages 50,000 cumecs. The maximum that a canal of 100-m width and 10-m depth can carry is 2,000 cumecs of water, which will “relieve” the flood by a mere 4%. Apart from the huge initial and annual maintenance costs to keep the water flowing into the canal and removing sediment, this 2,000 cumecs can only flow by gravity to levels lower than 60-m elevation on the East coast, whereas the drought-prone areas are on the Deccan plateau at levels over 1,000-m elevation. Thus neither flood nor drought can be relieved by interlinking.

Secondly, the flood season is for four monsoon months. During 8-months dry season, Ganga flows at an average 5,280 cumecs. The headworks of the interlinking canal will be far from the main flowchannel, and feeding the canal with water will call for expensive heavy engineering every year besides, much more importantly, handling the strong resistance of people of the region who will resist transfer of 2,000 cumecs (38% of water) in the dry season when they need it most.

Thus, since neither flood nor drought can relieved, and the system will have questionable utility during monsoon and be useless in the dry season, making it economically unviable. The argument of mass transfer of water from “water-surplus” to “water-deficit” areas is fundamentally flawed.

The promotion of water-sharing through grandiose plans of dams and canals to interlink rivers, by quoting the mandate of a distant Court of Law will not slake the thirst for water for drinking or agriculture. The fact that there are several unresolved inter-State water disputes before water disputes tribunals indicates that water-sharing between States is essentially problematic. Even between districts within the same State, water disputes have had to be bulldozed by State governments, leaving sullen, disillusioned, water-starved populations. In the general context of national water stress, pressing ILR can only lead to more social unrest and political instability.

The fact is that every State needs and wants water and they are loathe to part with water. In situations of dire water shortages, whatever the method of its computation, local compulsions will predominate over the dictates of distant seats of executive or judicial power. Enforcement of the writ of governments, whether due to their own political expediency or their being forced by superior courts of law, can only be by use of state police, central police and military force. Resort to such strong-arm measures with regard to water will indicate that governance has failed and the situation is outside the scope of political management. Indeed, in Latur (Maharashtra), Police have been posted near water sources to protect the water and ensure that people do not “steal” water from the source!

What a situation!

The present water situation is at best sub-critical. Only efforts to holistically understand the problems and their magnitude can provide genuine relief in the present, and effect a relatively easy transition to a future of certainly lowered water availability.

The ILR project is essentially a demand-based, supply-augmentation, systemically flawed macro “solution”. The examples of the SYL Canal (an incomplete canal for water-sharing between three States) and the Cauvery River (the water of the river being less than the total demand of the riparian states) should be indication enough of the political problems of ILR, which can snowball into constitution-shaking proportions.

India, already severely water-stressed in a warming globe, is in the midst of a water-crisis which is predicted to repeat itself. We have entered the era of the consequences of thoughtless supply-side management practices. The urgent need is for socially sensitive, economically viable demand-side water management.

Failing to build democratic and effective water management structures for democratic governance processes will risk violent social situations due to water conflicts. Political leaders in the States and the Centre need to come out of their “Nero-fiddling” role and firmly steer a course away from impending chaos and disaster. The way forward is local water conservation and management.


1. Vombatkere, S.G., “A Systems Approach to Interlinking Rivers in India: An examination of Viability”, An Anthology of Essays titled “Interlinking of Rivers in India: Issues and Concerns”, Ed: M. Monirul Qader Mirza, et al; Pub: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, 2008, pp.77-89.

2. Vombatkere, S.G., “From Water Crisis to Constitutional Crisis?: A Suggested Solution”, Mainstream, New Delhi, Vol XLV No 9, February 17, 2007.

Major General S.G. Vombatkere, VSM, retired in 1996 as Additional DG Discipline & Vigilance in Army HQ AG’s Branch. President of India awarded him Visishta Seva Medal in 1993 for distinguished service rendered in the high-altitude region of Ladakh. He holds a PhD degree in Structural Dynamics from I.I.T, Madras. With over 470 published papers in national and international journals and seminars, his area of interest remains strategic and development-related issues. E-mail: [email protected]

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur India: The Worst Drought in Living Memory, 300 Million People Affected

They always say, “we don’t negotiate with terrorists.” Oh well…

As news breaks that US NATO backed opposition leader, Mohammed Alloush [Jaish al Islam] has resigned in disgust that his terms are not being met in the Geneva peace talks, the media is struggling to conceal the Saudi, NATO and US control mechanisms that are in place to manoeuver their terrorist chess pieces across the war-against-Syria chessboard.

In March 2016, while negotiating for “peace”, Alloush stated:

“We believe that the transitional period should start with the fall, or death, of Bashar al-Assad,” chief opposition negotiator Mohammad Alloush said.

“It cannot start with the presence of the regime, or the head of this regime still in power.” ~ ABC

The following article from IBT demonstrates clearly that Alloush is nothing more than another terrorist piece of the Saudi, US, NATO jigsaw.

How much longer will the NATO “Left” continue supporting these fake “moderate rebels” who are blatantly destroying Syria and responding to commands from their foreign, “regime-change” intent handlers? :

Mohammed Alloush, the chief peace negotiator of the mainstream Syrian opposition has resigned from his post, following the failure of the UN-backed talks in Geneva. On 29 May, Alloush, who is a member of the Saudi Arabia-led coalition, High Negotiations Committee (HNC), and a member of the rebel faction Jaysh al-Islam, said that peace talks failed to bring over a political transition or help millions of Syrians who are caught in the war.

Alloush further said that peace talks were a “waste of time”, if demands of the main opposition are not met. He added that talks are unlikely to resume so long as the current Syrian government remains in power and do not agree to enter “serious negotiations”.

“The three rounds of talks were unsuccessful because of the stubbornness of the regime and its continued bombardments and aggressions against the Syrian people,” BBC reported.

His resignation was accepted in a meeting by chief coordinator of HNC, Riad Hijab, in Riyadh. The HNC previously refused to attend any further peace talks until radical changes are seen on the grounds in the war-torn country.

The office of UN special envoy to Syria, Staffan de Mistura in a statement on 26 May said that a date to resume peace talks will not be set for at least the next three weeks.

The Syrian government along with Russia and Iran does not recognise the HNC as the main opposition and have branded Alloush a “terrorist”.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Syria Peace Talks: Mohammed Alloush, US-NATO ‘Terrorist Negotiator’ Resigns

The Syrian Arab Republic’s flag was raised over the municipal building inside the city of Mu’adhimiyah on Sunday as a reconciliation agreement was put in place by local committees. Ajnad al-Sham had controlled it. All barricades inside the city are removed.

On Friday, the Russian General Staff reported that Russian had intensified air strikes against oil sites and smuggling routes to Turkey controlled by an al Qaeda affiliate in Syria, the Al Nusra Front. The Russian Aerospace Forces reportedly conduct air raids against Al Nusra and ISIS militants in the provinces of Aleppo and Homs. However, Russia’s Defense Ministry doesn’t provide information about the number of sorties and destroyed targets.

The ground operation of the Syrian Democratic Forces is ongoing in Northern Raqqa. There are clashes in the Ain Issa district, Brigade 93 and al-Nakhil area. Moreover, on May 29, the SDF launched a new operation against ISIS on the eastern bank of Euphrates. It’s aimed at recapturing the town of Tabqa.

The US-led coalition has bombarded ISIS positions with more than 150 airstrikes since the ground offensive in the area launched last Tuesday. According to Russian sources, Russian planes dropped arms and munitions to the SDF units in order to support the operation.

In the area of Fallujah, the Iraqi Security Forces and the Popular Mobilization Forces continued operation against ISIS. On May 28, the allies took control of Sijar and the Sijar bridge, the Mukhtar village and nearby Islamic cemetery. Separately, Iraqi forces advanced south of Fallujah, recapturing the villages of Al-Hoor and Albu Hawah. We remember, the Iraqi Army has declared on Saturday the start of an operation to liberate Fallujah’s city center. The operation is shifting to urban warfare while Iraqi forces are completing the siege of the city.

The Kurdistan Region Security Council annouced on May 29 that the Kurdish Peshmerga forces launched a military operation East of Mosul in Iraq’s Nineveh Governorate. The strategic goal of the operation is to increase pressure on ISIS militants in and around the city. Kurdish units already seized 7 villages, including Muftia, Tal Aswad. Some 5500 Peshmerga troops reportedly participate in the opperation.

The offensive is supported by the US-led coalition’s air power. There are also reports that the US soldiers loading armored vehicles have been seen outside the village of Hassan Shami, a few miles east of the frontline.

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: or via:

Subscribe our channel!:…

Visit us:



  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Syria and Iraq: The Offensive against Al Qaeda and ISIS

There’s really no excuse for supporting the NATO/terror position. We’ve seen the destruction of Iraq, Libya, Ukraine, now Syria, all built on lies, all beneath the guise of « humanitarian interventions ». Since people with any sense of historical memory can not legitimately plead ignorance, supporters of the terrorist invasion of Syria fall into the category of « fake humanitarians ». They aren’t « progressive » or « left » when they support the criminal violation of Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Canadian peace activist Ken Stone, recently returned from Syria, expresses similar sentiments in his newly released book, Defiant Syria|dispatches from the Second Tour of Peace to Syria.  He explains,

The point for me is to ask why otherwise intelligent people can fall for such shit (referring to a 2015 New Internationalist magazine article: “The forgotten revolution of Syria”), and not once but repeatedly.  It’s not as if Syria is the very first government targeted for regime change by the USA.  It’s not that people are unaware of the fact that the first casualty of war is the truth … there is never a shortage of “leftists” in the West who can be either bought or convinced through incredible naivété, warped political outlook, or Eurocentric arrogance, that the motives of Empire are good.

People such as Ken, who have visited Syria and have seen with their own eyes the devastation wrought by Western-supported terrorists against civilization, have less tolerance for the lies, the propaganda, and the gullible, “fake humanitarians” who enable it all.

Stone doesn’t mince words when he describes some of his on-the-ground observations of Homs, Syria; observations fortified by his historical memory of NATOs imperial destruction elsewhere:

Judging from the many corpses found buried around the city, some of which were missing eyes and various internal organs, many have speculated that the mercenaries ran a lucrative trade in human organs, besides their human trafficking in Syrian women, boys, and children, and their other rackets such as rapine and pillage … The terrorist organizations were working in accordance with a well-rehearsed imperial script here in Homs.  The KLA, NATOs foot soldiers in Kosovo (formerly part of Yugoslavia) also ran an organ smuggling operation out of a house in Pristina in 1999.

To their detriment, the fake “humanitarians” and pseudo “leftists” are shielded from such on-the-ground realities.

In a later chapter, “Palmyra: Bride Of The Desert”, Stone also bemoans the self-proclaimed “leftists” who cast the Russians as “imperialists” and as guilty as the West in the war against Syria – conveniently forgetting that Russia is legally in Syria, while NATO is not:

“It’s true,” he writes, “that Russia is unfortunately no longer a socialist country.  However, it doesn’t act like an imperialist country either.  Mr. Putin consistently respects the sovereignty of other countries, such as Syria, and speaks up at the United Nations for the observance of international law, which the USA, priding itself as “the exceptional country” and the “sole indispensable country”, tramples on almost every day.”

This resonates with the author’s earlier piece, “Western Hegemony vs Russian Sanity”, and the “Saker’s” observations of the differences between the “Anglo-Zionist Unipolar Imperial Model” and the “Russian Multipolar Model”.

Sustainable evidence demonstrates, for example, that the current Russian multipolar model respects the rule of international law, ideological and cultural pluralism, and the use of military force as a last resort.

The illegal Western war of aggression against Syria, on the other hand, is consistent with the “Anglo-Zionist Unipolar Imperial Model” which defies the rule of international law, negates ideological and cultural pluralism, and uses military violence as a first resort.

The West’s invasion contradicts the rule of international law: Russia is in Syria legally, whereas the West is not; it negates Syria’s ideological and cultural pluralism and seeks to replace with a Wahhabist stooge government or an assortment of stooge governments in balkanized states; and it demonstrates the West’s propensity to use military violence as a first resort – the invasion, after all, was planned well in advance.

Given the fact of the West’s criminality, consistent with the “Anglo-Zionist Unipolar Imperialist Model”, and the concurrent failures of the “fake humanitarians” and the fake “left” to reconcile themselves to evidence-based findings and historical memory, Stone reiterates some concrete steps that should be taken by those of us who support foreign policy trajectories consistent with peace and the rule of international law, rather than the current reality of war and barbarism.

Important steps would include normalizing diplomatic relations with Syria, ending illegal sanctions, withdrawing from all criminal military interventions against Syria, and withdrawing from NATO.

Canada needs to assert an independent foreign policy, and it needs to reject the current barbarity implicit in its status as a vassal appendage of the Anglo-Zionist Unipolar Imperial Model.  This is what Real Change would look like.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur US-NATO’s Fake « Humanitarian » « War on Terrorism », Defiant Syria

Obama Violates Nuclear Treaties While Iran Upholds Them

mai 31st, 2016 by Robert Barsocchini

The IAEA issued a new report reconfirming that Iran is « complying with the P5+1 nuclear deal, and that Iran’s stockpiles have all remained below the limits set forth in the deal. »

The ‘deal’ has been selectively imposed, mainly by the US, as a propaganda and war-weapon against Iran, which the US has sought to reconquer since its proxy dictator was overthrown in 1979. While forcing Iran to comply with the strict regime, Washington ignores nuclear violations and ambitions by its allies or proxies, such as Israel and Saudi Arabia.

The US itself remains the world’s leading violator of nuclear weapons law and the only country that has used nuclear weapons on people, including in human experimentation.

New Pentagon figures show that, while accepting peace prizes and preaching disarmament, Obama has worked specifically to‘dramatically’, as Jason Ditz puts it, slow down the rate at which the US reduces its nuclear arsenal. Instead, he has illegally allocated at least a trillion dollars towards ‘modernizing’ nuclear weapons, a move experts have said is « counterproductive » and « sure to cause an arms race. »

At the same time, Obama has told residents of the impoverished US village of Flint to drink polluted water, and has violatedinternational law by refusing to provide water at all to residents of Detroit, many of whom have been affected by off-shoring of manufacturing in search of workers that are easier to repress.

In better news, the US seems to be caving to international pressure to stop selling illegal cluster bombs to Saudi dictator Salman bin Abdulaziz, who, with US support, has been killing civilians in a war of aggression against Yemen.

Robert Barsocchini is an internationally published author who focuses on force dynamics, national and global, and also writes professionally for the film industry. Updates on Twitter. Author’s pamphlet ‘The Agility of Tyranny: Historical Roots of Black Lives Matter’.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Obama Violates Nuclear Treaties While Iran Upholds Them

An Insider’s Look at the Dulles 9/11 Video

mai 31st, 2016 by Kevin Ryan

The strongest evidence linking the alleged hijackers to 9/11 was a video said to be from the closed circuit TV (CCTV) system at Dulles International Airport in Washington DC. The video was not made available until the day before the9/11 Commission Report was released, in 2004, and it helped to pave the way for widespread acceptance of the official account. Since the other evidence against the accused hijackers was dubious and suspiciously convenientfor the FBI, which provided it, the Dulles video should be examined closely.

Doing so has led some independent 9/11 investigators to conclude that the Dulles video contains “no information to link its images to AA 77.” Reasons include that:

    1. None of the Dulles airport staff remembered seeing the alleged hijackers at the airport
    2. Dulles had over 300 cameras but no footage was released except for portions of this one video (and no video was available from the other airports)
    3. The alleged Dulles video contains no date, time stamp, or camera identification
    4. The video was shot at a rate of 30 frames per second (fps), which the investigators said is not typical of CCTV videos
    5. The video appears to be an edited composite of shots taken from different angles

Additionally, it has been noticed that the airport screeners in the Dulles video did not perform their duties according to airport requirements. An attorney representing 9/11 victims’ families stated that security agents in the video screened the suspects in ways that were not like those required in Dulles training videos. 

Could the video be fraudulent?

Dulles airport security manager Ed Nelson said that the FBI confiscated the actual video from the CCTV system “some time after 10:00 a.m.” on 9/11. Nelson wondered how the FBI “knew who the hijackers were out of hundreds of people going through the checkpoints.” Two days later it was reported that FBI agents had “examined footage from dozens of cameras at the three airports where the terrorists boarded the aircraft.” However, the official account claimed that no such footage existed except for the one video later released as the Dulles CCTV evidence.

Recently, I had an online discussion with a man who managed maintenance of the Dulles CCTV system until mid-2000. His comments shed some light on questions of whether the video is genuine. This was the second of two former employees of Stratesec who made comments on my blog early this year. Stratesec was the security company that had contracts for several of the facilities impacted on 9/11 including Dulles Airport, the WTC, and United Airlines.

Like the first former Stratesec employee who contacted me, Andrew Olson, the Dulles video manager (calling himself only “David C”) is now working on contracts for the U.S. Department of Defense. David C’s comments on my blog were made from an IP address belonging to the U.S. DOD Network Information Center in Washington, DC, run by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). Apparently, David C went from a job at Stratesec to working for a “dot com start-up…just two blocks from the WTC” to working at the DIA where he makes comments defending Stratesec.

That these two former Stratesec employees now serve as military suppliers reflects the fact that Stratesec’s leaders also went on to profit from the crimes of 9/11. For example, the company’s chief operating office Barry McDaniel started a police-state supply business with a close colleague of Dick Cheney. And Stratesec’s chief executive, Wirt D. Walker, went on to run businesses with people who have close ties to U.S. military and intelligence agencies.

David C worked for Stratesec from 1995 to 2000, in the role of Senior Field Engineer Technician for most of that time. He was responsible for operations of security systems, access control systems, badging systems, and CCTV systems installation and management at Dulles airport. He has provided images of documents that support these claims. It’s important to note that David C was not operating these systems at the time of 9/11. Management of the Dulles CCTV system had changed from Stratesec to ADT a year before the attacks.

The cameras used in the Dulles CCTV system came from Verint Video Solutions. Coincidentally, Verint cameras were also used at the Pentagon, the WTC and, later, in the London subway system at the time of the July 2007 bombing. It was Verint employee David Brent who reported that he had viewed all the video from over 300 camerasthat had recorded the events at Dulles on 9/11.

When David C was asked about the evidence suggesting the Dulles 9/11 video might be altered or fraudulent, he responded with extensive comments, many of which were not specific enough to be useful. With regard to the five reasons listed above, the most important of David C’s answers relate to reasons 3 and 4.

  1. Why was there no timestamp on the video? David C’s answer: Dulles used a state-of-the-art Loronix video software system. The system recorded date and time information, which could not be altered. But the video could be exported without the timestamp showing. This was done in some cases where the timestamp obscured some of what was taking place.
  1. How could the video be shot at 30 fps when typical security video is at 1 to 4 fps? David C’s answer: The state-of-the-art Loronix recording software allowed for “real time” (30 fps) video to be recorded and stored for up to two weeks.

The use of Loronix video software at Dulles was confirmed in a 1998 paper (pdf) from the University of Southampton. The paper states that, with the Loronix system, “Each video clip is fingerprinted through a mathematical algorithm during the video capture process. The fingerprint becomes part of the clip and is used by the playback software to verify the video has not been altered.” Therefore, although the date and time stamp are not necessarily present, the Dulles video file can be confirmed to be genuine and unaltered if one has access to the Loronix software program in which to view it. The video can be downloaded here although it is not in the original format.

It’s interesting that the video did not appear as publicly available evidence until 2004, more than a year after the Dulles system was upgraded in a way that allowed the video files to be accessed remotely. Until the video fingerprint is confirmed independently, the question of whether the video genuinely represents activities filmed on 9/11 at Dulles will remain unanswered.

Additionally, it’s odd that David C knew about the Loronix software but said he had never heard of Verint, the company that manufactured the cameras and owned the Loronix product. He also stated “I think we may have had only two cameras at the security checkpoints [at Dulles]” and yet could not explain how the evidentiary video appeared to be made of shots from different angles. Perhaps follow-up questions will reveal more of the truth.

If the video is a fake, how could that have been done? There are a number of considerations in answering this question.

The video was leaked to the press (at a politically timed moment) in 2004 by the law firm Motley Rice, represented at the time by terrorism propagandist Jean-Charles Brisard. How the firm came by the video was never reported. However, it is known that the FBI confiscated the original video and had shown it to a 9/11 family member who said “the terrorists’ faces had been digitally disguised.” Why would the FBI take the time to digitally disguise the faces of dead suspects? Moreover, if the Bureau could do that what other modifications could be done?

The FBI made at least one “training film” at Dulles. The Bureau had strong ties to Stratesec as well, in that the company’s president from 1998 to 1999 was Charles Archer, the FBI’s former Assistant Director In Charge of the Criminal Justice Information Services Division. Stratesec’s directors had also previously owned a movie production company called Prism Entertainment.

How about Verint? In 2002, the year before remote access to Dulles video files became a possibility and two years before the video was released, the company named Howard Safir as a director. Safir is a former New York City Police and Fire Commissioner who was appointed to those roles by his close friend (and 9/11 suspect) Rudy Giuliani. Did Safir have any role in release of the Dulles video?

In any case, because the Dulles 9/11 video is the strongest evidence implicating the alleged hijackers, investigating its validity remains important. As shown above, questions that remain unanswered about the video can still be resolved with an objective approach that is open to dialogue and open to possibilities.

Kevin Ryan blogs at Dig Within.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur An Insider’s Look at the Dulles 9/11 Video

All voices should be welcome at the “Crossing Borders” conference on refugees, 7-10 July 2016, organized by the Cooperative Institute for Transnational Studies (CITS) in collaboration with the University of the Aegean, and taking place on the Greek island of Lesbos. The organizers say “Today, ‘the West’ is facing the worst crisis of human dispossession since the aftermath of the Second World War. ….These urgent questions and conditions necessitate that radical activists, artists, politicians, refugees, scholars and students gather, discuss and debate.”

Unfortunately the organizers have been pressured to censor discussion and debate. A campaign was launched to disinvite keynote speaker Dr. Tim Anderson (University of Sydney). His book “The Dirty War on Syria” exposes the role of the USA and its allies in destabilizing Syria, funding and promoting the conflict that has led to the current refugee crisis. As they have in the past, some groups and individuals who support the armed opposition in Syria are trying to prevent a broader discussion.

Whatever our views about Anderson or any of the other speakers, it is wrong to silence an important voice at the conference, and especially one that expresses a repressed viewpoint. We should always be concerned when someone tries to prevent us from hearing an alternative explanation.

The advocates of censorship have said that they will ask other speakers to withdraw if Anderson is allowed to speak. That is their right. Speakers are free not to speak. But for the organizers to withdraw an invitation to a confirmed speaker is to remove that speaker’s right as well as the right of the attendees to hear him.

We call on the organizers of the conference to reject censorship and encourage open discussion and debate on the causes of dispossession and destruction leading to migration. It is essential for the conference to include voices like Dr. Tim Anderson’s and to consider the responsibility of the USA and its allies in the destruction of Syria and creation of the refugee crisis.

This petition will be delivered to:
  • Maria Nikolakaki
    The Cooperative Institute for Transnational Studies
  • Prof Stratos Georgoulas
    University of Aegean / Lab EKNEXA / Sociology Dept

Sign the petition here.

To purchase Tim Anderson’s Book directly from Global Research, click image 

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Reject Censorship at Conference on Refugees. The « Dirty War on Syria » is the Cause of the Refugee Crisis

L’histoire du 9/11, en changement perpétuel, entre dans une nouvelle phase. Le blâme est transféré d’Oussama ben Laden au gouvernement saoudien.

Il existe 28 pages secrètes d’une enquête classifiée du Congrès sur le 9/11, qui auraient montré un soutien financier saoudien aux présumés pirates de l’air du 9/11. Ni George W. Bush, ni le régime d’Obama n’ont publié ces pages classifiées. Seuls quelques membres du Congrès ont été autorisés à les lire, mais ils ne sont pas autorisés à en parler.

Néanmoins, le Congrès discute maintenant d’une loi sur la Justice contre les commanditaires d’actes de terrorisme qui, si elle était adoptée, autoriserait les familles des victimes des attaques du 9/11 à poursuivre le gouvernement saoudien pour des dommages. En d’autres termes, bien que le Congrès n’ait pas d’informations, uniquement des rumeurs, pour soutenir le projet de loi, le Congrès va de l’avant. Obama a dit que si le Congrès adoptait le projet de loi, il y opposerait son veto.

Le refus de déclassifier les preuves contre les Saoudiens et la menace de veto ont fait bondir beaucoup de commentateurs.

Qu’est-ce qui se passe ici?

Une réponse possible est que la confiance du public dans l’histoire du 9/11 s’érode, en raison de la pression croissante de l’opinion des experts qui remettent en question la ligne officielle. Pour rediriger le scepticisme du public, on lui jette un os à ronger. L’angle d’attaque sur l’Arabie saoudite satisfait la croyance qu’une sorte de dissimulation du gouvernement est en jeu, mais redirige les soupçons de Washington vers les Saoudiens. Cette mise en avant de l’Arabie intègre également le plan original des néo-conservateurs pour renverser le gouvernement saoudien, ainsi que les gouvernements de l’Irak, de la Syrie et de l’Iran [L’Arabie ne faisait pas partie des fameux 7 pays de Wesley Clark, NdT]. Si le peuple américain peut être retourné contre les Saoudiens, les néo-conservateurs peuvent obtenir leur souhait d’un changement de régime en Arabie saoudite.

Nous sommes probablement dans un jeu de désinformation par l’État profond, conçu pour protéger l’histoire du 9/11. Le scepticisme du public est maintenant dirigé vers l’Arabie saoudite et l’indignation du public vers le gouvernement américain, pour avoir couvert les Saoudiens. Les raisons possibles du fait que le rapport ne peut pas être publié, sont :

  1. tout simplement de la désinformation créée comme une diversion, et les experts compétents publics l’exposeraient comme telle si elle était publiée et
  2. cela alimente la désinformation sur l’enquête menée par les néo-conservateurs, qui ont saisi l’occasion de mettre en place une attaque contre l’Arabie saoudite.

Aucun argument n’a été fourni pour expliquer pourquoi l’Arabie saoudite, avec sa longue connexion si proche de Washington et de la famille Bush, aurait eu un quelconque intérêt à permettre une attaque terroriste contre les États-Unis. Les Saoudiens ont besoin de la protection américaine. Ils n’ont aucun intérêt à affaiblir leur protecteur au point de permettre qu’il soit humilié par une poignée de jeunes hommes armés seulement de cutters. Une protection de cette sorte équivaut à ne pas en avoir.

En outre, les Saoudiens combattent dans la guerre au Yémen pour Washington. Si les Saoudiens veulent nuire aux États-Unis, pourquoi ne pas les laisser mener leur propre guerre au Yémen ?

Voici l’Arabie prise dans une implication présumée au sujet du 9/11: La presse saoudienne accuse les USA d’avoir détruit le World Trade Center pour prétexter une guerre perpétuelle 1

Katib Al-Shammari dit que les États-Unis ont planifié et réalisé le 9/11, afin d’obtenir l’hégémonie sur le Moyen-Orient en s’appuyant sur ces attentats et une liste de coupables en constante évolution, en fonction de l’objectif du moment de Washington. Tout d’abord, dit-il, c’était Oussama Ben Laden, al-Qaïda et les Talibans. Puis Saddam Hussein et l’Irak. Un tribunal de New York a blâmé l’Iran. Maintenant, c’est au tour de l’Arabie saoudite d’être désignée comme le vilain. Les Américains, dit-il, viennent toujours avec des documents suspects et prétendent avoir des preuves qu’ils ne montrent jamais.

Les citoyens américains tireraient un grand bénéfice à la lecture du point de vue des autres. Lisez l’explication de l’Arabie sur le 9/11. Elle est plus logique que l’histoire officielle.

Paul Craig Roberts


Article original en anglais :


9/11 Disinformation: Saudi Arabia Attacked America, publié le 27 mai 2016

Traduit par Hervé, vérifié par wayan, relu par Diane pour le Saker Francophone

Note du traducteur du Saker Francophone

  1. Les notes en fin de cet autre article, pointant sur la même analyse saoudienne, restent valables. Mais il y a comme un non-dit dans l’article de PCR… NdT
  • Posted in Francais @fr
  • Commentaires fermés sur Désinformation sur le 9/11 : L’Arabie saoudite a attaqué les USA