Il y a deux ans cette semaine que le président Barack Obama a lancé la dernière guerre américaine contre l’Irak et la Syrie au nom de la lutte contre l’État islamique (EI). Le président américain présenta non seulement la nouvelle intervention militaire comme une continuation de la «guerre mondiale contre le terrorisme», mais encore comme une croisade pour les droits humains ; il invoqua le danger menaçant la population Yézidie en Irak et insista pour dire qu’il ne pouvait pas « fermer les yeux » lorsque les minorités religieuses étaient menacées.

Le bilan des victimes de cette prétendue intervention humanitaire est de plus en plus lourd. Selon un rapport publié cette semaine par le groupe Airwarspour marquer l’anniversaire, plus de 4.700 morts non-combattants civils ont été signalés dus aux frappes aériennes de la « Coalition conduite pas les Etats-Unis » (95 pour cent étant le fait de l’aviation américaine). Plus d’hommes, de femmes et d’enfants irakiens et syriens innocents ont été massacrés par les bombes américaines au cours de ces deux ans que le nombre total de soldats américains morts dans les huit ans de la guerre irakienne lancée par George W. Bush en 2003.

Tous les mensonges et prétextes de Washington au sujet de sa dernière guerre au Moyen-Orient et de la décennie et demie de guerres menées par Washington depuis le onze septembre 2001, ont été mis en pièces ces derniers jours alors que le gouvernement et les médias des États-Unis célébraient les prétendues victoires des forces «rebelles» dans la bataille pour le contrôle d’Alep, l’ancienne capitale commerciale de la Syrie.

Que l’offensive « rebelle » ait été organisée et dirigée par une organisation qui depuis des années constitue la branche syrienne d’Al-Qaïda et l’opération nommée en l’honneur d’un extrémiste sectaire sunnite qui a organisé le massacre de soldats alaouites syriens captifs, ne les a aucunement gêné. Voilà pour les balivernes sur le terrorisme et les droits de l’homme!

L’ampleur des avancées militaires effectuées par les forces sous la conduite d’Al-Qaïda à Alep est loin d’être claire. Celles-ci auraient cependant réussi à monter le siège de la partie ouest de la ville, qui est sous le contrôle du gouvernement et où vit l’écrasante majorité de la population. Les « rebelles » ont tué et mutilé des centaines de personnes avec des obus de mortier et d’artillerie.

Washington et ses alliés, les médias occidentaux et les groupes de défense des droits humains qui ont accusé le gouvernement syrien de Bachar al-Assad de crimes contre l’humanité pour avoir bombardé les jihadistes dans l’est d’Alep restent indifférents quand les terroristes soutenus par les impérialistes tuent des civils dans la partie ouest de la ville.

Une partie des médias occidentaux est allé jusqu’à célébrer les exploits des kamikazes « rebelles» pour avoir fourni un « avantage » stratégique aux milices soutenues par l’Occident. Parmi les récits les plus malhonnêtes et les plus hypocrites des récents combats il y a ceux du New York Times dont la couverture et la ligne éditoriale sont soigneusement calibrés pour servir les objectifs prédateurs de l’impérialisme américain.

Dans un article sur Alep, le Times écrit lundi que le défi lancé au contrôle du gouvernement syrien l’avait été par des « rebelles et leurs alliés djihadistes». L’article poursuit ainsi: «Un facteur essentiel de l’avancée des rebelles durant le week-end était la coopération entre les groupes rebelles traditionnels dont certains ont reçu en secret un soutien en armes des États-Unis, et l’organisation djihadiste anciennement connue comme le Front Nosra, qui était affilié à Al-Qaïda. »

Le journal rapporte tout ceci avec la même désinvolture que s’il publiait un article sur feu l’artiste connu sous le nom de Prince. Le Front Nosra a pris le nom de Front Fatah al-Sham et a annoncé sa désaffiliation en bonne et due forme d’Al-Qaïda – avec la bénédiction de ce dernier – juste une semaine avant le lancement de l’offensive d’Alep.

Il y a tout lieu de croire que ce changement de marque a été réalisé en collaboration avec la CIA pour essayer d’assainir politiquement le soutien américain direct à une offensive menée par un groupe longtemps dénoncé par Washington comme organisation terroriste.

Le Times ne nomme jamais aucun des «groupes rebelles modérés» qui, selon lui, se battent aux côtés des milices d’Al-Qaïda, suggérant qu’ils constituent une force progressiste libérale. En fait, l’un de ces groupes a récemment publié une vidéo qui montre ses combattants décapitant un enfant blessé de douze ans, et la quasi-totalité de ces groupes partage l’essentiel des perspectives idéologiques d’Al-Qaïda.

Le Financial Times de Londres a publié un des rapports les plus francs sur l’offensive « rebelle » à Alep, faisant remarquer qu’il « se peut qu’elle ait eu plus d’aide étrangère qu’il n’y paraît: les militants et les rebelles disent que les forces de l’opposition ont été renforcées par de nouvelles armes, de l’argent et d’autres fournitures avant et pendant les combats ». Il fait état de nombreuses colonnes quotidiennes de camions passant depuis des semaines la frontière turque avec armes et munitions, de l’artillerie et autres armes lourdes.

Le journal cite un diplomate occidental resté anonyme déclarant que les responsables américains soutenaient l’offensive conduite par Al-Qaïda « pour remettre de la pression sur la Russie et l’Iran », qui ont tous deux fourni un soutien militaire clé au gouvernement Assad.

Le Financial Times cite également un « analyste militaire » qui indique que le caractère des combats montrait que les forces d’Al-Qaïda avaient reçu non seulement des quantités massives d’armes, mais aussi une formation militaire professionnelle.

Il est significatif que pendant les combats à Alep, des photographies sont apparues de commandos britanniques lourdement armés opérant des véhicules de patrouille de longue portée dans le nord de la Syrie. Des unités américaines similaires sont également sur le terrain. Ces forces sont parmi les suspects les plus probables pour ce qui est de former les forces syriennes d’Al-Qaïda.

Elles ne feraient que reprendre les caractéristiques essentielles de l’opération impérialiste qui permit à Al-Qaïda de se développer il y a 30 ans. La CIA avait alors, en alliance étroite avec Oussama ben Laden, fournit un soutien similaire aux moudjahidins luttant pour renverser le régime soutenu par les soviétiques en Afghanistan.

Si le retour de flamme de cet épisode a fini par nous apporter le onze septembre 2001, l’opération actuelle en Syrie comporte des dangers beaucoup plus grands. Dans ce qui est maintenant qualifié ouvertement par les médias capitalistes de «guerre par procuration» où Al-Qaïda sert de force terrestre de l’impérialisme américain, Washington tente de renverser l’allié clé de la Russie au Moyen-Orient dans le cadre de préparatifs pour une guerre visant à démembrer et à subjuguer la Russie même.

La favorite dans la course à la présidence des États-Unis, la démocrate Hillary Clinton, a maintes fois signalé qu’elle avait l’intention de poursuivre une politique beaucoup plus agressive en Syrie et contre la Russie. Elle a fait d’accusations néo-McCarthyites contre la prétendue subversion du processus électoral américain par Vladimir Poutine une partie centrale de sa campagne.

Si Washington peut attendre jusqu’à l’inauguration du nouveau président en janvier prochain pour intensifier son agression, n’est pas établi. Les avancées « rebelles » à Alep pourraient être rapidement inversées et les combats pourraient bien aboutir à ce que les milices d’Al-Qaïda soutenues par les USA perdent leur dernier bastion urbain.

L’impérialisme américain n’est pas près d’accepter une nouvelle consolidation du gouvernement syrien aligné sur Moscou. La pression va inévitablement monter pour une intervention plus directe et plus massive des États-Unis, risquant un affrontement direct entre forces américaines et russes.

Quinze ans après le lancement de sa « guerre contre le terrorisme », Washington est non seulement directement allié avec la cible supposée de cette guerre, Al-Qaïda, mais se prépare à déchaîner sur l’humanité le plus grand acte de terreur imaginable, une troisième guerre mondiale.

Bill Van Auken

Article paru en anglais, WSWS, le 10 août 2016

  • Posted in Francais @fr
  • Commentaires fermés sur La bataille d’Alep et l’hypocrisie de la propagande de guerre des État-Unis

Pendant que les États-Unis perdent du terrain en Asie, n’ayant pas réussi à tordre le bras de tous les États pour signer leur accord commercial, le Partenariat Trans-Pacifique (TPP), couplé à leur incapacité à rassembler assez de soutiens dans la crise qu’ils ont eux-mêmes créée en mer de Chine du Sud, ils partent aujourd’hui dans une course en avant, pour miner de l’intérieur et remplacer les gouvernements de la région, qu’ils perçoivent comme non-coopératifs à leur effort de domination régionale.

À l’avant-plan de ce processus de sabotage et de remplacement des gouvernements règne évidemment le ciblage et la manipulation des opinions publiques. Cela a toujours été l’ingrédient essentiel pour faire avancer les intérêts spéciaux de certains groupes au travers de l’histoire de l’humanité. De nos jours, le degré de sophistication de cette manipulation des opinions publiques est sans précédent. S’il est vrai que tous les pays s’y essaient à des degrés divers, l’Occident dispose, de loin, des moyens les plus importants et les plus divers dédiés à cette entreprise de manipulation.

Les politiques publiques et leurs objectifs décidés par les groupes de réflexion subventionnés par la finance internationale sont traduits en langage courant dans les gros titres des médias aux ordres et dans les campagnes de presse orchestrées par les grands réseaux d’information occidentaux, pour être ensuite relayés par des blogueurs aux ordres et autres lobbyistes qui prétendent être indépendants. Cet effort concerté a pour objectif de maximiser la crédibilité de la désinformation, au point d’être en mesure de choisir un petit non-événement local et d’en faire une crise d’envergure.

C’est justement une de ces mini-fausses-crises qui a été déjouée, quelques jours à peine avant le référendum en Thaïlande, au sujet de sa nouvelle Charte citoyenne.

Cette nouvelle charte a pour objectif de remettre ce pays sur les rails, après une décennie d’instabilité politique qui prend sa source dans l’accession au pouvoir, puis la destitution, du criminel et assassin de masse cautionné par les États-Unis, l’ancien président Thaksin Shinawatra. Si cette charte devait être adoptée, cela constituerait une nouvelle claque à la machine politique dans laquelle les États-Unis ont massivement investi pendant plus de dix ans, et contribuera un peu plus à leur recul géopolitique dans toute la zone asiatique.

Pendant que le régime de Recep Tayyip Erdogan en Turquie embastille des milliers d’opposants politiques et songe même à en exécuter un certain nombre, sans que cela ne provoque de protestation sérieuse de la part des hommes politiques et des médias occidentaux, la première arrestation supposée en Thaïlande déclenche, elle, un mini-tsunami dans les médias occidentaux, mettant ainsi en lumière le caractère biaisé et politiquement orienté du soi-disant journalisme occidental, et montre comment il essaie de manipuler l’opinion publique mondiale à chaque occasion qui lui en est donnée.

En coulisses

La police de Bangkok aurait détenu pour l’interroger l’épouse de l’ancien rédacteur en chef de l’agence de presse britannique Reuters, Andrew Marshall, avant de la relâcher dans le courant de la journée. Au milieu des gros titres hystériques qui ont suivi cet événement dans la presse occidentale, on trouve certains détails qui ont volontairement été laissés de côté.

Il apparaît que Marshall a été renvoyé de l’agence Reuters en 2011, après que lui et un collègue aient été surpris à se moquer des victimes de l’horrible catastrophe de Fukushima, au travers de plaisanteries racistes et misogynes. Une supplique longue de 10 pages a été écrite par Marshall lui-même, pour tenter de rejeter la responsabilité de ses plaisanteries sur la consommation de drogues et d’alcool, ainsi que sur une profonde maladie mentale. Depuis son renvoi de Reuters, il a œuvré comme lobbyiste pour le dictateur thaï soutenu par les États-Unis, Thaksin Shinawatra, ainsi que son violent mouvement de soutien des Chemises rouges, servant parfois même d’expert-à-la-demande pour relayer la propagande pro-Thaksin dans les médias américains, britanniques et australiens, toujours friands de descriptions flatteuses de Thaksin comme démocrate progressiste.

L’épouse de Marshall, Noppawan « Ploy » Bunluesilp [il est intéressant de noter que, bien qu’il s’agisse probablement d’un diminutif thaï, ploy en anglais signifie manigances, NdT], a continuellement assisté Marshall dans des tâches de traduction et de propagation de ses activités de lobbying, incluant la diffamation et des menaces envers le nouveau chef d’État de Thaïlande. Il convient de rappeler que la diffamation et les menaces envers quiconque, et d’autant plus envers un chef d’État, sont passibles de sanctions pénales, même dans les pays les plus libéraux.

Marshall se serait aussi associé à des terroristes armés travaillant pour le compte de Thaksin, qui sont impliqués dans quelques-uns des plus violents épisodes de la politique thaïlandaise des dix dernières années. Marshall et Ploy se mettent également régulièrement en scène, posant sur des photos avec le reste de l’équipe des lobbyistes de l’univers des médias et des universitaires aux ordres de Thaksin.

Le fait que Marshall et Ploy assistent et soutiennent le mouvement violent d’un criminel reconnu coupable est un délit en soi. Si Thaksin était un ennemi du gouvernement britannique, Marshall et Ploy n’auraient pas été seulement détenus par les forces de l’ordre britanniques, mais également condamnés par les tribunaux et incarcérés dans les prisons britanniques.

Immédiatement après la courte période d’interrogation par la police de Bangkok le 22 juillet, les agences de presse BBC, AFP, Associated Press, le journal The Guardianet la station de télévision de Singapour Channel News Asia ont, entre autres médias, fait leurs gros titres de « l’arrestation » sans mentionner aucun des faits mentionnés ci-dessus, et préférant présenter Marshall et Ploy comme les victimes innocentes d’une junte militaire brutale.

La rapidité avec laquelle cette campagne s’est répandue ne devrait surprendre personne. Beaucoup des journalistes concernés par cette affaire fréquentent le très select club privé de Bangkok géré par le soi-disant Club des correspondants étrangers de Thaïlande (FCCT), où ils se rassemblent régulièrement pour monter leurs campagnes médiatiques trompeuses, qui ont pour objectif d’attaquer les opposants aux intérêts spéciaux occidentaux non seulement en Thaïlande, mais dans le reste de l’Asie du Sud-Est.

Chacun des articles publiés au sujet de cette campagne médiatique concertée et montée de toute pièces a capitalisé sur le non-événement que constitue cette arrestation, pour répandre la désinformation sur l’actuelle crise politique que traverse la Thaïlande, manipulant l’opinion publique en faveur de Thaksin, pour faciliter sa tentative de revenir sur la scène politique.

Ces gesticulations ne sont qu’une parmi tant d’autres, dirigées non seulement contre la Thaïlande, mais aussi envers les autres nations asiatiques, dans une tentative désespérée de forcer la coopération, voire la capitulation des gouvernements de la région, sous la menace du contrôle des médias occidentaux de l’opinion publique, et leur capacité de l’orienter contre les gouvernements récalcitrants.

La couverture médiatique occidentale perd pied

Le processus de recul graduel de l’Occident en Asie du Sud-Est n’est pas simplement dû à l’expansion de l’influence chinoise, mais aussi à l’expansion de l’influence des pays en développement en général. Le monopole militaire et économique dont a joui l’Occident, et leur suprématie dans la sphère de l’information, ont lentement été érodés par des institutions et organisations concurrentes, ainsi que par l’émergence de centres de pouvoirs alternatifs.

Les médias alternatifs, ces chaînes, ces plateformes et ces journaux qui ne sont pas associés aux intérêts spéciaux basés à Washington, Londres ou Bruxelles, sont devenus des adversaires de taille pour l’Occident. Pour chaque tentative de gesticulation entreprise par les médias occidentaux contre une nation donnée, se déploient aujourd’hui des contre-mesures d’information révélant la vérité dans les coulisses, diluant ainsi l’impact de la désinformation, et au final redonnant l’initiative aux États qui font l’objet de ces attaques.

Il est désormais possible à tous d’apercevoir les coulisses de la désinformation occidentale, ainsi que la vraie personnalité de tous ceux à qui nous avons aveuglément fait confiance dans leur tâche de nous informer.

De nombreuses autres gesticulations sont à prévoir, au fur et à mesure que les États-Unis tentent de rétablir l’équilibre en leur faveur, dans ce processus de déclin de leur primauté en Asie. Plus on se rapproche du vote pour la Charte citoyenne en Thaïlande, et plus les groupes d’opposition soutenus par les États-Unis menacent d’embraser à nouveau les rues de Bangkok. L’Asie et les régions émergentes sur la scène internationale doivent continuer de chercher et d’investir dans les nouveaux outils utiles, pour neutraliser les tentatives occidentales afin de reprendre le dessus dans la guerre de l’information ou sur le théâtre des opérations militaires.

Tony Cartalucci

 

Article original en anglais : Behind West’s Biased Coverage of Asia, New Eastern Outlook, 27 juillet 2016

Traduit par Laurent Schiaparelli, édité par Wayan, relu par Cat pour Le Saker Francophone

Tony Cartalucci est un chercheur et essayiste en géopolitique, basé à Bangkok, travaillant en particulier pour le magazine New Eastern Outlook.

  • Posted in Francais @fr
  • Commentaires fermés sur Ce qui se cache derrière la couverture médiatique biaisée de l’Asie par les médias occidentaux

Hillary Reine de la Guerre : la feuille de route

août 11th, 2016 by Pepe Escobar

Tout commence par un festival Peace and Love wahhabito-sioniste.

Le ministère saoudien des Affaires étrangères a été forcé à un non-déni de déni en mode turbo suite à une visite en Israël, le 22 juillet, d’une délégation conduite par le général à la retraite Anwar Eshki.

Il se trouve qu’Eshki est proche de la superstar des services de renseignement de l’Arabie saoudite qui fut elle-même, en son temps, pote de Oussama ben Laden, à savoir le prince Turki bin Faisal, qu’il a récemment rencontré au grand jour avec les anciens généraux des Forces de défense israéliennes (FDI) Yaakov Amidror et Amos Yadlin.

En Israël, Eshki rencontra le ministre des Affaires étrangères, le Directeur général Dore Gold, et le Maj. Gen. Yoav Mordechai, le grand manitou des Forces de Défense d’Israël (IDF) en Cisjordanie.

Il est absolument impossible d’imaginer que la Maison des Saoud n’ait pas donné le feu vert pour une telle visite – et des réunions à ce haut niveau. Par ailleurs, le ministère de l’Intérieur d’Arabie saoudite interdit tout voyage en Israël – ainsi qu’en Iran et en Irak.

Alors, quel est le problème ? Les Israéliens échafaudent que les Saoudiens – façade pour la Ligue arabe – offrent une normalisation des relations avec le monde arabe sans qu’Israël n’abdique quoi que ce soit sur le front palestinien. La seule chose que Tel Aviv aurait à faire, beaucoup plus tard, est d’adopter l’initiative de paix arabe proposée par les Saoudiens en 2002.

 

With the execution rate in Saudi Arabia soaring to record highs this year, the government has reportedly beheaded five foreigners convicted of murder and robbery.

Les sondages disent que les Saoudiens considèrent l’Iran plus dangereux qu’Israël ou ISIS © FLICKR / YASSER ABUSEN

C’est n’importe quoi. Pour commencer, les ultra sionistes d’extrême-droite au pouvoir à Tel-Aviv n’accepteront jamais le retour aux frontières d’avant 1967, ni la reconnaissance de l’État palestinien. Ce qui a été discuté était un non-accord, même si Tel Aviv jubile : «des États arabes importants sont prêts à nous étreindre ouvertement, même si nous n’avons pas renoncé à un pouce de la Cisjordanie et même si nous continuons à contrôler la Mosquée Al-Aqsa».

Si jamais la Ligue arabe s’embarquait dans un tel non-accord flagrant, jetant les Palestiniens sous des myriades de bulldozers, il y a de fortes chances pour que tout le spectre des oligarchies-pétromonarchique doive commencer à réserver un billet aller-simple pour Londres.

L’alliance Moscou-Téhéran-Ankara

After the fatal terrorist shootings at an historic black church in South Carolina, President Barack Obama again cited lax gun laws as contributing to this type of mass violence.

Toc,toc,toc, on frappe à la porte de la Russie: des alliés US majeurs se détournent de Washington sur la Syrie © AP PHOTO / SUSAN WALSH

Alors de quoi parlent-il, vraiment ? On pouvait s’y attendre, de la perspective imminente que la Dominatrice Tous Azimuts prenne le contrôle de la Maison Blanche.

Bibi Netanyahou à Tel-Aviv, et le maître de facto de la maison des Saoud, le Prince de la Guerre Mohammad bin Salman à Riyad, ont été réduits tous les deux, sous l’administration Obama, au statut euphémique proverbial d’«alliés aliénés». Ce sont des alliés de fait – même s’ils ne peuvent pas l’admettre devant la rue arabe. Les deux sont bien sûr cuits sous le règne de la Reine de la Guerre, il y aura – quoi d’autre, sinon la guerre ? La question est contre qui.

La spéculation informée pointe vers l’ennemi commun de l’Arabie et d’Israël : l’Iran. C’est compliqué. En effet, la stratégie combinée Arabie / Israël à travers le Moyen-Orient est en lambeaux. Téhéran n’est pas tombé dans le piège des bourbiers en Syrie et en Irak. ISIS / ISIL / Daesh et divers rebelles modérés – secrètement soutenus par l’axe Arabie / Israël – sont en cavale, même s’ils insistent sur le fait qu’ils ne sont plus al-Qaïda. Le Prince de la Guerre bin Salman est lui-même pris au piège dans une guerre perdue d’avance au Yémen.

Et puis, à la suite du coup d’État contre lui, il y a la spectaculaire volte-face du sultan Erdogan en Turquie – abandonnant à toutes fins utiles ses rêves emberlificotés de zone d’exclusion aérienne et d’annexion d’une Syrie post-Assad à son empire néo-ottoman.

La Maison des Saoud est devenue livide, lorsqu’elle a vu des diplomates turcs commencer à répandre cette nouvelle super-production : Erdogan a proposé à Rouhani, le dirigeant iranien, une alliance globale avec le président Poutine pour finalement résoudre l’énigme du Moyen-Orient.

Turkey Coup With T Shirt

L’ombre des EAU, et de Riyadh émerge derrière la tentative de coup d’état en Turquie © AP PHOTO / EMRAH GUREL

Aussi erratique que soit l’ordre du jour d’Erdogan, un possible nouvel accord pour briser la glace entre Moscou et Ankara sera discuté de facto, en face-à-face, à la prochaine réunion Poutine-Erdogan. Tous les signes géopolitiques à ce stade – bien que provisoires – pointent vers une alliance Russie / Iran / Turquie relancée, même si une Maison des Saoud horrifiée va, sans vergogne, tenter de gagner la confiance de Moscou en offrant «des richesses inestimables» et un accès privilégié au marché des pays du Golfe.

Comme l’a confirmé une source haut placée du renseignement occidental, «les Saoudiens vont certainement garder tous les contacts ouverts avec le Kremlin. Le roi saoudien est à Tanger maintenant. Il a rencontré des émissaires russes là-bas. Ils pensent ce qu’ils disent. Mais Poutine ne va pas abandonner Assad. Il doit y avoir un compromis. Les deux en ont besoin».

Le président Poutine est dans une position privilégiée. Même sans accepter l’offre saoudienne – qui n’est qu’une promesse, sans aucune garantie à toute épreuve – la Russie détient les meilleures cartes, comme dans une alliance Moscou-Téhéran-Ankara assez problématique, mais finalement réalisable, qui concerne essentiellement l’intégration eurasienne – et un siège à venir pour la Turquie, aux côtés de l’Iran, à la table de l’Organisation de coopération de Shanghai (OCS).

Une alliance Arabie-Moscou, pour sa part, entraînerait inévitablement la Reine de la Guerre vers – quoi d’autre ? – un changement de régime à Riyad, déguisé en R2P – Responsabilité de Protéger – la populace saoudienne [déjà testé en Libye, en Syrie et en Ukraine, NdT]. On peut compter sur la copine d’Hillary, Samantha Power, pour défendre le projet avec véhémence à l’ONU.

Encore et toujours Les Trois Harpies

Republican U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump

Hillary Clinton derrière une rançon de $400 Millions à l’Iran pour la libération de 4 citoyens – Trump © REUTERS / JONATHAN ERNST

Pourtant, compte tenu des instincts de la Reine de la Guerre, tous les signes pointent vers l’Iran.

La feuille de route pour les guerres d’Hillary est sans doute ici, dans une connivence très dangereuse entre les néocons et les neolibérauxcons aux États-Unis.

Le think tank CNAS est dirigé par l’une des Trois Harpies, Michele Flournoy, les deux autres étant Hillary Clinton et – les mots les plus terrifiants de la langue anglaise – Victoria Nuland, le possible trio mortel en charge de la politique étrangère sous une administration Clinton Trois.

Ceci est en fait un PNAC – Projet pour un Nouveau siècle américain – dopé aux stéroïdes, avec des échos du document guerrier de 1992 Defense Planning Guidance,déguisés sous la rhétorique lénifiante de l’hégémonie bienveillante et de l’ordre international fondé sur des règles. Si, dans sa campagne, Trump arrivait à contenir ses instincts de grand gueulard et de tweeteur maniaque et à se concentrer sur ce que signifie ce monument de bellicisme que sont les États-Unis, pour eux-mêmes et le monde en général, il entraînerait l’adhésion de millions d’électeurs américains indécis.

Malgré toutes ses fanfaronnades, et cela va s’élever vers des niveaux hystériques inouïs, la Dominatrice tous azimuts ne sera pas assez folle pour lancer une guerre – qui sera inévitablement nucléaire – soit contre la Russie, avec les Pays Baltes comme prétexte, ou la Chine, avec la mer de Chine méridionale comme prétexte, les deux principales menaces existentielles du Pentagone.

D’autre part, en Syrie, d’ici à janvier 2017, les cinglés, al-Qaïda ou pas al-Qaïda, anciennement connus sous le nom de rebelles modérés, seront pour la plupart d’entre eux six pieds sous terre.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan (File)

Erdogan veut «écraser l’Armée secrète de l’OTAN» qui serait impliquée dans le coup d’état © AFP 2016 / STR 

Erdogan peut rendre la vie de l’OTAN en Turquie insupportable. Alors que la Reine de la Guerre est dans la poche de l’AIPAC, et considérant que la Fondation Clinton a des liens confortables, maintenant légendaires, avec la Maison des Saoud, la cible de guerre privilégiée devrait être celle de l’Arabie et d’Israël, une cible pro-Damas en étroite liaison à la fois avec Ankara et Moscou : l’Iran.

Mais, comment y arriver ? Une route, déjà explorée, est de bombarder par tous les moyens – et pas au sens figuré – l’accord nucléaire avec l’Iran. Une campagne concertée dans les médias grand public des États-Unis est déjà en train d’enterrerl’affaire. Même le guide suprême l’ayatollah Khamenei – comme on le raconte aux États-Unis – déclare officiellement qu’on ne peut pas faire confiance à Washington : «Ils nous disent ‘Parlons aussi des questions régionales’. Mais l’expérience de l’accord nucléaire suggère que ceci est un poison mortel et qu’en aucun cas on ne peut faire confiance aux Américains.»

Attendez-vous donc de la part de l’équipe Clinton à un barrage médiatique proverbial aux relents douteux, des accusations sans fondement et de faux drapeaux occasionnels, parfaitement positionnés pour attirer Téhéran dans un piège, comme, par exemple, le vœu pieux neolibéralcon : l’Iran relance son programme nucléaire. Bien sûr, cela ne se produira pas, mais un barrage infernal de désinformation sera mis en œuvre par le puissant lobby anti-iranien au Congrès américain, pour que cela se produise malgré tout, d’une façon ou d’une autre, même sous la forme d’une illusion.

Et tout cela alors que l’Iran, entre autres développements, est en train de planifier un nouveau corridor de transport du golfe Persique à la mer Noire, connectant l’Arménie, la Géorgie et la Bulgarie, positionnant le pays comme une plaque tournante majeure du commerce, reliant le monde arabe au sud et à l’ouest, l’Asie centrale au nord, l’Afghanistan et le Pakistan à l’est, jusque vers l’Europe. Encore une fois, l’intégration eurasienne est en marche.

Téhéran a une myriade de raisons d’être en alerte rouge si la Dominatrice Tous Azimuts met ses pattes sur les codes nucléaires – n’est-ce pas plus effrayant que si c’est Trump ? Elle agira comme un fidèle serviteur infaillible de l’alliance israëlo-saoudienne. La feuille de route est prête. Les néocons et neolibérauxcons, de concert, peuvent à peine contenir leur excitation de voir en action «une force qui peut agir dans plusieurs missions différentes et l’emporter».

Pepe Escobar

 

Article original en anglais : Hillary, Queen of War: The Road Map Ahead, Sputnik News, le 4 août 2016

Traduit et édité par jj, relu par nadine pour le Saker Francophone

Pepe Escobar est l’auteur de Globalistan : How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007), Red Zone Blues : a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge (Nimble Books, 2007), Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009), Empire of Chaos (Nimble Books) et le petit dernier, 2030, traduit en français.

 

  • Posted in Francais @fr
  • Commentaires fermés sur Hillary Reine de la Guerre : la feuille de route

«Il n’est pas nécessaire d’espérer pour entreprendre ni de réussir pour persévérer.» 

Guillaume d’Orangelesoirdalgerie.com

 

Cette année scolaire et universitaire s’est passée dans l’ensemble sans trop de problèmes malgré la tentative de déstabilisation. Pour avoir observé le système éducatif pendant plus de trente ans, je constate qu’au fil des ans, nous n’avons pas pu, du fait d’une massification importante, d’une démographie galopante et d’une vision privilégiant la paix sociale et l’aspect quantitatif au détriment de l’acte pédagogique que le système éducatif est devenu un train fou que personne ne peut arrêter. De plus La fuite des sujets du baccalauréat — phénomène mondial, mais qui a été massif chez nous — a porté atteinte à la crédibilité de cet examen décisif.

Par ailleurs, les tentatives pour corriger les dérives criantes sont de plus torpillées par des franges d’Algériens pour qui rien ne doit changer et que les fondamentaux, les fameux thaouabet, dont ils seraient les gardiens du temple, doivent être figés dans le marbre. En face nous avons les nostalgiques qui veulent faire perdurer une langue qui n’est plus une langue scientifique, qui nous cause un retard technologique.

1- Etat des lieux du système éducatif

C’est un fait, tous les gouvernements qui se sont succédé ont mis à disposition des moyens. Près de 10,5 millions d’élèves avec un budget de 1 050 milliards de dinars (20% du budget de fonctionnement de l’Etat) soit une moyenne de 100 000 DA, soit encore 8 à 10 fois moins par comparaison avec les pays européens (8 000 à 13 000 euros), on ne peut pas rivaliser d’autant que plus de 90% de ce budget sont constitués par une masse salariale. Sur ce budget, 90% représentent la masse salariale marginalisant de ce fait les travaux pratiques.

Selon les chiffres de l’Onec, le nombre d’élèves candidats à l’examen du bac est de 818 520 élèves.

Le taux de réussite au baccalauréat, session 2016, a atteint 49,47% pour les élèves. Globalement la même répartition des filières pour 2016 ne donnerait pour le baccalauréat mathématiques et techniques mathématiques que 11% du total. Soit moins de 5% du total des reçus au bac. Quid des 400 000 élèves qui ont échoué ? Personne n’en parle. Qui des évacués en 9e année fondamentale ? La formation  professionnelle est devenue un repoussoir. Pourtant nous manquons cruellement de diplômes intermédiaires. Il y a pléthore de médecins, le fait qu’ils soient concentrés dans les grandes villes, cela est dû au fait que le service civil dans sa forme actuelle a montré ses limites.

Pour rappel 700 000 enseignants qui font du mieux qu’ils peuvent et qu’il serait injuste de les classer tous dans la catégorie des incompétents. La situation actuelle fait que l’on s’installe dans la fatalité ; car sur le plan qualitatif là aussi les résultats ne sont pas encourageants. Cela ne peut pas continuer ainsi. Par ailleurs, force est de constater que nous ne savons pas récompenser l’effort et le mérite. Tout le monde est logé à la même enseigne. Ce qui stérilise toute initiative pour l’amélioration de l’acte pédagogique qui n’a pas été jusqu’à présent la priorité.

De fait, le pays donne l’impression d’avancer sans son école et sans son université, nous importons des ingénieurs, des techniciens et même dans certains corps des ouvriers

Certes la massification de l’éducation était incontournable au vu de la situation de l’éducation en 1962. A peine 600 000 élèves pour l’éducation dont à peine 20 000 dans le secondaire et 500 étudiants dans le supérieur, une centaine d’établissements scolaires dont six lycées, 500 étudiants à l’université (10%). Moins d’un millier de diplômés en 132 ans d’œuvre positive.

Quatre millions de diplômés ont été formés par l’université algérienne en cinquante ans d’existence. Cependant il y eut une lente détérioration de l’acte pédagogique, le niveau a cruellement baissé, les bacheliers que nous recevons ne maîtrisent aucune langue, de plus les disciplines scientifiques ont régressé dangereusement qualitativement et quantitativement. Il y eut même disparition des lycées techniques avec aussi la disparition inexorable des bacs maths. Nous avons fait dans la massification et cela continue

Enfin, un constat grave, il y a un total clivage entre les trois sous-systèmes ; chacun s’occupe de sa chapelle et chacun est jaloux de ses prérogatives, ce qui fait que des gisements de productivité aux interfaces sont ignorés surtout par ces temps de vaches maigres. De plus, ce fait constitue un manque de sanctions dissuasives, le plagiat et le copier-coller font des ravages. La charte de l’éthique aurait pu empêcher ces dérives. De plus, quand un footballeur gagne en un an ce que gagne un enseignant en une carrière, il y a quelque chose de détraqué dans l’échelle des valeurs. De ce fait,  l’école ne fait plus rêver. Il nous faut la réhabiliter
2- Comment corriger graduellement les erreurs ? Y aller par étape

L’école algérienne est à la croisée des chemins. Notre système éducatif devra être la priorité des priorités. Cependant et de mon point de vue, du fait que le système éducatif est un système à temps de réponse long, il ne faut pas se leurrer, il nous faut tous ensemble y aller graduellement avec un maitre-mot : comment améliorer l’acte pédagogique qui se décline différemment selon les paliers de l’école et à l’université. L’idée est de partir de l’embouchure pas de la source. Graduellement on remonte à la source pour savoir quels sont les considérants à mettre en place, en amont d’abord, dans le secondaire.

Il n’y a pas de miracle ! Ce n’est pas du jour au lendemain que nous aurons un système parfait. Il est important qu’il y ait un préambule où l’on explique à tous le monde les enjeux du futur. Ceux qui se sont arc-boutés sur une vision passéiste de l’histoire font erreur et ceux qui se piquent de modernité avec le statu quo d’une langue elle-même dépassée sont dans le même travers. Les dynamiques de jeunes sont inconnues. L’apport de l’internet pour le meilleur et pour le pire est en fait un puissant destructeur de l’être-ensemble, vouloir formater l’imaginaire des jeunes avec des clichés du siècle dernier ne fait pas avancer les choses. Il est nécessaire de se battre avec les mêmes outils, ceux de la science pour avoir une chance d’être écoutés par les jeun

3- L’apprentissage des langues

Un combat idéologique qui épuise l’Algérie depuis 1962. Les langues d’enseignement, 54 ans après, nous sommes toujours en panne. Il nous faut donner une chance à l’arabe par la formation de maîtres compétents. Il nous faut lutter contre la dissolution identitaire et l’antidote de cette dissolution est constitué par les deux langues que nous devons développer sans faux-fuyants, sans arrière-pensées, sans guerre de tranchées en donnant sa chance aussi à l’amazighité pour ne pas en faire un enjeu politique qui stérilise toute approche scientifique. Par ailleurs, dans un monde où les langues sont des vecteurs identitaires de civilisation, de consommation et d’accès à la technologie : un postulat de base est de former de parfaits bilingues. Comment y arriver ? Et quelle langue ? Si dans le domaine des sciences humaines, il peut y avoir débat sur la deuxième langue français, anglais, dans le domaine des sciences exactes, la situation est plus claire. Sans état d’âme, sans en référer à aucune chapelle, si ce n’est celle de servir le pays, l’enseignement des sciences exactes, de la vie, les sciences médicales doit pouvoir bénéficier de ce qu’il y a de mieux.

Le constat est que les élèves subissent un choc à l’université à la fois comme mode d’enseignement mais aussi comme langue d’enseignement. C’est un danger que de continuer à enseigner dans le secondaire en langue arabe dans les matières scientifiques, le manque de documents de qualité fait que l’élève ne fait pas de recherche, il n’a pas accès du fait de sa méconnaissance des langues scientifiques aux meilleures connaissances.

Doit-on enseigner ces matières scientifiques en français ou faire le saut qualitatif qui nous permet de sauter une étape qui se posera tôt ou tard aller sans état d’âme vers la langue anglaise qui permet une plus grande banque de données. A titre d’exemple on ne publie plus en France qu’en anglais dans les revues scientifiques ayant un impact factor. Il nous faut préparer graduellement cet objectif dans la sérénité scientifique, car il s’agira de former à la langue anglaise scientifique à la fois les maîtres et les élèves. Nous pourrions démarrer sans précipitation dans trois ans (cycle secondaire plein).

4- La coordination entre les trois sous-systèmes du système éducatif

Les dérives constatées plus haut ont des solutions qui ne peuvent être mises que par une étroite coordination. Il y a une nécessité absolue d’une coordination des trois sous-systèmes : mise en place d’un conseil de coordination. Il est tout à fait possible de faire deux vacations pour donner à l’Etat le temps de réaliser d’une façon correcte les demandes supplémentaires d’infrastructures. Il faudra consacrer une attention particulière à la pédagogie en faisant des chantiers avec l’enseignement supérieur pour la réalisation de manuels et ceci par filière. Pour cela et pour être performant, il y a nécessité de mise en place des «comités pédagogiques» par grandes filières (CPN) entre l’éducation et l’enseignement supérieur et la formation professionnelle en démarrant avec six filières : mathématiques, physique, chimie, sciences naturelles, lettres, langues.

Il est nécessaire de coordonner aussi l’achat d’équipements pédagogiques pour n’acheter de l’étranger que ce que l’on ne peut pas produire dans le pays. Il nous faut aussi donner une durée au livre. On ne peut pas continuer à faire le tirage de 60 millions de manuels dont la présentation n’attire pas l’enfant. La durée de vie devrait être d’au moins 4 ans en mettant en œuvre une politique de récupération à la fin de chaque année avec l’absolue «nécessité par ailleurs de mettre tous les cours sur internet». C’est là où le ministère des Télécommunications serait utile et non pas en flattant les pulsions par la 3G, la 4G, alors que les communications sont gratuites (viber). Barack Obama en parlant de l’internet pense que c’est comme l’oxygène : «A l’ère où vous pouvez postuler à un job, suivre un cours, payer vos factures, commander une pizza, l’internet n’est pas un luxe, c’est une nécessité.» Il pense naturellement à l’internet de la créativité intellectuelle pas à celui du bavardage comme nous le martèle les opérateurs téléphoniques en ne disant pas au citoyen qu’une recharge de 1 000 DA, ce sont 150 m3 d’eau bradés à 6 DA pour un coup de revient de dix fois plus. important.

En fait, le problème des filières scientifiques c’est qu’elles sont engluées dans un magma d’une douzaine de matières. Si l’on veut véritablement propulser l’Algérie dans la modernité sans rien perdre de ses repères, «il paraît utile que la réforme se fasse en privilégiant les disciplines scientifiques». Cela ne veut pas dire naturellement qu’il faille négliger les disciplines littéraires ou autres, mais celles-ci, bien enseignées, ne nécessitent pas des horaires importants d’autant plus que ce qui est important pour nos jeunes, c’est la structuration mentale qui, quoi qu’on puisse en penser, est fondamentale, acquise par le raisonnement mathématique.

De ce fait il est de la plus haute importance de recentrer l’éducation puis l’enseignement en donnant la priorité aux mathématiques dès le primaire. Comment passer de la proportion actuelle autour de 25% (horaire actuel) à un niveau de 40% pour le primaire et le moyen et 50% pour le secondaire avec au moins 60% pour le baccalauréat mathématiques.

5- Pour un diplôme de fin d’études secondaires qui remplace le bac

En Algérie, pour cette année, plus de 800 000 candidats ont passé le baccalauréat. Par comparaison nous avons plus de candidats que la France. Le bac 2015 en France compte 684 734 candidats. Faut-il continuer à mobiliser un pays pour un diplôme qui, à l’échelle internationale, ne donne pas accès à l’université ? Aura-t-on, dans le futur les moyens de le faire ? Est-il nécessaire de le faire en dehors de la dimension symbolique ? On ne sait pas où cela va mener ; à cette cadence d’inscriptions nous aurons 1 million de candidats au bac, les 2 millions d’étudiants bien avant 2020. Un pays comme l’Iran ou la France ont environ 2,5 millions d’étudiants. C’est une évidence : l’Etat ne pourra pas prendre en charge tous les étudiants uniquement à l’université. «L’Algérie a plus besoin de métiers de niveau 5 (technicien et technicien supérieur) que de niveau 6 (ingénieur, médecin…).

Dans la grande majorité des pays, il existe un diplôme de fin d’études secondaires, l’entrée à l’université se fait sur concours en fonction des possibilités d’accueil. Le diplôme de fin d’études secondaires (DFES) qui remplacerait le bac ne fait que consacrer la situation actuelle d’entrée par concours en utilisant comme critère les notes du bac. Le DFES serait en quelque sorte l’équivalent du bac blanc qui serait organisé par chaque lycée. Il y aurait une réelle émulation pour les lycées dans l’accès à l’université pour les filières demandées.

Ce sera une condition nécessaire mais pas suffisante… La mise en place de cette nouvelle vision du bac transformé en DFES pourrait être annoncée pour être appliquée aux nouvelles cohortes qui rentrent dans le secondaire en septembre 2019. Ajoutons que ce sont des centaines de milliards qui seront économisés en plus de toute la mobilisation stressante qui sera évitée.

6- Que doit faire l’université ?

Partout dans le monde, l’université traditionnelle, «l’université de papa», a vécu. «L’université du nouveau siècle est une entreprise du savoir où seuls les plus compétents, quelles que soient leurs origines réussiront et seront rétribués à la juste mesure de leurs efforts.» Un Etat-stratège doit «donner leur chance à toutes et à tous», mais il est évident que chacun s’arrêtera là où ses capacités peuvent le faire aboutir.

Aucun pays au monde ne peut avancer technologiquement s’il ne forme pas d’ingénieurs et de techniciens. L’Algérie a autant besoin d’ouvriers, de techniciens, de maçons, de plombiers que d’ingénieurs ou de médecins. Des passerelles rigoureuses doivent être mises en place pour évoluer ; un technicien peut devenir ingénieur s’il en a les aptitudes. L’université devrait mettre en place l’université virtuelle : l’université de tous les savoirs, les Mooc qui sont des cours en ligne, avec des dispositifs interactifs, dont l’auditoire est théoriquement illimité.

Quel type d’université nous voulons en termes d’apport réel à la société en termes d’éducation ? Quels sont les métiers porteurs ? Combien et dans quelle spécialité ? Comment mettre en œuvre la e-administration, les métiers du développement humain durable, la médecine 2.0, les nanotechnologies la robotique, l’histoire ? Comment enseigner la géographie avec le concours des TIC ? Bien que l’industrie ne soit toujours pas à même de formuler sa demande en termes de formation, les défis sont multiples qu’il s’agisse des effectifs, des programmes ou des nouveaux métiers.

Pour cela les programmes des écoles du moyen et des lycées en amont devraient poser les prémices de ces métiers. A titre d’exemple, dans le domaine du développement humain durable, c’est à l’école que l’on formera l’éco-citoyen de demain. En terminale, la compétence acquise dans ce diplôme de fin d’études secondaires (DFES qui remplacerait le bac) serait le préalable aux formations au développement humain durable.

Quels sont justement les métiers nouveaux de l’Algérie à 2030 ? Dans le domaine du droit, nous devons sortir de notre coquille, enseigner le droit international, le droit des pays avec qui nous avons des relations commerciales, historiques culturelles. Il  nous faut réhabiliter les métiers d’ingénieurs des mines de la prospection géologique. Comment allons nous former des spécialistes de l’agriculture avec et sans OGM ?

Comment se préparer à l’exploitation des gaz de schiste ? Il est dit dans un hadith qu’il faut aller chercher le savoir même en Chine. Dans cet ordre, demandons à la Chine, dans le cadre de l’amitié, de nous aider à mettre en place une université technologique où on enseignerait en chinois et en anglais les métiers du futur qui seront ceux de  2030.

Comment lutter contre la pénurie d’énergie ? Comment protéger nos ressources ou ce qu’il en reste ? Comment lutter contre la pénurie de l’eau ? Comment construire des habitations souterraines pour prévenir les canicules des 35° en moyenne 200 jours par an tel que nous le promet la science ? Voilà ce qui nous attend si nous ne prenons pas nos précautions. «Oua khoudhou hadrakoum», est-il écrit dans le Coran. Nous donnons l’impression de nous être installés dans la fatalité et les invocations pour conjurer la sécheresse, qui plongent dans le panthéon berbère d’il y a plus de 2 000 ans, notamment la version moderne de type «boughandja» et autres, n’auront de poids que si tout ce qui devait être humainement fait l’a été effectivement, laissant en dernier ressort à la volonté divine le soin de disposer.

Nous devons aussi mettre de l’ordre, ceci dans les formations d’institutions privés qui promettent pour qu’elles s’insèrent dans le tissu de demande de formation du pays. Il y a matière à intégrer les établissements sérieux dans la trame du système éducatif, ils pourraient constituer des partenaires. A titre d’exemple l’enseignement privé en France, c’est 2,5 millions d’élèves et d’étudiants sur un total de 12 millions. L’Etat français contribue financièrement dans le cadre d’un cahier des charges rigoureux à leur formation.

7- Les lycées d’excellence

Les mathématiques, les sciences devraient avoir plus de la moitié (60%) dans les bacs scientifiques et au moins 40% dans les autres disciplines. Aller vers les langues du futur sur les 20 prochaines années quatre langues seront dominantes, l’anglais, le chinois, l’allemand et le russe. Nous devons aller même d’une façon progressive vers l’anglais scientifique sans pour autant diminuer le français mais les disciplines gagneraient à être enseignées en anglais.

Il faut penser à mettre dès à présent un lycée d’élite par wilaya pour arriver à une moyenne de 100 000 candidats de top niveau, c’est-à-dire pour cela les enseignants doivent détecter les petits génies dès la sixième et graduellement les encourager en mettant à leur disposition un lycée spécifique avec toutes les commodités, une bourse confortable et surtout en leur affectant les meilleurs enseignants. Cela ne peut se faire que si on est convaincu que c’est une cause nationale qui doit mobiliser tout le  système éducatif, notamment le supérieur par grande discipline (CPN) mathématiques, physique-chimie, informatique, sciences du vivant, sciences naturelles.

Favoriser le vivre-ensemble avec les échanges interwilayas, inter-lycées, inter- universités, il est nécessaire de spécialiser les universités pour éviter la consanguinité régionale synonyme d’effritement identitaire, faire ce que fait le service national et ce que devrait faire le ministre de la jeunesse responsable de 75% de la population, ce ministère ne doit pas être celui d’une équipe nationale offshore qui est le plus mauvais exemple pour la jeunesse. Le ministère de la Jeunesse et des Sports doit avoir une relation privilégiée avec le système éducatif, c’est de là que sortira l’élite olympique, la majorité des athlètes américains des JO sont des universitaires.

8- L’éthique à réhabiliter

Le système éducatif est gangrené par la corruption. En plus de ces chasseurs de primes, il y a le plagiat, il a la triche au bac. La corruption est encore plus grave, puisqu’il s’agit de former l’élite de demain. De ce fait, rien ne peut se faire sans éthique qu’il faut réhabiliter en séparant le bon grain de l’ivraie, les besogneux des tricheurs, coupables doublement de compromettre l’avenir des générations futures. Une charte de l’éthique bien expliquée aux acteurs de la communauté du système éducatif (enseignants, administratifs, élèves étudiants) emportera l’adhésion du plus grand nombre.

Les chefs d’établissement doivent s’interdire d’interférer dans le pédagogique et résister à la tentation du score, du chiffre, de plaire. L’acte pédagogique ne concerne que les enseignants, ce sont eux qui doivent être consultés pour la bonne marche pédagogique, les chefs d’établissement ont un rôle important, celui de ramener la ressource et veiller au bon fonctionnement administratif.

La tutelle ne devrait pas passer par une courroie de transmission (l’administration) pour contacter les enseignants. Par grandes disciplines les comités pédagogiques nationaux (CPN) sont là pour veiller au fonctionnement harmonieux d’une matière et évaluer son état d’avancement. C’est à cette seule condition que l’acte pédagogique sera graduellement amélioré.

La promotion ne devrait plus se faire uniquement à l’ancienneté mais à la production scientifique. Il est important que les enseignants soient consultés, informés, et c’est à eux de s’organiser. Il est important alors de ce fait de mettre en place un programme de formation continue d’au moins 10 heures par mois par grandes disciplines pour réhabiliter le niveau dans un continuum par grandes disciplines les CPN pour les 3 sous systèmes.

9- Conclusion

La formation d’une élite demande du souffle, de l’endurance et une protection des plus hautes autorités pour protéger l’environnement de la future élite la future réelle richesse du pays. Une élite sélectionnée sur la base des mathématiques ne doit pas souffrir de retard. Il nous faut mettre en place dès à présent une vingtaine de lycées d’excellence. «Dans tous les cas, il est important de mettre en œuvre la compétition pour repérer les meilleurs.» Nous devons commencer dès l’école, au CEM, au lycée et à l’université.

Nous devons avec un consensus de la société pour militer pour une école tournée vers l’avenir, une école protégée des convulsions politiques et idéologiques. L’Ecole est le bien commun de chacun, nous devons veiller sur l’éducation de nos enfants. Je plaide pour une école ouverte, fascinée par l’avenir, avec une identité plurielle et assumée, sans faire de la langue arabe et de la religion un fonds de commerce.

Je plaide pour une école qui joue le rôle d’ascenseur social, qui donne la chance à tout le monde et qui ne laisse personne sur le bord de la route. Je plaide pour une Algérie du futur, fascinée par l’avenir. Il nous faut changer de paradigme. Ne pas miser sur la rente.

En son temps, la Révolution de Novembre fut  à la fois un miracle et une belle réussite. Comment faire émerger de nouveaux révolutionnaires capables d’impulser cette Révolution qui fait son Graal de l’économie de la connaissance ; un autre djihad aussi important qui permettra à l’Algérie de garder son rang dans un monde de plus en plus crisique où nous pourrons survivre que scientifiquement et qu’en comptant que sur nous même  en tant que créateurs de richesse, nous avons les compétences. Cela ne pourra se faire ,outre le consensus qu’avec le parler vrai. C’est à cette  seule condition que nous mobiliserons les Algériennes et  les Algériens qui se sentiront alors acteurs de leur destin donnant  ce faisant la pleine mesure de leurs talents.

Professeur Chems Eddine Chitour

Ecole Polytechnique enp-edu.dz

Article de référence :

http://www.lesoirdalgerie.com/articles/2016/08/11/article.php? sid=200433&cid=41

 

  • Posted in Francais @fr
  • Commentaires fermés sur Algérie – Plaidoyer pour un système éducatif en phase avec le mouvement du monde

Selected Articles: Russia’s Weakness Is Its Economic Policy

août 11th, 2016 by Global Research News

russia-1020934_960_720

Russia’s Weakness Is Its Economic Policy

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts and Michael Hudson, August 11 2016

According to various reports, the Russian government is reconsidering the neoliberal policy that has served Russia so badly since the collapse of the Soviet Union. If Russia had adopted an intelligent economic policy, Russia’s economy would be far ahead of where it stands today. It would have avoided most of the capital flight to the West by relying on self-finance.

Flag-map_of_Syria.svg

The Criminality of American and British Illegal Immigrants in Syria

By Felicity Arbuthnot, August 11 2016

It’s really 19th century behavior in the 21st century. You just don’t invade another country on phony pretexts in order to assert your interests. (Secretary of State, John Kerry, “Meet the Press”, 2nd March 2014.) Were it not so serious it would be hilarious. The British have voted to leave the European Union on the basis of the combination of a pack of lies by Government Ministers backing the “out” campaign and a whipped up xenophobia about all those “foreigners” taking jobs, homes, places on public transport etc. A truly shameful throwback to the era of hotels and boarding houses exhibiting signs saying: “No dogs, no blacks, no Irish.” Now they would add: “and no Europeans, no Arabs, no Muslims – only UK passport holders”, were the garbage in the media and spewed by the “Outers” to be believed.

farm_crops_735_350

Media Silence and the Agrochemicals Industry: The Slow Poisoning of Health and the Environment

By Colin Todhunter, August 11 2016

It’s an all too common tale of dirty deeds, shady deals and propaganda. Rosemary Mason’s recent open letter to journalists at The Guardian outlines how the media is failing the public by not properly reporting on the regulatory delinquency relating to GM food and the harmful chemicals being applied to crops. Much of the media is even (unwittingly) acting as a propaganda arm for big agritech companies.

Trump_&_ClintonNYT Insinuates Trump Wants Hillary Assassinated

By Stephen Lendman, August 11 2016

Times anti-Trump propaganda reached a new low with an August 9 article, editorial and commentary Its propaganda turned truth on its head, suggesting Trump wants “gun rights supporters…tak(ing) matters into their own hands” by assassinating Clinton if she prevails in November. What prompted such outrageous rubbish? At an August 9 North Carolina rally, he said “Hillary wants to abolish the Second Amendment…If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do folks.”

census-logo

Bungling the Australian Census

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, August 11 2016

Each country needs its exceptionalist message, its sui generis theme. We do something here no one else does, and such like. In Australia, there are many things deemed exceptional. Compulsory voting, on pain of a fine, is one such case. Compulsory voting in a census is another extension of that same philosophy. To not submit, and be damned by the extortionist drive of the State.

1200px-Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg

Britain Not Officially at War but Fully Engaged on the Front-Line of Deadly War Zones

By Graham Vanbergen, August 11 2016

“We do not disclose details of all ongoing operations, (says the MoD), as disclosure would prejudice the security of the Armed Forces.” This is the stock answer given to any journalist attempting to enquire why it is that Britain is officially not at war with any country yet combat troops, special forces, fighter bombers and killer drones operate as though the opposite was true.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Selected Articles: Russia’s Weakness Is Its Economic Policy

Anyone who has been following Ukraine related news over the last few days will be aware of reports of Russian troop movements in Crimea, of a shoot out there between the Russian security forces and alleged Ukrainian infiltrators which left several people dead, and of claims that Ukrainian sabotage groups had attempted to infiltrate the peninsula.

On  10th August 2016 came final confirmation of the incident from Russia’s counterintelligence and anti terrorism agency, the FSB (full statement attached below).  It reported separate incidents involving three Ukrainian sabotage groups connected to the Main Intelligence Directorate of Ukraine’s Defence Ministry, shoot outs between FSB operatives and the Russian military and the Ukrainian military across the border line, and the deaths of one FSB operative and of one Russian soldier caught up in the shoot outs.  Other reports speak of the death of at least two Ukrainian infiltrators, and of the capture of several others, which claims however the FSB report does not confirm. The FSB report does however speak of twenty improvised explosive devices containing more than 40 kilograms of TNT equivalent, ammunition, fuses, antipersonnel and magnetic bombs, grenades and the Ukrainian armed forces’ standard special weapons being found in one of the locations involved in the incident.

The FSB report also says that several Ukrainian and Russian citizens belonging to an undercover spy ring operating inside Crimea have been arrested on charges of planning to help the saboteurs.  The FSB has named the ringleader as Yevgeny Panov, a resident of Ukraine’s Zaporozhye region born in 1977, who the FSB says is an employee of the Ukrainian Defence Ministry’s Main Intelligence Directorate.  Presumably he has been working in Crimea for some time under cover.  The FSB says it has arrested him and that he is “giving evidence”.

The FSB has not identified the targets of the saboteurs other than saying that they were “critical infrastructure and life support facilities on the peninsula”.  Some Russian media reports have suggested that the intention was to create “false flag” incidents that would set Crimea’s Tatar and Russian communities against each other.  The reference to “critical infrastructure and life support facilities on the peninsula” does not however support this.  Rather it suggests an attempt to disrupt power supplies and possibly water treatment plants at the height of Crimea’s tourist season and on the eve of the elections.

The Ukrainians for their part deny all these allegations, claiming that the whole incident has been invented by the Russians.  The Western media, predictably enough, is following the Ukrainian line with wild speculations that the Russians have fabricated the whole incident in order to justify a Russian invasion of Ukraine during the Olympic Games.

Whilst the full truth of this incident will only become known over time – when or if people like Panov are put on trial – there is actually no reason to doubt that the Russian account is true.  The Russians are hardly likely to arrange the death of one of their own FSB operatives and of one of their soldiers in order to fabricate an incident like this, and the report of the capture of several of the saboteurs, and the confirmation of the arrest of the members of the spy ring which was created to support them, all but confirms that the Russian claims about this incident are true. Indeed given that Ukrainian leaders frequently speak of Ukraine being at war with Russia it is not difficult to see why they might authorise a sabotage mission of this sort in order to disrupt elections which would confirm the extent of Crimea’s integration into Russia.  Presumably the Ukrainian plan was to claim that the attacks were the result of local anti-Russian resistance cells, thereby fostering the fiction that there is opposition within Crimea to its unification with Russia.  It has been a cause of serious embarrassment to the Ukrainian leadership and its Western backers that there has been no real evidence of such opposition up to now.  The sabotage mission appears to have been intended to “correct” this.

Two days ago I reported about a meeting Putin had with his security chiefs which appeared to have been hurriedly convened in a secret location.  I speculated that the meeting was held to discuss the situation in Aleppo.  Whilst Aleppo undoubtedly was discussed at this meeting as shown by the presence of Foreign Minister Lavrov and the Kremlin’s account of the meeting – which referred to Putin’s forthcoming meetings with foreign leaders, of whom the two most important were President Erdogan of Turkey and President Rouhani of Iran with whom the topic of Syria and Aleppo would certainly be discussed – the meeting between Putin and his security chiefs undoubtedly also discussed the situation in Crimea, and the reports of the Ukrainian sabotage mission there.

Might there have been any other purpose to this Ukrainian sabotage mission other than to create the appearance of instability in Crimea during the tourist season and during the coming election season?  Putin in the joint press conference he held in Moscow following his meeting with Armenia’s President Sargsyan linked the incident to the attempted murder of Igor Plotnitsky, the leader of the Lugansk People’s Republic.  If true that would suggest that having despaired of a military victory the government in Kiev is now turning to assassination and sabotage tactics in order to keep the struggle with Russia going and to achieve its political goals.  Alternatively it could be that the Ukrainians have carried out these operations in preparation for the summer offensive in the Donbass that has been much talked about but which has yet to happen, though it is not clear how planting bombs in Crimea could aid a military offensive in the Donbass.  Yet another explanation is that the Ukrainians might be sensing a weakening in European support and might have launched the operation in order to heighten tensions and to rally support and to further undermine the Minsk II peace process.

My own opinion is that the most likely explanation for this frankly reckless action – which will cause serious embarrassment to some of Ukraine’s European backers even if they are not prepared to say so publicly – is the chaotic condition of the Ukrainian power structure and the perennial infighting that goes on there.  Given the luridly romantic language many members of the Maidan movement customarily like to indulge in I can easily see how the sabotage operation in Crimea and the murder attempt on Plotnitsky – if the two are indeed connected – might have been planned by individuals in Kiev who might think that the success of such operations would increase their credibility and popularity within the Maidan movement and therefore their chances of achieving political success in Ukraine.

Whatever the precise motivations behind this incident Putin has made it very clear that the Russians are taking it extremely seriously.  He has already said that there will no Normandy Four meeting with Merkel, Hollande and Poroshenko at the forthcoming G20 summit in China.  Moreover and in contrast to what happened following the trial of Savchenko, whose actions were carried out in the Donbass and therefore in territory the Russians continue to recognise as Ukrainian, I expect the Russians to be much slower to agree to prisoner exchanges of the Ukrainian operatives who were involved in this mission and who they accuse of carrying out or planning to carry out violent actions on Russian territory.

Here is the text of the statement describing the incidents which has been provided by the FSB:

“The Russian FSB averted terrorist acts in the Republic of Crimea that were being prepared by the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Ministry of Defence of Ukraine.

The Russian FSB averted terrorist acts in the Republic of Crimea that were being prepared by the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Ministry of Defence of Ukraine, and which targeted certain critical infrastructure and life support facilities on the peninsula.

The goal of the attacks was the destabilisation of the socio-political situation on the peninsula prior to the approaching elections to the federal and regional governmental institutions.

The search operations carried out during the night of 6/7 August 2016 in the vicinity of the city of Armyansk, Republic of Crimea, uncovered a group of saboteurs. While attempting to detain the terrorists, an FSB operative was killed by enemy gunfire. The following was discovered on the scene: 20 improvised explosive devices with a total explosive power of 40kg TNT, munitions, special detonators, standard-issue anti-personnel and magnetic land mines, grenades, and special-issue weapons used by Ukrainian armed forces’ special operations units.

The follow-on measures on the territory of the Republic of Crimea eliminated a network of agents operated by the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. Ukrainian and Russian citizens, engaged in the preparation of terrorist attacks, were arrested, and are now giving evidence. One of the organisers is Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich Panov, born 1977, an inhabitant of the Zaporozhye Region of Ukraine, an operative of the Main Intelligence Directorate of Ukrainian MOD, who has also been arrested and is giving evidence.

During the night of August 8, 2016, Ukrainian MOD special operations units attempted two more infiltrations by saboteur units which were prevented by the armed units of the FSB and collaborating entities. The infiltration effort was covered by heavy fire from the adjacent country, including by armored vehicles belonging to Ukrainian military. A Russian soldier was killed by the fire.

On the basis of the investigative and combat actions, the Crimea FSB Directorate’s investigations department has launched a criminal case. Additional investigative measures are being implemented. Places where large groups of tourists are concentrating and resting, and critically important infrastructure and life support facilities have been taken under additional security. A strengthened border control regime has been introduced on the border with Ukraine.”

(Translated by J. Hawk, as previously published on South Front)

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Shootout in Crimea: Russia’s « Anti-terrorism Agency » (FSB) vs Ukrainian Saboteurs

Serbia to Help Russian Aid Operation in Syria

août 11th, 2016 by Balkan Insight

The Serbian and Chinese defence ministries were the first to respond to Moscow’s international call for help in Syria, Russian news agency Tass reported on Tuesday.

“The Russian defence ministry is grateful to the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of Serbia, who were the first to come out in support of the Russian-Syrian initiative to conduct a humanitarian operation,” the Russian ministry said in a statement.

“We count on further practical steps by these countries’ defence ministries in support of the Russian efforts to provide humanitarian assistance to the population of Aleppo,” it added.

Official invitations to join the operation have also been dispatched to the US military and to most European and Asian countries.

Russian Defence Minister Sergey Shoygu announced the beginning of a major humanitarian operation in Aleppo on July 28.

Apart from calling for the help of armed forces worldwide, his ministry said it had asked various international humanitarian organisations, which also agreed to help.

Some 250,000 people are believed to live in rebel-held parts of Aleppo which have been under siege by Bashar al-Assad’s government forces backed by Russia for weeks.

The United Nations on Tuesday called for a ceasefire in the city to allow the delivery of food and medicines and water facilities to be repaired.

“The UN stands ready to assist the civilian population of Aleppo, a city now united in its suffering,” a UN statement said.

“At a minimum, the UN requires a full-fledged ceasefire or weekly 48-hour humanitarian pauses to reach the millions of people in need throughout Aleppo and replenish the food and medicine stocks, which are running dangerously low,” it added.

The US on Monday called on the UN Security Council to ensure that all sides in Aleppo received aid, not just areas loyal to al-Assad.

“If the fighting continues it is conceivable that civilians on both sides of Aleppo could be cut off from the basic assistance they need. We cannot allow this to happen,” said the US ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power.

Power also urged Russia to “to stop facilitating these sieges and to use its influence to press the regime to end its sieges across Syria once and for all”.

Moscow however has accused Washington of politicising the humanitarian aid issue.

Russian military intervention in Syria in support of Bashar al-Assad started last September but has been criticised by several international rights organisations over civilian casualties caused by air strikes.

The Russian military has denied intentionally endangering civilians.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Serbia to Help Russian Aid Operation in Syria

This week marks two years since President Barack Obama initiated the latest US war against Iraq and Syria, launched in the name of combating the Islamic State militia. The American president cast the new military intervention as not only a continuation of the “global war on terrorism,” but also a crusade for human rights, invoking the threat to Iraq’s Yazidi population and insisting that he could not “turn a blind eye” when religious minorities were threatened.

The toll of this supposed humanitarian intervention has grown ever bloodier. According to a report released this week by the monitoring group Airwars to mark the anniversary, more than 4,700 civilian non-combatant fatalities have been reported as a result of the “US-led Coalition’s” air strikes (95 percent of which have been carried out by US warplanes). More innocent Iraqi and Syrian men, women and children have been slaughtered by American bombs in the course of two years than the total number of US soldiers who lost their lives during the eight years of the Iraq war launched by President George W. Bush in 2003.

All of Washington’s lies and pretexts about its latest war in the Middle East—as well as the decade-and-a-half of wars waged since 9/11—have been exploded in the course of the past several days as the US government and media celebrated purported victories by “rebel” forces in the battle for control of Aleppo, Syria’s former commercial capital.

That the “rebel” offensive has been organized and led by an organization that for years constituted Al Qaeda’s designated Syrian branch, and the operation was named in honor of a Sunni sectarian extremist who carried out a massacre of captured Syrian Alawite soldiers, gave none of them pause. So much for the hogwash about terrorism and human rights!

The scale of the military gains made by the Al Qaeda-led forces in Aleppo are by no means clear. They have, however, apparently succeeded in placing under siege the western part of the city, which is under the government’s control and where the overwhelming majority of the population lives. The “rebels” have killed and maimed hundreds of people with mortar and artillery rounds.

Washington and its allies, the Western media and the human rights groups that accused the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad of crimes against humanity for bombing the jihadists in eastern Aleppo are now indifferent when these imperialist-backed terrorists are killing civilians in the western part of the city.

Sections of the Western media have gone so far as to celebrate the exploits of “rebel” suicide bombers for providing a strategic “advantage” for the Western-backed militias. Among the most dishonest and duplicitous accounts of the recent fighting are those that have appeared in the pages of the New York Times, whose news coverage and editorial line are carefully tailored to serve the predatory aims of US imperialism.

In a Monday article on Aleppo, the Times wrote that the challenge to government control had been mounted by “rebels and their jihadist allies.” The article continued: “A vital factor in the rebel advance over the weekend was cooperation between mainstream rebel groups, some of which have received covert arms support from the United States, and the jihadist organization formerly known as the Nusra Front, which was affiliated with Al Qaeda.”

The newspaper reports this as casually as if it were publishing a report on the late artist formerly known as Prince. The Nusra Front changed its name to the Fatah al-Sham Front and announced its formal disaffiliation from Al Qaeda—with the latter’s blessing—just one week before it launched the offensive in Aleppo.

There is every reason to believe that this rebranding was carried out in consultation with the CIA in an attempt to politically sanitize direct US support for an offensive led by a group that has long been denounced by Washington as a terrorist organization.

The Times never names any of the “mainstream rebel groups” it says are fighting alongside the Al Qaeda militia, suggesting that they constitute some liberal progressive force. In point of fact, one of these groups recently released a video showing its fighters beheading a wounded 12-year-old child, and virtually all of them share the essential ideological outlook of Al Qaeda.

The Financial Times of London carried one of the frankest reports on the Aleppo “rebel” offensive, noting that it “may have had more foreign help than it appears: activists and rebels say opposition forces were replenished with new weapons, cash and other supplies before and during the fighting.” It cites reports of daily columns of trucks pouring across the Turkish border for weeks with arms and ammunition, including artillery and other heavy weapons.

The newspaper quotes one unnamed Western diplomat who said that US officials backed the Al Qaeda-led offensive “to put some pressure back on Russia and Iran,” which have both provided key military support to the Assad government.

The Financial Times also quotes an unnamed “military analyst” as stating that the character of the fighting indicated the Al Qaeda forces had received not only massive amounts of weapons, but also professional military training.

Significantly, even as the fighting in Aleppo was underway, photographs surfaced of heavily armed British commandos operating long-range patrol vehicles in northern Syria. Similar US units are also on the ground. These are among the most likely suspects in terms of who is training Al Qaeda’s Syrian forces.

They would only be reprising the essential features of the imperialist operation that gave rise to Al Qaeda 30 years ago, when the CIA—working in close alliance with Osama bin Laden—supplied similar support to the mujahedeen fighting to overthrow the Soviet-backed regime in Afghanistan.

While the blowback from that episode ultimately gave us September 11, the present operation in Syria holds far greater dangers. In what is now openly described by the corporate media as a “proxy war” in which Al Qaeda serves as US imperialism’s ground force, Washington is attempting to overthrow Russia’s key Middle East ally as part of the preparations for a war aimed at dismembering and subjugating Russia itself.

The frontrunner in the US presidential contest, Democrat Hillary Clinton, has repeatedly signaled that she intends to pursue a far more aggressive policy in Syria and against Russia, making neo-McCarthyite charges of Vladimir Putin’s supposed subversion of the US election process a central part of her campaign.

Whether Washington can wait till inauguration day next January to escalate its aggression is far from clear. The “rebel” gains in Aleppo may be quickly reversed and the fighting could end with the US-backed Al Qaeda militias deprived of their last urban stronghold.

US imperialism is not about to accept the re-consolidation of a Syrian government aligned with Moscow. Pressure will inevitably mount for a more direct and more massive US intervention, threatening a direct clash between American and Russian forces.

Fifteen years after launching its “war on terror,” Washington is not only directly allied with the supposed target of that war—Al Qaeda—but is preparing to unleash upon humanity the greatest act of terror imaginable, a third world war.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur The Battle for Aleppo and the Hypocrisy of US War Propaganda

Censorship is Back in Fashion in Brazil

août 11th, 2016 by Sabrina Fernandes

Lately, it’s been common to say that the “right has come out of the closet” in Brazil. More precisely, the authoritarian, fascist right, has done so and very publicly for that matter. The revolutionary potential of June 2013 [Ed.: see Bullet No. 851], even if convoluted and smeared by depoliticization, held enough of a threat to require immediate hegemonic renewal, especially at the ideological level. The hegemonic renewal of the right was empowered by the depoliticized aspects of the conflicts exposed in June, such as when desire for more investment in health and education became captured by an aimless fight against corruption permeated by ultra-nationalist, moralist, and authoritarian discourse. Speech that wasn’t acceptable in the past because it would out someone as a bigot came into fashion again.

A portion of the right that is configured in authoritarian terms takes pride in denying the history of the military dictatorship and its violations while asking for repression, torture, and a straightforward witch-hunt for communists. Some of their demands border on the absurd, as would be their claim that the Workers’ Party (PT) is communist (when whether it is even leftist is up for debate) or their opposition to Paulo Freire and his pedagogy, which is praised internationally. Hate is a huge part of the authoritarian right, which we have seen around Donald Trump’s politics in the U.S., but he does not define it alone. The authoritarian right has a precise political project that feeds on hate as well as on depoliticization, crisis, and the fear of social change and justice that could threaten the privilege of a few and the illusion of privilege of millions. This project has a particular and powerful weapon aimed at maintaining common sense: censorship.

Fans protest President Michel Temer's presence in Mineirão stadium.

Image: Fans protest President Michel Temer’s presence in Mineirão stadium: “Come Back Democracy.”

Frail Democracy, Authoritarianism’s Birthplace

Censorship is a traditional form of repressing dissent of all cadres under authoritarian regimes. But it also thrives in the context of diminishing democratic rights of liberal democratic regimes tending toward authoritarianism. As much as I would like to blame this on Michel Temer and the post-impeachment government, which is intent on taking away rights and selling Brazil out to the financial and imperialist market, it isn’t this simple. The current form of the authoritarian culture of censorship has ambiguous roots in antipetismo (anti Workers’ Party (PT in Portuguese) sentiment) and its derailment into anti-leftism as well as in the political choices made by the Workers’ Party in power to give into conservative pressure and stifle diversity and alternative perspectives.

In 2011, Dilma Rousseff vetoed a simple yet advanced project to fight homophobia in Brazilian schools, which involved an honest discussion of diversity and respect. The educational package was considered to be “gender indoctrination” by the evangelicals in Congress and congressman Jair Bolsonaro (known for his homophobic remarks/attacks and his praise of military dictators). Rousseff claimed that the material, carefully prepared by the Ministry of Education, was “inadequate” and the end of the story – except that this veto opened the doors to more censorship at the schools, culminating in the Escola Sem Partido project (to be examined later), and to more conspiracy theories about communists and their indoctrination of our children through Paulo Freire and “communist gender ideology.” Rousseff also subordinated women’s struggles to religious opinion by arguing that she would stay out of the abortion debate, and her government’s response to oppression was coloured by punitivist approaches even though there is a lively debate on how criminalization could worsen the problem of incarceration and the unfairness of the Brazilian justice system against the underprivileged.

Democracy, in the sense of a system that fosters liberty, social rights, diversity, justice, and recognition, wasn’t exactly in its best shape before the impeachment. In 2014, the most conservative congress in Brazil’s recent history was elected and it proceeded to make things worse. The ultra-political scenario in the making to oust Rousseff also contributed to it, since the more people hated the PT, the more they would hate the values they thought the PT represented, despite the current mismatch between the party and its historical roots. This was a turning point for social movements, which although criminalized by the PT governments – who can forget the World Cup persecutions and Rousseff’s own anti-terrorism bill? – began to face more than government surveillance, including actual public scrutiny and attacks from those captured by the authoritarian right-wing discourse of promoting the Brazilian flag’s motto of “order and progress,” which translates in reality to “status quo renewal.”

The Internet, of course, is a huge part of that process and it can’t be dismissed just because its anonymity and distance nurture hate and lack of empathy on a normal basis. If we recognize that social media was an important player in June 2013, we have to reckon with the fact that it was for better and for worse. The new social movements of the right have done well online, as has the space taken up by personalities such as Jair Bolsonaro, Reinaldo Azevedo, Olavo de Carvalho, and a range of other bigots whose audience expands into the regular non-fascist crowd depending on the topic of the day. They benefit from the general conservative nature of common sense in Brazil, which has done a fine job in suppressing the more progressive voices of June and rallying up forces against those who have endured in the left. The authoritarian right also counts on the power of the mainstream media for amplification. This adds to the most common expression of depoliticization as observed from a Gramscian perspective: people are led to believe in the values of the ruling class and to promote ideas and projects that work directly against them. Their practical consciousness tells them to go one way, but the ideological stronghold of the ruling class, now ever louder, pushes their theoretical consciousness away from an emancipatory perspective. Censorship serves to maintain this arrangement through manufactured consent and to repress those who can escape common sense, which includes the left and its base, as well as a wide range of social groups that hold on to the democratic values mentioned earlier, through coercion and threats of coercion.

Censorship as Coercion

The ruling class resorts to coercion whenever consent is threatened. Consent was threatened at a massive scale in June 2013. What could not be controlled with the assistance of false claims of neutrality core to the post-political aspects of the period had to be fought by instigating fear, hate, and disgust at the cultural level and by employing the justice system of the powerful and the police state at the institutional level. The cultural level is arguably more dangerous because it also contributes to censorship as consent and creates a scenario where enemies are everywhere and civility is no longer a requirement for living in a society. It is no wonder that the protests against Dilma Rousseff and in favour of Michel Temer were heavily populated by a mixture of hate, imbecility, and dishonesty. How else to characterize calls against corruption and for corruption at the same time? Or the attacks against teachers and public education? How about the giant inflatable soldier wearing a presidential ribbon in the middle of São Paulo’s Paulista avenue? These voices belong to generally white people from the middle to the upper classes who claim to stand up for decency and for honesty while some of their own attack a young man for wearing a red t-shirt or boast of “almost lynching” a famous actress who has spoken against the impeachment. Not to mention the self-proclaimed “communist hunters” or the military reservist who, the other day, spoke with pride of killing communists in Angola. The authoritarian right makes up only a portion of the right-wing that has benefitted from the current political crisis, but this does not make of fascism a small problem. The matter with fascists is often that what they lack in numbers they make up in connections and structural power.

This is where cultural censorship builds into the institutional realm. Societies are more and more litigious today, and this litigation is one of those strange symptoms of the assertion of liberal liberties. While everyone is free to litigate, only a few can do so with the certainty that the rules are in their favour the majority of time. This is why Supreme Court Justice Gilmar Mendes thought it was appropriate to sue Homeless Workers’ Movement leader Guilherme Boulos for moral damages after Boulos published a column on the minister’s nefarious dealings in politics. Boulos won, but this has not discouraged other right-wing actors from suing or pressing charges against left-wing dissidence who voice their criticism and opposition. Mendes has now taken advantage from his judiciary power to propose that the court repeals the registry of the Workers’ Party, which would bring back precedents from the military dictatorship.[1]

Evangelical pastor Silas Malafaia is often threatening to sue everyone, especially journalists and LGBTQ activists, and Jair Bolsonaro gets to press charges against activists because he doesn’t appreciate name-calling unless it comes out of his mouth and is directed at an oppressed group or individual. Institutional censorship doesn’t even have to be personal. Another Supreme Court Justice, Rosa Weber, will be long remembered for subpoenaing Dilma Rousseff to explain her usage of the word “coup” to refer to the impeachment. A month earlier one of the right-wing parties took Rousseff to court to prevent her from addressing the nation about the impeachment. The right-wing opposition also sought to censor her by preventing the elected president from travelling to the United States to make a scheduled speech at the UN headquarters.

The Olympics, which just began in Rio de Janeiro, have been no exception. A previous agreement supported by the Rousseff administration to prevent public displays of protests inside the venues of mega-events is being taken farther than before by the Temer government. Just a few days into the competitions, the national force has thrown out supporters who were protesting with “Temer out” signs or simply shouting it out loud. What Rousseff started in terms of the repression of social movement voices has evolved into a more generalized censorship of speech under Temer.

Although censorship at the educational level is normalized through consent and curriculum control, the fragility of democratic conventions presents opportunities to punish teachers and students for their critical thought. The Escola Sem Partido project of general educational censorship and unitary thinking is still in the oven and we already have teachers being suspended or subpoenaed all over the country. In the state of Paraná, high school teacher Gabriela Viola, whose job is to teach Sociology, was suspended after her students produced a music assignment on Karl Marx, one of the founders of Sociology. The school director argued that the teacher had defamed the school; its employees later repressed a student protest in favour of the teacher with the help of the police. In the Federal District centred around Brasilia, District Deputy Sandra Faraj notified a public school in the periphery for teacher Deneir de Jesus Meirelles’ assignment on gender and sexuality. The theme is part of the national curriculum, but teachers are already being coerced into leaving content out of their classrooms to abide by the code proposed by the right in the Escola Sem Partido project.

Censorship as Consent

Nicknamed “Muzzle Law,” the Escola Sem Partido (School without a Party) project employs coercive methods against teachers in order to stifle critical thought at its “source” and to create a generation of pacified students and youth. Coercion for the teachers, consent from the students in the long run. Its proponents ask for prison time and heavy fines for teachers accused of the crime of “ideological harassment,” claiming that politics has no place in the classroom and that students are too vulnerable to be exposed to certain subjects. The real objective, however, is to further standardize pedagogical content, which is already heavily criticized in Brazil for its “banking model” of education, so that alternative and critical knowledge is left out of the curriculum. For instance, Brazilian curriculum has few elective options and they are often related to the arts. Technical content around Mathematics and Physics is prioritized over Sociology and History, and the nature of the university entrance system leads schools to focus on communicating the most amount of content in the shortest time. Students become overloaded and often resort to memorizing to make it through exams and all the way to university. Therefore, they are not exactly learning critical thought to its fullest potential today, but the few opportunities they currently have will be taken away if Escola Sem Partido goes through as national policy.

Escola Sem Partido (School without a Party)

The project is aimed at institutionalizing depoliticization, which can only benefit the status quo and leave unchallenged the information fed through the media and common sense reproduction. Its name “without a party” is deceiving with a purpose. The crisis of representation exposed in June 2013 was partly carried into an overall rejection of political parties. This was deemed to be generally progressive by the Brazilian left, considering that the party format in Brazil’s pluriparty system has long been deformed to favour capitalist representation. The depoliticized evolution of anti-party rejection, however, backfired on the left for a variety of reasons: primarily, the growth of anti-leftism; secondarily, the illusion of neutrality held by the post-political proposals for managing the crisis of representation. This made claims such as “my party is my country” possible, and the ultra-nationalist tie to right-wing politics created the perfect façade for passing the right’s disgust for change and dissident voices as a call for ideological neutrality and against indoctrination. Interestingly, as Rodrigo Santaella points out, the notion of “doctrine” is natural to the religious groups that promote the project rather than the Brazilian left’s critical pedagogical outlook.[2]

Escola Sem Partido is named after a post-political notion of “School without a Party,” but promotes a “School of a Single Party” in the format desired to entrench right-wing values and stifle the leftist consciousness that thrives in critical environments such as schools and working places. This is why the right and its privileged base is so concerned with attacking Paulo Freire, while Antonio Gramsci and Herbert Marcuse are second and third to Karl Marx on the authoritarian right’s foreign ‘most wanted’ list. Freirean pedagogy is actually the opposite of indoctrination, as it fosters self-discovery and the process of creating emancipatory consciousness at the collective level, which poses an immense threat to common sense and the fatalist consent that sustains it. Censorship is an effective way for the right to create consent at all costs, especially during an economic and political crisis such as the way faced in Brazil today. Crises are appropriate periods for emancipatory politicization, as the contradictions of the systems of oppression become more and more apparent. If the left is muzzled through lawsuits and criminalization, and the educational and cultural terrains are censored at the source, the contradictions may still be recognized without their corresponding solutions. By winning the ideological dispute, the right also forecloses spaces of hope and can even manipulate struggle through false answers that reinforce the status quo. After all, censorship is not simply the nullification of the other, but always its continuous replacement with the norm.

Sabrina Fernandes is an activist in the Brazilian radical left, a critical pedagogue, and Ph.D. Candidate in Sociology at Carleton University.

Notes:

1. “Gilmar Mendes abre processo que pode cassar registro do PT,” G1.

2. Rodrigo Santaella (2016) “Escola sem partido: A mentira, a ignorância e a disputa ideológica,” 31 July 2016.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Censorship is Back in Fashion in Brazil

Bungling the Australian Census

août 11th, 2016 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

Each country needs its exceptionalist message, its sui generis theme. We do something here no one else does, and such like. In Australia, there are many things deemed exceptional. Compulsory voting, on pain of a fine, is one such case. Compulsory voting in a census is another extension of that same philosophy. To not submit, and be damned by the extortionist drive of the State.

This is the somewhat authoritarian background colouring the recent bureaucratic disaster of the 2016 Australian census. It was prized by policy and number wonks as a vast improvement on previous forms, gathering the data about Australian citizens and residents in an unprecedented manner. The sugary advertisements urging people to vote on “census night” on Tuesday gave the impression we were dealing with a very minor inconvenience.

Across the country, families would gather around their computers, “log on” with their designated unique number, and fill in the forms with a minimum of fuss. Not only was the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) keen to get the numbers; it was keen to ensure that those figures were obtained in a manner green and tender. Good for the trees, friendly to the environment.

With all that buzz, not all was good in census land. There were suspicions about the very way, and scope of detail being sought. “Linkage keys”, to take one example, would be created, connecting census material to other data bases (medical, criminal, road traffic, educational).

The tone struck by the ABS did not inspire confidence. Undue hoarding, and preservation of private data, came to mind. Material gathered from every participating subject would be stored for four years, rather than the usual eighteen months. (Did this provide a foretaste of incompetence? A four year window, rather than a smaller one to work with?)

Another troubling feature for pundits and potential participants was what would happen with those linkage keys. Unsurprisingly, these would be a permanent fixture of the statistician’s dream, a record of reference long after the actual collected data of the subject had been destroyed.

Members of Parliament had also made very public statements that they disapproved of the way the census was being conducted and would withhold their names and addresses on the day of submission. Senator Nick Xenophon, for one, was happy to risk the $180 a day fine and the prospect of a jails sentence.

The Census minister Michael McCormack kept any blinkers he had close at hand. The census was “no worse than Facebook”; those with “a supermarket loyalty card” or “tap-and-go” system were supplying “more information indeed probably to what is available to ABS staff.”

Such comparisons were interesting yet terribly flawed, given that Facebook, for all its defects on what it does with data after gathering it from a user, still maintains an element of voluntariness to those using it. The Australian government was effectively forcing census participants to disclose details of considerable intimacy. Those remaining reticent would, at worse, be jailed.

McCormack also radiated a feeling of smug, grating confidence. No one does it better than the ABS; no one does censuses better than Australia. Until, of course, the crashing of the census site, the debacle, a technological calamity, the total balls up.In the characteristic words of the leader of the opposition, Bill Shorten, “This is an incompetent exercise. If they were handing out gold medals at Rio for incompetence, this Government would be on the winner’s podium absolutely.”[1]

What exactly happened? For one, the “stresses” of the system from having millions log on simultaneously on Tuesday evening was always going to challenge it, despite the ABS’s prior testing on whether its servers could handle 1 million forms per hour. A problematic calculation to begin with, given that online submissions may well have peaked around dinner time, and certainly more than a million an hour. Two stories have subsequently emerged, both running in awkward parallels to each other. The government line, one trumpeted by an increasingly crest fallen census minister, is that no hack had taken place. The world’s most secure census system still lay unbreached, the untouched gold standard.

Few believed this vacuous assumption, given that the ABS was insisting that any existing material that had been submitted online would be stored safely and had not been compromised. The ABS had, in fact, surreptitiously removed any statements from its site about data security as the crisis began unfolding. Kernels of truth could be found in the undergrowth of disinformation.

The ABS subsequently threw cold water on the government’s claim that no hack had taken place, with David Kalisch from the bureau suggesting that four hacking attacks had been initiated “from overseas”.[2] These had been initiated to burst the bubble of confidence or, in Kalisch’s words, inflicted as “a deliberate attempt to sabotage the census.”

That response showed how much of a muddle the ABS, and the Turnbull government, found themselves in. Neither could quite agree on what happened. The entire system seemingly suffered a meltdown, a collapse precipitated by four denial of service (DOS) attacks that had overwhelmed the system with simulated users.[3]

But such events are not hacking ones, even if they may well enable the compromise of data to take place with greater ease. Continuing with a Rio reference, it is surprising that the Russians were not blamed for that one. Give it time.

Then came the issue of technological hubris. No minister or statistician should ever be permitted to say that any computerised storage system is ever totally secure. As Richard Buckland, board director of the Australian Computer Society, observed in prosaic fashion, “There’s no way that the ABS could rule out a hack”. Generating a “pool of sensitive data” posed the most attractive of targets.

With some carefree disposition, integrity has become the word of the moment. The Australian treasurer, ever the bully from the pulpit of governance, suggested that Australians ignore the current crisis and do their duty.

Fill in the census, stated Scott Morrison, and forget any of this ever happened. The “integrity of this Census itself has not been compromised by the events of the last 24 hours, just as the integrity of the data itself has not been compromised in the last 24 hours.” Except that it has been – terribly.

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

Notes
[1] http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/australian-economy/census-2016-outage-labor-calls-for-census-minister-michael-mccormack-to-resign/news-story/7d8cd5bfaadfbc852311be165b0cc0b8
[2] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-10/australian-bureau-of-statistics-says-census-website-hacked/7712216
[3] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-10/there’s-no-way-the-abs-could-rule-out-a-hack:-experts/7712442

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Bungling the Australian Census

Russia’s Weakness Is Its Economic Policy

août 11th, 2016 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

According to various reports, the Russian government is reconsidering the neoliberal policy that has served Russia so badly since the collapse of the Soviet Union. If Russia had adopted an intelligent economic policy, Russia’s economy would be far ahead of where it stands today. It would have avoided most of the capital flight to the West by relying on self-finance.

Washington, however, took advantage of a naive, gullible and demoralized Russian government which looked to Washington for guidance in the post-Soviet era. Russians thought that the rivalry between the two countries had ended with the Soviet collapse and trusted American advice to modernize the Russian economy with best-practice Western ideas. Instead, Washington abused this trust to saddle Russia with an economic policy designed to carve up Russian economic assets and transfer ownership into foreign hands. By tricking Russia into accepting foreign capital and exposing the ruble to currency speculation, Washington made sure that the US could destabalize Russia with capital outflows and assaults on the ruble’s exchange value. Only a government unfamiliar with the neoconservative aim of US world hegemony would have exposed its economic system to such foreign manipulation.

The sanctions that Washington imposed – and forced Europe to impose – on Russia show how neoliberal economics works against Russia. The policy’s call for high interest rates and austerity sank the Russian economy – needlessly. The ruble was knocked down by capital outflows, resulting in the neoliberal central bank squandering Russia’s foreign reserves in an effort to support the ruble but actually supported capital flight.

Even Vladimir Putin finds attractive the romantic notion of a global economy to which every country has equal access. But the problems resulting from neoliberal policy forced him to turn to import substitution in order to make the Russian economy less dependent on imports. It also made Putin realize that if Russia were to have one foot in the Western economic order, it needed to have the other foot in the new economic order being constructed with China, India, and former central Asian Soviet republics.

Neoliberal economics prescribes a dependency policy that relies on foreign loans and foreign investment. This policy creates foreign currency debt and foreign ownership of Russian profits. These are dangerous vulnerabilities for a nation declared by Washington to be “an existential threat to the US.”

The economic establishment that Washington set up for Russia is neoliberal. The head of the central bank Elvira Nabiullina, minister of economic development Alexei Ulyukayev, and the current and former finance ministers, Anton Siluanov and Alexei Kudrin, are doctrinaire neoliberals. This crowd wanted to deal with Russia’s budget deficit by selling public assets to foreigners. If actually carried through, this policy would give Washington more control over Russia’s economy.

Opposed to this collection of “junk economists,” stands Sergey Glaziev. Boris Titov and Andrei Klepach are reported to be his allies.This group understands that neoliberal policies make Russia’s economy susceptible to destabilization by Washington if the US wants to punish the Russian government for not following Washington’s foreign policy. Their aim is to promote a more self-sufficient Russia in order to protect the nation’s sovereignty and the government’s ability to act in Russia’s national interests rather than subjugate these interests to those of Washington. The neoliberal model is not a development model, but is purely extractive. Americans have characterized it as making Russia or other dependencies “hewers of wood and drawers of water” – or in Russia’s case, oil, gas, platinum and diamonds.

Self-sufficiency means not being import dependent or dependent on foreign capital for investment that could be financed by Russia’s central bank. It also means strategic parts of the economy remaining in public, not private, hands. Basic infrastructure services should be provided to the economy at cost, on a subsidized basis or freely, not turned over to foreign owners to extract monopoly rent. Glaziev also wants the ruble’s exchange value to be set by the central bank, not by speculators in the currency market.

Neoliberal economists do not acknowledge that the economic development of a nation with natural resource endowments such as Russia has can be financed by the central bank creating the money required to undertake the projects. They pretend that this would be inflationary. Neoliberals deny the long-recognized fact that, in terms of the quantity of money, it makes no difference whether the money comes from the central bank or from private banks creating money by making loans or from abroad. The difference is that if money comes from private banks or from abroad, interest must be paid to the banks, and profits have to be shared with foreign investors, who end up with some control over the economy.Apparently, Russia’s neoliberals are insensitive to the threat that Washington and its European vassals pose to the Russian state. On the basis of lies Washington has imposed economic sanctions on Russia. This political demonization is as fictitious as is the neoliberal economic propaganda. On the basis of such lies, Washington is building up military forces and missile bases on Russia’s borders and in Russian waters. Washington seeks to overthrow former Russian or Soviet provinces and install regimes hostile to Russia, as in Ukraine and Georgia. Russia is continually demonized by Washington and NATO. Washington even politicized the Olympic games and prevented the participation of many Russian athletes.

Despite these overt hostile moves against Russia, Russian neoliberals still believe that the economic policies that Washington urges on Russia are in Russia’s interest, not intended to gain control of its economy. Hooking Russia’s fate to Western hegemony under these conditions would doom Russian sovereignty.

 

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Russia’s Weakness Is Its Economic Policy

« We do not disclose details of all ongoing operations, (says the MoD), as disclosure would prejudice the security of the Armed Forces.” This is the stock answer given to any journalist attempting to enquire why it is that Britain is officially not at war with any country yet combat troops, special forces, fighter bombers and killer drones operate as though the opposite was true.

In 2011, as parliament was asked to approve military deployment in Libya, William Hague, Secretary of State at the time, promised that the government would “enshrine in law for the future the necessity of consulting parliament on military action”.

This was supposedly to be an historic pledge – the first time the House of Commons’ role in the very serious decisions the government takes on war and peace was to be formalised. Clearly, there was no appetite for world peace. Frenzied lobbyists for weapons manufacturers got to work, soon after, members of parliament whose pensions depend in part on war dropped Hague’s proposal.

Five years later, thousands of British servicemen and women are now serving in some of the world’s most dangerous war zones against countries we are not at war with, and all without the consent of the British people. Much of the mainstream media will have you believe that parliament is being left in the dark when it comes to British troops in active service in dangerous war-zones such as HEREHEREHERE or HERE but as you will read, this article is made up entirely of media reports that members of parliament can read for themselves.

Ukraine: Global Research reported over a year ago that “US President Barack Obama revealed the United States’ involvement in the Ukrainian crisis from its outset and admitted that the United States “had brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine.” For clarity the report went further: “Obama’s statement is reiterating something that the world public opinion already knew — the US was involved in the coup of [ex-Ukrainian President] Viktor Yanukovych from the start.

To help the transition from democratically elected president to a Neo-Nazi government populated by extreme fascists, British troops arrived…to help them. And as Ukraine Today reported just six months ago “Britain has recently announced its plans to sign a 15-year military co-operation pact with Ukraine. According to the agreement British troops will carry out ‘training missions’ with Ukrainian troops and the two countries will share intelligence data.”

It’s Good to know Britain’s government and top military brass are happy to facilitate fascism on the doorstep of Europe. This was confirmed again when Britain actively voted for Ukraine to adopt a roadmap for its ascension into the European Union. Fortunately, this plan was scuppered (reported by RT) by Germany and France along with Austria, Belgium and the Netherlands who have made it clear this should never happen. Entry to the EU could have turned Ukraine into a NATO member that would turn relations with Russia from dire to deadly.

Syria: British journalist Dan Glazebrook reported for RT that “British special forces are now in direct combat roles in Syria. The Times also reported June 6th; “UK special forces take frontline role in Syria” and confirmation was made that this was not for ‘training’ purposes as widely reported by other mainstream media outlets. It was reported that British troops were equipped with anti-tank missiles, machine guns and sniper rifles – ready for full combat duties.

The deployment of ‘special forces’ does not require the sanction of parliament in Britain, therefore circumventing the need for parliamentary permission.

Iraq: On 30th June we learn via The Telegraph that the UK’s Defence Secretary, ordered a ‘training team’ of soldiers as well as a squadron of engineers and air base guards to join the British effort in the country. British army engineers are also there longer term in support. Britain is effectively opting for a long-term military presence in Iraq, even though political pressure to withdraw ‘fully and completely’ was confirmed by the last troops leaving May 2011 after a 7-year bloodbath based on lies and deception. No debate has taken place about Britain’s new role in the war-torn country that British journalist Felicity Arbuthnot described some time ago with pin-point accuracy as “sliding from the impossible, to the apocalyptic”.

Afghanistan: The Guardian reported on July 9th that “At a Nato summit in Poland, the prime minister’s deputy official spokesman said the UK would be increasing the size of its mission and delaying the departure of the last remaining forces in the country sometime into 2017.” Contrary to the government position that all troops had left Afghanistan in 2014 after thirteen years of fighting, we learn that in fact not all troops had actually left the country and that what remained is to be increased, without a new withdrawal deadline.

Libya: In April 2011, David Cameron formally stated that he had “ruled out an international invasion of Libya to remove Muammar Gaddafi.” Allies had to look at “what more can we do to protect civilian life and to stop Gaddafi’s war machine unleashing such hell on his own people”, he said. The international effort to bomb Libya into submission was subsequently led largely by Britain and France and ended with Cameron grand-standing in Tripoli’s Martyrs Square January 2013 declaring victory and committing wholehearted support of the Libyan people. What Britain unleashed was exactly described so well by Cameron’s own words – ‘hell on its people’. This, the richest nation per capita in Africa, with less poverty than Denmark, free health-care and education and the longest life span on the continent – all gone.

As Africa’s Mail&Guardian reported just a few months back Cameron’s victory has led to what is now seen as a growing ISIS stronghold as “Islamic State sees Libya as its most promising safe haven. As the spread of the terror group is stemmed and then rolled back in Iraq and Syria, it is relocating key combatants to Libya.” The Times and Telegraph both confirmed that the result of removing Gaddafi has led to a disastrous security vacuum in Libya.

In May this year, Britain sent troops just for protection purposes. The Defence Secretary went public to formally state Britain has not engaged troops in Libya. Days later ‘special forces’ were in combat on the front-line. Since then we learn from the media that at least 1,000 British troops were deployed just to defend oil fields, let alone fight in the battlefields.

North Africa: It now appears that British army chiefs have authorised the deployment of bomb disposal personnel across North Africa. There is a growing prominence of Islamic State in Libya that is now spreading across the region much to the alarm of European politicians who are very worried by the strong possibility of a terrorist launch pad being fully established just across the Mediterranean from Europe’s mainland.

Yemen: There have been many reports of Britain’s SAS (again ‘Special Forces’) operating in Yemen. . The Guardian also reported a few months back that British personnel serving in Yemen said a Special Reconnaissance Regiment (another special forces unit), seconded to MI6, were training Yemeni forces who were fighting al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsular. The full extent of British forces deployment is, as yet, publicly at least, unclear.

Europe: The deployment of a 500-strong battalion to Estonia with a further company of 150 troops to be stationed in Poland “on an enduring basis” was announced by the government just last month in a bid to let Russia’s President Putin that we mean business if they attacked any member nation of NATO. Troops will be backed up with RAF Typhoon fighter jets in eastern Europe.

Drone Attacks: Drone Wars UK  reported recently that “Analysis of data released by the Ministry of Defence shows that British air strikes in Iraq and Syria in the first half of the year increased by 85% over the previous six months.” Drone Wars UK is an archive of British bombing activity across the whole mid-east region including Pakistan, Somalia and the like. But it doesn’t end there as Palestinian’s found out during Israel’s ‘Operation Protective Edge’ that slaughtered thousands two years ago. One method of delivering that carnage was by the use of British made attack drones armed with British munitions and serviced and maintained by British personnel.

What is striking about all this covert military activity is that Parliament has not formally been informed about any of these deployments, let alone been given the opportunity to debate them, or indeed to work out if any military action is in the best interests of Britain or the British people. It now appears that the only strategy operating is not pro-active but more reactive as the results of our ill-advised strategy (of slavishly adhering to Washington’s demands) to destabilise the middle east unravels into the blood-soaked disaster that it is today.

What followed was inevitable; a refugee crisis that is actually worse than that of WW2 . It is now known that 60 million innocent people have been driven from their homes, families and communities by the actions of politicians with an agenda and frankly, not a damned clue or care for the misery inflicted. The rise of terrorism on our doorsteps is just as inevitable for the decades ahead.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Britain Not Officially at War but Fully Engaged on the Front-Line of Deadly War Zones

Russian Tu-22M3 strategic bombers have destroyed an Islamic State chemical weapons factory and killed numerous personnel with concentrated high-explosive munitions airstrikes around the terrorist stronghold Raqqa in Syria.

Six long-range Tu-22M3s (NATO reporting name: Blinder) took off from airfields in Russia and, having passed through the airspace of several countries, attacked Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) terrorist installations southeast, north, and northwest of the city of Raqqa.

The bombers were escorted by Sukhoi Su-35C fighter jets and Su-30SM fighter-bomber jets that took off from Khmeimim airbase in Syria’s Latakia province.

All of the aircraft successfully returned to their respective bases.

The bombers carried out devastating airstrikes in several locations, eliminating a plant producing chemical munitions in a northwestern suburb of Raqqa, as well as a large warehouse containing weapons, munitions and fuel close to the city, and a large Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) field training camp.

The airstrikes inflicted multiple casualties on the terrorist forces, Russia’s Defense Ministry reports, citing drone surveillance.

On Monday, August 8, long-range Russian bombers destroyed IS targets near Palmyra, Syria. Six Tu-22M3s carried out airstrikes near the settlements of Es Sukhne and Arak, eliminating a terrorist control center, an underground munitions and weaponry dump, fighting infantry vehicles, and off-roaders mounted with heavy machine guns, along with a large number of enemy personnel.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Russian Bombers Destroy ISIS Chemical Weapons Plant near Raqqa, Syria

From the ancient Acropolis in Athens, to the city in the sky in Peru; the only time many people hear about UNESCO – the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization – is in relation to their world heritage programme. What must be documented however, are the views and opinions of UNESCO’s first Director-General, Julian Huxley.

Born in London in 1887, Huxley (pictured to the left) was an evolutionary biologist, philosopher, author and internationalist, who served as the head of UNESCO from 1946 to 1948. The brother of Brave New World author, Aldous Huxley, and the grandson of “Darwin’s bulldog,” Thomas Henry Huxley, the former UNESCO chief was from a family deeply entrenched within the British elite. Huxley was also a founding member of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), in addition to being an influential figure in popularising the movement of transhumanism.

HUxleuuBut what most concerns us here is his devotion to the religion of the global elite; namely eugenics. Huxley was a prominent member of the British Eugenics Society, serving both as vice-president and president of the society in his lifetime. He wrote numerous essays throughout his life, writing extensively on eugenics and the need to depopulate the planet. In a 1964 essay titled: The Humanist Frame, the former UNESCO head reveals his desire to decrease the global population:

The world has to achieve the difficult task of reversing the direction of its thought about population. It has to begin thinking that our aim should be not increase but decrease – immediate decrease in the rate of population-growth; and in the long run, decrease in the absolute number of people in the world.

In another essay titled: The Crowded World, Huxley is even more explicit in stating his views. He argues that “eugenics can make an important contribution to man’s further evolution,” and that the human race must discourage “genetically defective or inferior types from breeding.” He then moves on to call for the “regulation and control of human numbers,” in addition to a “world population policy:”

Above all we need a world population policy – not at some unspecified date in the future, but now… We want all the international agencies of the U.N. to have a population policy.

Huxley believed that UNESCO should play a pivotal role in advancing the cause of eugenics, writing in a 1946 paper titled: UNESCO, its Purpose and its Philosophy:

At the moment, it is probable that the indirect effect of civilisation is dysgenic instead of eugenic; and in any case it seems likely that the dead weight of genetic stupidity, physical weakness, mental instability, and disease-proneness, which already exist in the human species, will prove too great a burden for real progress to be achieved. Thus even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable. (p.21).

The UN and Population Control

UNESCO is just one agency of the UN, with many other departments advocating population control – including the UN Population Fund. Many top UN officials have been vocal proponents of reducing the world’s population, often citing the faux issue of man-made global warming as the justification. In 2013 for instance, the Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC), Christiana Figueres, stated that “we should make every effort” to reduce the world’s population.

A resolution adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1997 once again reveals the desire of the UN to depopulate the planet (emphasis added):

On a more positive note, population growth rates have been declining globally, largely as a result of expanded basic education and health care. That trend is projected to lead to a stable world population in the middle of the twenty-first century (8.)… The current decline in population growth rates must be further promoted through national and international policies that promote economic development, social development, environmental protection, and poverty eradication, particularly the further expansion of basic education, with full and equal access for girls and women, and health care, including reproductive health care, including both family planning and sexual health, consistent with the report of the International Conference on Population and Development (30.).

But how can the elite reduce the global population? In reality, there are very few (if any) viable ways to morally and humanely reduce the world’s population, without engaging in genocidal and nefarious polices. Covertly sterilizing people would of course be one of the most nefarious strategies for depopulating the planet, but also one of the most effective strategies at the disposal of the psychopathic elite.

In 2014, the Kenya Catholic Doctors Association (KCDA) accused UNICEF and the World Health Organisation (WHO) ofsterilizing millions of girls and women through an anti-tetanus vaccination program. The KCDA claims that the vaccines had an undeclared anti-fertility agent added to them. Muhame Ngare, the spokesperson for the KCDA, stated that: “This WHO campaign is not about eradicating neonatal tetanus, but a well-coordinated forceful population control mass sterilization exercise using a proven fertility regulating vaccine.”

Many individuals around the world strongly suspect that the primary objective of certain vaccination initiatives is to covertly depopulate the planet. This argument was further strengthened in 2010, when Bill Gates – the head of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which funds a plethora of vaccination initiates across the planet (including Gavi) – gave a talk at the 2010 TED conference. In the talk, Gates stated that “vaccines” are one tool that could be used for global population control:

First we’ve got population. The world today has 6.8 billion people; that’s heading up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really good job on new vaccines, health care [and] reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent (4.30 into the video).

Despite many departments of the UN seeming benign and altruistic, there are far more nefarious forces at play than initially meets the eye. Huxley was one of the ideological founders of UNESCO and the UN in general, with his malevolent views concerning population control and eugenics shared by many individuals who are currently part of the global elite.

Steven MacMillan is an independent writer, geopolitical analyst and editor of  The Analyst Report. 

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur UNESCO’s First Director-General Advocated Global Population Control

NYT Insinuates Trump Wants Hillary Assassinated

août 11th, 2016 by Stephen Lendman

Times anti-Trump propaganda reached a new low with an August 9 article, editorial and commentary

Its propaganda turned truth on its head, suggesting Trump wants “gun rights supporters…tak(ing) matters into their own hands” by assassinating Clinton if she prevails in November.

What prompted such outrageous rubbish? At an August 9 North Carolina rally, he said “Hillary wants to abolish the Second Amendment…If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do folks.”

Later on Fox News, he called gun owner rights “a strong powerful movement, the Second Amendment.”

Hillary wants to take your guns away. She wants to leave you unprotected in your home. This is a tremendous political movement. The NRA, as you know, endorsed me.

They’re terrific people…They agree 100% with what I said. And there can be no other interpretation. Even reporters have told me. I mean, give me a break.

In no way did his remarks suggest wanting Hillary assassinated – nothing indicating he wants her harmed in any way. Led by deplorable NYT reporting, the insinuation blasted across the media suggested otherwise.

Times editors disgraced themselves headlining “Further Into the Muck With Mr. Trump,” willfully lying, saying “Americans find themselves asking whether Donald Trump has called for the assassination of Hillary Clinton.”

Only easily manipulated ones, carpet-bombed by Times and similar rot insinuating it, blasting him round-the-clock on cable television, waging war by other means, willfully mischaracterizing everything he says, expressing one-sided support for Hillary.

Times editors ended their anti-Trump rant, calling on “Republicans…to repudiate Mr. Trump once and for all.”

Journalism Professor Robert Jensen once called Times columnist Tom Friedman “scary (featuring) underinflated insights, twisted metaphors, second-rate thinking, third-rate writing (and) hack journalis(m).”

On August 9, he disgracefully bashed Trump, calling him “illegitimate…a threat to the nation…the equivalent of a Nazi war criminal,” saying his “ambiguous wink wink to Second Amendment people” is the stuff that got former “Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin…assassinated.”

Jensen should have added he’s paid big bucks to lie, supporting war goddess Hillary while calling Trump “a disgusting human being…The likes of (him) should never come this way again.”

The disturbing irony of accusing Trump of wanting Hillary assassinated is unsupported by anything violent in his background. Whereas her orchestrated Libya and Syria wars, along with support for all other US ones since the 1990s slaughtered millions of defenseless human beings with the same right to life as herself.

Of all presidential aspirants in US history, she’s by far the most despicable, ruthless and dangerous, crucial to keep from succeeding Obama – politically, not violently.

I’ll repeat what I’ve said before about The Times. All the news it calls fit to print isn’t fit to read!!

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. »

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

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 NYT Insinuates Trump Wants Hillary Assassinated

What CIA Director Michael Hayden Told President-Elect Barack Obama

août 11th, 2016 by World Socialist Web Site

As part of the anti-Trump offensive of Republican former national security officials working in conjunction with the presidential campaign of Democrat Hillary Clinton, former CIA and NSA director Michael Hayden has been playing a particularly aggressive role.

The Clinton campaign and its media propagandists, first and foremost the New York Times, have enthusiastically embraced this architect of the Bush administration’s CIA torture program and the mass spying on the American people exposed in 2013 by Edward Snowden. This in itself is an indisputable indicator of the right-wing, war-mongering character of a future Clinton administration.

On Wednesday, the Times published an op-ed piece by Hayden titled “Classified Briefings and Candidates,” which argued that giving a President Trump access to the secrets and conspiracies of the US intelligence agencies would be a high-risk proposition with potentially serious consequences for US imperialist enterprises around the world.

The column includes two extraordinary paragraphs. The first reflects the combination of arrogance and contempt with which the unelected “deep state,” of which the CIA is a part, looks upon those more ephemeral figures elected to high office by the voters. The second is a blunt account of Hayden’s first briefing in November 2008 of President-elect Barack Obama and Vice President-elect Joe Biden.

Here are the paragraphs:

« The briefings themselves will be intense. The president-elect will be shown great deference personally, but his or her campaign positions could be treated more harshly. This is the chance for the intelligence professionals to set the record, as they see it, straight.

« I had my own experience. After Election Day in 2008, I was briefing Mr. Obama on CIA renditions when Joseph R. Biden Jr., the vice president-elect, interrupted to observe that the agency had conducted that program—which entailed sending suspected terrorists to third countries—simply to “rough them up.” I rejected the contention and advised him that he needed to stop saying that. I haven’t heard him say it again. »

In the latter paragraph, Hayden quite openly refers to the CIA program that included systematic torture at CIA “black sites” around the world. He makes no bones about the program or his role in it. He brags of having silenced the impudent Mr. Biden and put him in his place.

Among other things, this little tale demonstrates that Obama and Biden knew about the CIA program of abductions and torture from day one and kept their mouths shut, concealing the existence of this illegal and criminal program from the American people.

At the onset of his administration, Obama announced that he would not seek to prosecute Bush administration officials for criminal actions either abroad or at home. That may be the only promise he has kept.

There is a postscript. The Senate Intelligence Committee conducted an investigation of the CIA torture program and drafted a detailed and voluminous report documenting its sordid operation and its cover-up by CIA and Bush administration officials. The 6,000-page report was approved by the committee in December of 2012, but the CIA and the Obama administration blocked its release.

In March of 2014, Senator Dianne Feinstein, at the time the chair of the intelligence committee, made an extraordinary appearance in the well of the Senate chamber to denounce Obama’s CIA director, John Brennan, for having hacked into the computers of intelligence committee investigators as part of his efforts to disrupt their work and block their report. This, she explained, was a violation of federal law and the constitutional separation of powers.

The White House sided with Brennan, who was never prosecuted or reprimanded, and finally, in December of 2014, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a 525-page declassified, redacted summary of its report. It is an official US government account of criminal activities at the highest levels of the state.

With the help of Feinstein and company, and a corrupt media, the report disappeared from the news and public view almost as soon as it was released.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur What CIA Director Michael Hayden Told President-Elect Barack Obama

It’s really 19th century behavior in the 21st century. You just don’t invade another country on phony pretexts in order to assert your interests. (Secretary of State, John Kerry, “Meet the Press”, 2nd March 2014.)

Were it not so serious it would be hilarious. The British have voted to leave the European Union on the basis of the combination of a pack of lies by Government Ministers backing the “out” campaign and a whipped up xenophobia about all those “foreigners” taking jobs, homes, places on public transport etc. A truly shameful throwback to the era of hotels and boarding houses exhibiting signs saying: “No dogs, no blacks, no Irish.” Now they would add: “and no Europeans, no Arabs, no Muslims – only UK passport holders”, were the garbage in the media and spewed by the “Outers” to be believed.

Targets of especially vicious denigration are “illegal immigrants.” Never mind many have fled for their lives, risking their all, from regions the UK has enjoined in destroying, hardly in a position to garner the right paperwork, renew or apply for passport, thinking they will at least find a safe haven on entry. They are treated like criminals and sneered at by a swathe of politicians. They “threaten our way of life” is the political mantra. RIP humanity.

Actually our “way of life” is kept going by those who surmount the bureaucratic hurdles. Before their arrival there were no shops open from 6 a.m., to midnight, take-away food outlets of every culinary culture, ditto restaurants. High streets across the country where “immigrants” have staked their all to somehow buy a premises and gradually build it, working all hours to create a pharmacy, food store, appliance store with handymen on call to fit your choice of item and numerous creative enterprises.

Post Brexit the xenophobia has been targeted at all these, as indeed the surgeons, doctors and nurses who staff the hospitals with dedication twenty four hours a day from all over the world, now wondering if the life they have built from their dedication in and to the UK will survive.

We want our country back” is the political-led cry, by Minsters and politicians who are served by a waiter from another country, whose food is cooked by a chef from elsewhere, whose expensive hotel room is cleaned, sheets changed by another prepared to work hours, often for minimum wage, few Britons would even consider.

So contrast this with the UK government considering it has the absolute right to send illegal immigrants: “ … carrying an arsenal of equipment including sniper rifles, heavy machine guns and anti-tank missiles” (1) to another country approaching four thousand kilometres away to “threaten their way of life.

The illegals are UK Special Forces, in Syria to assist the “moderate” head chopping, hand chopping, child-decapitating “rebels.” This gang, known as the New Syrian Army (NSA) have reportedly been trained by the US and UK in Jordan and are fighting US and allied spawned and funded ISIL. Note the surely US inspired name, the: “The New Syrian Army” – the US-friendly terrorists formed by the US in 2015 – surely intended to replace the State’s national, multi-ethnic, Syrian Arab Army (SAA.)

Let it never be forgotten that the entire fake “uprising” was engineered by the US Embassy in Damascus in 2006. (2)

In June this year, according to The Telegraph (3) a presumably self-styled “First Lieutenant” Mahmoud al-Saleh, of the NSA told The Times that he was being assisted by Special Forces: “They helped us with logistics, like building defences to make the bunkers safe,” he said.

Back in May, when an ISIL “armoured vehicle packed with explosives” killed eleven NSA members and injured seventeen others: “The wounded were flown in American helicopters to Jordan. The suicide attack damaged the structure of the al-Tanf base, with British troops crossing from Jordan to help them to rebuild their defences.”

According to The Telegraph: ‘The New Syrian Army’s spokesman refused to comment on the pictures of the Special Forces but acknowledged that they are helping. He told the BBC: “We are receiving special forces training from our British and American partners. We’re also getting weapons and equipment from the Pentagon as well as complete air support.”

Note the “British and American partners.” Was perfidy ever more perfidious? If in doubt, note the following also from The Telegraph:

The NSA emerged from a $500 million Pentagon programme aimed to create a well-trained rebel force to take on ISIL. However the project was abandoned after the first trained unit sent into Syria was kidnapped by the al-Qaeda-affiliated Nusra Front. A second batch of trainees defected and gave their weapons away.

Yet another Pentagon own goal.

Interestingly, The Guardian (4) reminds that the BBC: “ … images depict British special forces sitting on Thalab long-range patrol vehicles as they move around the perimeter of a rebel base close to the Syria-Iraq border.

The Thalab (Fox) vehicles are essentially modified, militarised and upgraded Toyota 4x4s used for long distance reconnaissance and surveillance missions, which were developed jointly in the middle of the last decade by a state-backed defence company in Jordan and the UK company Jankel.

The vehicles are surely coincidentally, not unlike like the long convoys of 4x4s so memorably depicted being driven by ISIL/ISIS. (5)

US Captain Scott Rye denied that a number of the NSA, paid up to $400 a month by the Pentagon (6) had left for contractual reasons. “He said that, while U.S. officials had been clear the program was to train fighters to combat Islamic State, the only document participants had to sign was one committing them to promote respect for human rights and the rule of law, a mandate issued by the U.S. Congress.” (Emphasis added.) This from the military representative of a nation to whom human rights and the rule of law has become a distant memory.

Yet another from the: “you could not make this up” file. The UK with it’s State xenophobia against immigrants, especially “illegal”, whatever the circumstances, the US with it’s 930 kilometres (580 miles) of barriers blocking their Southern neighbours from entry – send illegal immigrants on official US-UK government business in to another country to murder and to train people to murder and to overthrow yet another sovereign government.

When someone invents better words than “criminal”, “hypocrisy”, “mass murder”, please let me know.

Notes

1.  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk- 37015915

2.  http://www.globalresearch.ca/ syria-and-conspiracy-theories- it-is-a-conspiracy/29596

3.  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ news/2016/08/08/british- special-forces-pictured-on- front-line-in-syria-for-first/ ?WTmcid=tmgoff_soc_spf_fb&WT. mc_id=sf32843342

4.  https://www.theguardian.com/ uk-news/2016/aug/09/pictures- appear-to-show-british- special-forces-on-syrian- front-line

5.  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/ news/article-3262837/U-S- officials-demand-answers- Toyota-convoys-carmaker-s- trucks-SUVs-appear-ISIS- videos.html

6.  http://mobile.reuters.com/ article/idUSKBN0P22BX20150622

 

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur The Criminality of American and British Illegal Immigrants in Syria

It’s an all too common tale of dirty deeds, shady deals and propaganda. Rosemary Mason’s recent open letter to journalists at The Guardian outlines how the media is failing the public by not properly reporting on the regulatory delinquency relating to GM food and the harmful chemicals being applied to crops. Much of the media is even (unwittingly) acting as a propaganda arm for big agritech companies.

An open ‘Letter from America’ was penned in November 2014 warning countries in Europe and EU regulators not to authorise (chemical-dependent) GM crops because of the devastating effects on human health and the environment. Mason notes that David Cameron ignored that advice. The European Commission and the European Food Safety Authority also ignored it and have continued to allow GM into food and feed in the EU and sanction the ongoing use of dangerous pesticides.

While there is undoubtedly good work being carried out by individual journalists in this area, Mason feels the media should be doing more to hold officials to account and should report more accurately on the consequences of the genetic modification of food as well as the effects of agrochemicals.

Instead, there seems to be an agenda to confuse the public or to push these issues to one side. From BBC Panorama’s pro-GM programme last year, which was full of falsehoods and misrepresentations, to messages about ‘lifestyle choices’ being the main determinant of poor health, Mason implies that too many journalists are reinforcing the pesticides industry’s assertion that cancers are caused by alcohol use and that the catalogue of diseases now affecting modern society comes down to individual choice.

Mason stresses that the media constantly link alcohol consumption with seven forms of cancer and this ‘fact’ is endlessly reinforced until people are brainwashed and believe it to be true. This, she argues, neatly diverts attention from the strong links between the increasing amounts of chemicals used in food and agriculture and serious diseases, including cancers.

She goes on to document how international and national health and food agencies have dismissed key studies and findings in their assessments of the herbicide glyphosate, and she provides much evidence that the chemical industry (not just the agritech sector) has created a toxic environment from which no one can escape. These agencies are guilty of regulatory delinquency due to (among other things, scientific fraud) conflicts of interest, which has enabled transnational agritech companies to dodge effective regulation by public institutions that, despite claims to the contrary, are anything but independent.

A combination of propaganda disseminated by industry front groups and conflicts of interest effectively allow dangerous chemicals and GMOs into the food chain and serve to keep the public in the dark about what is taking place and the impacts on their health.

Mason outlines how the industry set out to discredit the ‘Seralini study’ (highlighting adverse health impacts of glyphosate – the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup – and GMOs) and describes how the Science Media Centre (SMC) in the UK did its utmost to prevent the British public from hearing about negative reports and studies concerning Monsanto and GMO technology. The UK SMC was fulfilling its remit to prevent a repeat of incidents such as the uncritical reporting in 1998 of the claim made by Árpád Pusztai that rats fed on GM potatoes had stunted growth and a repressed immune system.

In France, Seralini’s study was front page news but, according to Mason, journalists in the UK were manipulated and given little time to develop a potentially negative commentary. After the research was published, Professor Séralini was attacked by a vehement campaign orchestrated from within the industry as well as the industry-financed SMC.

Mason also documents how scientific fraud and corruption have also helped to fuel pro-GMO propaganda and get big agitech companies off the hook for their dangerous products. These companies have effectively coopted key academics and officials to do their bidding.

To reinforce her point, Mason cites William Engdahl to highlight the levels of collusion between the EU and the agritech sector over the reassessment of glyphosate. This exposed to the general public, for the first time in such a clear manner, the degree of corruption in not only Brussels but also in the so-called scientific bodies that advise it on what is safe and what not.

As with many of her previous open letters to officials and agencies, Mason cites an impressive array of evidence and studies to support her arguments. Readers are urged to read her letter in full: Open Letter to The Guardian. The letter was originally addressed to the editor-in-chief but has since been sent to other journalists at The Guardian.

Mason has been a tireless campaigner against harmful pesticides and GMOs for many years and has placed all of her correspondence with governments and regulators on the Academia.edu site – a platform for academics to share research papers and preview papers. She has done this to provide open access to information that will help the public to hold agencies and individuals to account over their willingness to sacrifice human health by using flawed science and corrupt practices in order to boost corporate profits.

In a little over five years, Mason has written and sent 36 documents to various agencies urging them to act. She has however received few replies. She did get a reply from the President of the National Farmers Union who wrote to defend the right of farmers to use chemicals to protect their crops, even though she had informed him (citing relevant evidence) that they were damaging the brains of children in Britain.

She has occasionally received brief responses from other officials who have effectively implied ‘move on, nothing to discuss’, despite the strong (peer-reviewed) studies and evidence used to support her case.

What Mason describes in her open letter is not unique to the UK or Europe. The model of chemical-intensive industrialised food and agriculture she alludes to is being rolled out across the globe thanks to the capture and cooptation of various international agencies and decision-making bodies at the national level.

Whether through strings-attached loans, rigged trade rules or corrupt trade agreements and intellectual property rights regimes co-written by powerful corporations, the result is a model of corporate-controlled, chemically drenched agriculture that leads to degraded soils, unsustainable pressure on (increasingly polluted) water resources, increased vulnerability to drought, less diverse diets, nutrient-deficient crops, the destruction of livelihoods, the undermining of local food security and the displacement of indigenous farming as well as the globalisation of bad food and poor health.

Although it may appear to be a case of ‘business as usual’ for industry and its well-funded lobbyists (whose ubiquitous presence in Brussels effectively puts paid to any credible  notion of ‘democracy’) and scientists, the pressure from various groups and tireless individuals like Rosemary Mason to hold the agritech cartel to account is incessant.

Aside from accessing Mason’s reports and open letters on the Academia.edu site, readers can consult the stream of reports listed on the Corporate Europe Observatory website that document how industry is contaminating our food, destroying our health and adversely impacting the environment, while certain officials facilitate the process.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Media Silence and the Agrochemicals Industry: The Slow Poisoning of Health and the Environment

Three Damning New Reports on Hillary Clinton

août 11th, 2016 by Stephen Lendman

So much scandalous stuff about her is known, it’s just a matter of time before the next shoe drops.

Instead of exposing her as unfit to serve, media scoundrels express one-sided support, focusing instead on bashing Trump, the most irresponsible denunciation of a presidential aspirant in US history.

Judicial Watch (JW) is a conservative watchdog organization, “promot(ing) transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law.”

On August 9 and 10, it released three new damning reports on Hillary Clinton. One involved 296 pages of State Department records – including “44 email exchanges…not previously” disclosed to the department, raising the number to 171 – besides tens of thousands of others deleted to avoid disclosure.

JW findings contradict Clinton saying “as far as she knew” all government emails from her home-based private server were given to the State Department. She lied, compounding earlier willful deception – showing she’s untrustworthy, unfit to serve and criminally indictable.

What’s known from her emails is damning, showing special favors afforded wealthy Clinton Foundation donors, concealed influence selling now exposed.

As secretary of state, she pledged “(for) the duration of (her) appointment…not to participate personally and substantially in any particular matter involving specific parties in which the (Clinton Foundation or Clinton Global Initiative) is a party or represents a party.”

Damning emails showed she lied. According to JW president Tom Fitton, “(t)hey show the Clinton Foundation, Clinton donors, and operatives worked with Hillary Clinton in potential violation of the law.”

Earlier in March, May and June, JW released other newly discovered Clinton emails at the time, dating from January 2009 when she began her tenure as secretary of state.

They show she knew about the security risk of using her home server and personal BlackBerry for official government business. They include potentially indictable evidence relating to “the battle between security officials in the State Department, National Security Administration, Clinton and her staff,” said JW.

“In response to a court order in other Judicial Watch litigation, she declared under penalty of perjury that she had ‘directed that all my emails on clintonemail.com in my custody that were or are potentially federal records be provided to the Department of State, and on information and belief, this has been done.’ “

Newly released emails proved she lied. Can an exposed liar under oath on matters of state, guilty of perjury, be trusted to serve as US president and commander-in-chief of its military? Humanity trembles at the prospect.

A second JW report was about her involvement in New York City corruption, saying she, mayor De Blasio and developer Bruce Ratner “are carving up the city.”

It cited a Brooklyn-based Atlantic Yards project worth $5 billion, speculating on whether it’s “a giant boondoggle, generating torrents of cash for well-connected insiders.”

A third JW report included documents, showing Clinton’s then chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, was alerted in advance about the inquiry into her emails – giving her plenty of time to conceal what she didn’t want revealed.

“Earlier this year, the State Department Office of Inspector General concluded that (her response to its request) was ‘inaccurate and incomplete.’ “

JW’s Tom Fitton commented, saying

“(t)his is evidence that Cheryl Mills covered up Hillary Clinton’s email system. (She) allowed a response to go out that was a plain lie.”

“And you can bet if Cheryl Mills knew about this inquiry, then Hillary Clinton did, too. This is all the more reason for Mrs. Clinton to finally testify under oath about the key details of her email practices.”

Instead of a daily blizzard of irresponsible Trump bashing, damning JW-released information on Clinton, and plenty more like it from other sources, should be feature front page news daily – demanding she be held accountable.

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. » http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. 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 Three Damning New Reports on Hillary Clinton

Interrogé le 6 août sur ce qui se passait à Alep, le Général Amin Hoteit décrivait une situation que nous résumerons en ces quelques lignes : 

« À Alep se focalise le plan alternatif étatsunien en Syrie, les USA ayant conçu deux plans pour arriver à leurs fins. Le plan principal consistant à dominer toute la Syrie en remplaçant son gouvernement légitime par un régime suiviste ayant échoué, ils se sont rabattus sur le second ; lequel ne vise plus qu’à dominer le nord du pays. Ce qui signifie la partition de la Syrie suivant une ligne allant de Efrin à l’ouest, à Abou Kamal à l’est, en incluant Alep, Manbej, Raqqa, Deir ez-Zor… ; Alep devenant la capitale du nord et Damas la capitale du sud.

Une partition compromise du fait des derniers succès militaires de l’Armée syrienne et de ses alliés, lesquels ont réussi à assiéger complètement les terroristes opérant à partir des quartiers est d’Alep et à couper leur approvisionnement venu de Turquie qu’il ne faudrait pas croire, un seul instant, non concernée par l’afflux des moyens colossaux mis à leur disposition ; les USA et tous les États de l’OTAN mettant tout leur poids pour briser le siège des terroristes et sauver leur plan.

En effet, mis à part une guerre médiatique des plus féroces usant de l’éternel argument humanitaire des pauvres bougres de terroristes assiégés -lesquels n’auraient rompu aucune trêve bien que le négociateur en chef du « Groupe d’opposition de Riyad », Mohammad Allouche, ait déclaré qu’il allumerait tous les fronts à partir de Genève en avril dernier- et usant surtout de mensonges médiatiques à propos d’une prétendue défaite de l’Armée syrienne visant à faire tomber Alep psychologiquement avant de la faire tomber matériellement ; cinq vagues successives de terroristes ont été lancées contre Alep, avec 8000 attaquants pour la première, 5000 pour la deuxième, 7000 pour la troisième et encore 8000 pour la quatrième, concentrée sur deux axes au sud d’Alep » [1].

28 000 terroristes en moins d’une semaine ! Partant de là, que penser d’une information qui a envahi la presse écrite et télévisée, locale et régionale, ces trois derniers jours ? Il s’agit d’un article intitulé « 360 000 combattants étrangers ont combattu l’Armée syrienne », publié par un centre d’études dont l’acronyme est FCFS, pour « Firil Center For Studies » [2]. Nous n’avons pas réussi à savoir s’il s’agissait d’un centre simplement basé à Berlin ou d’un centre allemand. Il couvre la période du 10 avril 2011 au 31 janvier 2016 et dit avoir fondé son étude sur le nombre de morts publié par divers médias et 51 autres sources régionales et internationales.

En bref, ces 360 000 individus venus se défouler en Syrie par vagues successives sont de 93 nationalités et seraient issus de tous les continents et de tous les pays arabes sans exception. 95 000 auraient trouvé la mort et 90 000 seraient actuellement présents sur le territoire syrien, répartis entre Daech et Jabhat Fateh al-Cham [ex-Front al-Nosra depuis peu]. Environ 45 milliards de dollars auraient été dépensés pour leur équipée en Syrie.

Globalement, les porteurs de nationalités européenne et américaine auraient atteint les 21 500 dont 8500 seulement seraient retournés dans leur pays. La palme du plus grand nombre reviendrait aux porteurs de la nationalité turque, la Turquie ayant annoncé la perte de 350 soldats, officiers et pilotes, prétendument morts dans d’autres circonstances. Viennent ensuite les Saoudiens avec 5990 tués pour 24 500 engagés sous la bannière des organisations terroristes sévissant en Syrie ; les Jordaniens se chiffrant à 3900 dont 1990 tués. Quant aux femmes étrangères, ce sont les Tunisiennes qui l’emportent [NdT].

 ______________________________________________

Après ce qui s’est passé à Alep et qui continue, nul n’a encore le droit de se poser des questions sur ce qui se passe réellement en Syrie, malgré les allégations des uns et des autres, car la vérité a atteint le degré de certitude.

Qu’est-ce qui a donc tellement bouleversé les puissances occidentales et l’ensemble des organisations des Nations Unies au moment où l’Armée arabe syrienne réussissait à assiéger les terroristes avant de lancer sa bataille de libération pour les défaire et libérer cette magnifique ville millénaire de leur fureur ?

Pour quelles raisons ces vrais responsables ont-ils lâché leurs mercenaires sur la Syrie, les noyant dans un flot d’argent, d’armes et de munitions, alors que depuis des années les innombrables gangs de terroristes s’acharnent à ravager cette ville, bombardent ses quartiers, assassinent son peuple, pillent ses usines et dévastent ses monuments historiques reconnus héritage de l’humanité, dont la protection et la conservation est du devoir de tous ?

Pourquoi les puissances occidentales ont-elles été frappées d’une sorte d’hystérie, plus que flagrante, suite au décret d’amnistie promulgué par le Président Al-Assad et l’annonce de l’ouverture de couloirs de sécurité pour les civils qui voudraient sortir des quartiers d’Alep contrôlés par les terroristes; leurs déclarations furibondes fusant de toute part, leurs médias s’occupant à expliquer la nécessité de cesser le dialogue avec la Russie et de se décider, une fois pour toutes, à frapper directement l’Armée arabe syrienne et le Hezbollah sur le territoire syrien ?

Nombre de journaux ont, en effet, insisté sur cette nécessité d’« abandonner la politique du dialogue et de recourir uniquement à l’option militaire », dont le Washington Post et le New York Times, dans les pages duquel Dennis Ross, toujours et à jamais disposé à mettre sa plume au service de l’entité sioniste, est revenu pour dire qu’il était « enfin venu le temps de bombarder Assad » [3], afin d’éviter que la situation n’évolue en faveur de l’Armée arabe syrienne :

[Il existe une alternative : punir le gouvernement syrien pour avoir violé la trêve en frappant par des drones et des missiles de croisière les bases, les aérodromes et les positions de l’artillerie de l’Armée arabe syrienne, là où les troupes russes sont absentes… Il est temps pour les États-Unis d’utiliser la langue que M. Assad et M. Poutine comprennent…] ; [Ndt].

Et nombre d’organisations des Nations Unies ont invité à des dizaines de réunions extraordinaires afin d’aiguiser le sens du danger de ce qui se passe à Alep sur l’équilibre des choses, alors que la question est : qui défend qui dans cette ville meurtrie mais toujours résiliente ?

L’analyse objective des déclarations de responsables occidentaux, avec à leur tête Obama, et d’un grand nombre de publications des médias occidentaux largement diffusées à partir du moment où l’Armée arabe syrienne et ses alliés ont commencé à réaliser des progrès significatifs susceptibles de libérer Alep de ces hordes terroristes, ne démontre-t-elle pas que tous ceux-là rendent service au terrorisme et aux terroristes et travaillent à prolonger l’effusion du sang syrien par ces déchets de mercenaires, lesquels ne sont finalement que des pions manipulés par les sionistes, les réactionnaires arabes et l’impérialisme ?

C’est sans aucune honte qu’ils usent de tous les prétextes en omettant de dire que la libération d’Alep réglerait la guerre contre la Syrie en faveur du peuple syrien et de ses alliés, alors qu’il est désormais très clair qu’ils tentent de marquer des points sur le terrain en exploitant des terroristes qu’ils aimeraient substituer au gouvernement syrien.

Ce qui prouve, sans aucun doute possible, que l’Occident sait parfaitement qu’il n’y a pas d’« opposition modérée » et, surtout, qu’il n’éprouve aucune honte à soutenir, en plein jour, les gangs de sanguinaires qui tuent des civils dans notre pays depuis plus de cinq ans.

Ce qui prouve, toujours sans aucun doute possible, que l’intervention russe en Syrie vise, en paroles et en actions, à combattre et à éradiquer le terrorisme, tandis que toutes les interventions occidentales, sous toutes leurs formes, sont destinées à épuiser et à user la Syrie pour servir le projet sioniste, liquider la Cause palestinienne et le droit des arabes sur leurs terres et leurs maisons, tout en visant à satisfaire les intérêts géostratégiques et colonialistes de l’Occident en Syrie et dans toute notre région.

Et en ce moment précis où les combats pour la libération d’Alep font rage et où l’Occident révèle son véritable visage en se tenant fermement aux côtés du terrorisme et des terroristes, l’entité sioniste continue à semer la désolation en Palestine, assassinant des innocents et des résistants, détruisant précipitamment des maisons, grignotant des terres, comblant des puits, ravageant les récoltes d’un peuple soumis à une odieuse occupation.

Ceci, pendant que le Secrétaire à la Défense des États-Unis, Ashton Carter, s’emploie à consacrer tous ses efforts pour rétablir la cohésion du terrorisme criminel, venu d’Israël et de Jordanie, face à l’Armée arabe syrienne dans le sud de la Syrie [4] et tente de semer la zizanie dans la ville de Soueïda et d’autres villes de la région.

Par conséquent, étant donné cette situation ancienne et nouvelle à la fois et vu ce qu’a enduré notre peuple patient et résistant à Alep, nous devons mettre les points sur les « i », appeler les choses par leur nom en affirmant nos positions loin de toute terminologie qui prêterait à confusion. Nous devons dire clairement que :

  • Les forces sionistes et colonialistes mènent une guerre féroce contre la Syrie par leurs intermédiaires arabes, régionaux et internationaux, dans le principal objectif de saper le rôle de la Syrie dans la région et dans le monde arabe, au profit du projet sioniste et des intérêts colonialistes de l’Occident.
  • Le peuple syrien, son Armée et ses alliés se battent, avec honneur, contre le terrorisme sanguinaire publiquement soutenu par l’Occident, Israël et les tyrans des régimes réactionnaires arabes.
  • Toute personne qui porte des armes en dehors du cadre de l’État sert les intérêts du terrorisme et des terroristes.
  • Tout Syrien qui tient à la Syrie, où qu’il se trouve aujourd’hui, n’aspire qu’au retour de la paix et de la sécurité, au retour de ses habitants et à sa reconstruction, loin de l’avidité et de la cupidité des impérialistes et des réactionnaires qui s’en prennent à son indépendance et à son positionnement patriote honorable.
  • Au diable les modifications de bannières des terroristes et les théories justifiant leur fureur, car le terrorisme est un et son objectif est toujours le même. Le seul moyen de s’en débarrasser est de lui résister fermement et d’éliminer, une fois pour toutes, cette plaie redoutable et destructrice.

C’est de cette véritable résistance que dépend le salut de la Syrie, de la région et du monde.

Bouthaïna Chaabane

Conseillère politique du Président Bachar al-Assad et « Fille de la Terre »

08/07/2016

 

Source : Al-Mayadeen

https://www.almayadeen.net/articles/decision-maker/39527/

Traduction de l’arabe par Mouna Alno-Nakhal pour Mondialisation.ca

 

Notes : 

[1] Entrevue du Général Amin Hoteit / Al-Thabat TV

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BHFGe6i2Yw&feature=youtu.be

[2] 360 000 combattants étrangers ont combattu l’Armée syrienne

http://firil.net/?p=1849

[3] The Case for (Finally) Bombing Assad. By Dennis B. Ross and Andew J. Tabler, Aug. 3, 2016

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/03/opinion/the-case-for-finally-bombing-assad.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FAssad%2C%20Bashar%20al-&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection

[4] La coalition veut ouvrir un front contre l’EI dans le sud de la Syrie

http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2016/07/27/97001-20160727FILWWW00320-la-coalition-veut-ouvrir-un-front-contre-l-ei-dans-le-sud-de-la-syrie.php

 

Madame Bouthaina Chaabane est citoyenne syrienne, conseillère politique du Président Al-Assad et membre de la Délégation de la République arabe syrienne aux pourparlers de Genève.

 

***

  • Posted in Francais @fr
  • Commentaires fermés sur Notre bataille pour la libération d’Alep a démasqué tous vos mensonges.

This year the World Social Forum is being held in Montreal, regrouping committed social activists, anti-war collectives and  prominent intellectuals. 

Most of the participants are unaware that the WSF is funded by corporate foundations including Ford, Rockefeller, Tides, et al.  Much of this funding is channelled to the WSF organizers under the helm of the WSF International Council. 

This is an issue which has been raised on numerous occasions with progressive organizations and WSF activists: you cannot effectively confront neoliberalism and the New World Order elites  and expect them to finance your activities.

The World Social Forum operating under the banner of  “Another World is Possible” was founded in 2001 at its inaugural venue of Porto Alegre. Brazil.

From the outset in 2001, the WSF has been upheld as an international umbrella representing grassroots people’s organizations, committed to reversing the tide of globalization. Its stated intent is to challenge corporate capitalism and its dominant neoliberal economic agenda.

The World Social Forum at its inaugural meeting defined itself as a counter-offensive to the World Economic Forum (WEF) of business leaders and politicians which meets annually in Davos, Switzerland. The 2001 Porto Alegre WSF was held simultaneously with that of the WEF in Davos.

While  there have been many important accomplishments of the WSF, largely as a result of the commitment of grassroots activists, the core leadership of WSF  –rather than effectively confronting the New World Order elites– serves (often unwittingly) their corporate interests. In this process, co-optation has been achieved through the corporate funding of the WSF.

Among the two major accomplishments are the participation of the WSF in the February 2003 Worldwide protest against the US led war on Iraq. The WSF has also supported progressive movements and governments, particularly in Latin America.

In contrast, at the Tunis 2013 WSF, the final declaration paid lip service to to the US sponsored “Syrian opposition”.  Similarly the Al Qaeda affiliated Libya Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) which allegedly led the “Arab Spring” against the government of Muammar Gaddafi was tacitly upheld as a revolutionary force. Several workshops on  Libya applauded Western military intervention. A session entitled “Libya’s transition to democracy” focused on “whether Libya was better off without Muammar Gaddafi.”

[Update] Similarly, a Montreal WSF 2016 event on Syria refers to a country « in ruins as a result of a multifaceted  war between the dictatorship of Bashar al Assad and a host of opposition organizations, » echoing almost verbatim the narrative of the mainstream media.  The central role of US-NATO in destroying Syria as a sovereign country is not mentioned.

Funding dissent

From the outset in 2001, the World Social Forum was funded by governments and corporate foundations, including the Ford Foundation which has ties to US intelligence.

The anti-globalization movement is opposed to Wall Street and the Texas oil giants controlled by Rockefeller, et al. Yet the foundations and charities of Ford, Rockefeller et al will generously fund progressive anti-capitalist networks as well as environmentalists (opposed to Wall Street and Big Oil), etc. with a view to ultimately overseeing and shaping their various activities.

The mechanisms of “manufacturing dissent” require a manipulative environment, a process of arm-twisting and subtle co-optation of  a small number of key individuals within “progressive organizations”, including anti-war coalitions, environmentalists and the anti-globalization movement. Many leaders of these organizations have in a sense betrayed their grassroots.

The corporations are funding dissent with a view to controlling dissent.

The Ford Foundation (which has links to the CIA) provided funding under its “Strengthening Global Civil Society” program during the first three years of the WSF.

When the WSF was held in Mumbai in 2004, the Indian WSF host committee declined support from the Ford Foundation. This in itself did not modify the WSF’s relationship to the donors. While the Ford Foundation formally withdrew, other foundations positioned themselves.

The WSF (among several sources of funding is supported by a consortium of corporate foundations under the advisory umbrella of Engaged Donors for Global Equity (EDGE). 

This organization, which previously went under the name of The Funders Network on Trade and Globalization (FTNG), has played a central role in the funding of successive WSF venues. From the outset in 2001, it had an observer status on the WSF International Council.  

In 2013, the Rockefeller Brothers representative Tom Kruse co-chaired EDGE’s program committee. At the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Kruse was responsible for “Global Governance” under the “Democratic Practice” program. Rockefeller Brothers grants to NGOs are approved under the “Strengthening Democracy in Global Governance” program, which is broadly similar to that put forth by the US State Department.

A representative of the Open Society Initiative for Europe currently sits on EDGE’s Board of directors. The Wallace Global Fund is also on its Board of Directors. The Wallace Global Fund is specialized in providing support to “mainstream” NGOs and “alternative media”, including Amnesty International, Democracy Now (which supports Hillary Clinton’s candidacy for president of the US).

Several members of the EDGE BoD, however, are from non-corporative and family foundations with a social mandate. (see below).

 

In one of its key documents (2012), entitled Funders Network Alliance In Support of Grassroots Organizing and Movement-Building  (link no longer available) EDGE acknowledged its support of social movements which challenge “neoliberal market fundamentalism.” including the World Social Forum, established in 2001:

“From the Zapatista uprising in Chiapas (1994) to the Battle in Seattle (1999) to the creation of the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre (2001), the TINA years of Reagan and Thatcher (There Is No Alternative) have been replaced with the growing conviction that “another world is possible.” Counter-summits, global campaigns and social forums have been crucial spaces to articulate local struggles, share experiences and analyses, develop expertise, and build concrete forms of international solidarity among progressive movements for social, economic and ecological justice.”

But at the same time, there is an obvious contradiction: another world is not possible when the campaign against neoliberalism is financed by an alliance of corporate donors firmly committed to neoliberalism and the US-NATO military agenda.

The following is the EDGE Montreal WSF Communique. The donors not only fund the activities, they also influence the structure of the WSF venue, which was determined in Puerto Alegre in 2001, namely the decentralized and dispersed mosaic of « do it yourself » workshops.

 

With regard to the Montreal WSF, the Consortium of Donors (EDGE) intent is:

« …to develop an intersectional space for funders and various movement partners – organizers thought leaders and practitioners – to build alignment by cultivating a shared understanding of the visions, values, principles and pathways of a “just transition.”  (See http://edgefunders.org/wsf-activities/)

« Just Transition » implies that social activism has to conform to a « shared vision » with the corporate foundations, i.e. nothing which in a meaningful way might upset the elite structures of global capitalism.

From the standpoint of the corporate donors “investing in the WSF” constitutes a profitable (tax deductible) undertaking. It ensures that activism remains within the confines of  « constructive dialogue » and « critique » rather than confrontation. Any deviation immediately results in the curtailment of donor funding:

“Everything the [Ford] Foundation did could be regarded as “making the World safe for capitalism”, reducing social tensions by helping to comfort the afflicted, provide safety valves for the angry, and improve the functioning of government (McGeorge Bundy, National Security Advisor to Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson (1961-1966), President of the Ford Foundation, (1966-1979))

The limits of social dissent are thereby determined by the “governance structure” of  the WSF, which was tacitly agreed upon with the funding agencies at the outset in 2001.

“No Leaders”

The WSF has no leaders. All the events are “self-organized”. The structure of debate and activism is part of an an “open space” (See y Francine Mestrum, The World Social Forum and its governance: a multi-headed monster, CADTM, 27 April 2013, http://cadtm.org/The-World-Social-Forum-and-its ).

This compartmentalized structure is an obstacle to the development of a meaningful and articulate mass movement.

How best to control grassroots dissent against global capitalism?

Make sure that their leaders can be easily co-opted and that the rank and file will not develop “forms of international solidarity among progressive movements” (to use EDGE’s own words), which in any meaningful way might undermine the interests of corporate capital.

The mosaic of separate WSF workshops, the relative absence of plenary sessions, the creation of divisions within and between social movements, not to mention the absence of a cohesive and unified platform against the Wall Street corporate elites, against the fake US sponsored « global war on terrorism », which has been used to justify and US-NATO’s  « humanitarian R2P interventions (Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Libya, Ukraine, etc).

The corporate agenda is to “manufacture dissent”.“The limits of dissent” are established by the foundations and governments which ultimately finance this multimillion dollar venue. The financing is twofold:

1. Core financing of the WSF Secretariat and the Costs of the WSF venue.

2. Many of the constituent NGOs which participate in the venue are recipients of donor and/or government support.

3. The WSF venue in Montreal also receives funding from the Government of Canada as well as from the Quebec provincial government.

What ultimately prevails is a ritual of dissent which does not threaten the New World Order. Those who attend the WSF from the grassroots are often misled by their leaders. Activists who do not share the WSF consensus will ultimately be excluded:

“By providing the funding and the policy framework to many concerned and dedicated people working within the non-profit sector, the ruling class is able to co-opt leadership from grassroots communities, … and is able to make the funding, accounting, and evaluation components of the work so time consuming and onerous that social justice work is virtually impossible under these conditions” (Paul Kivel, You Call this Democracy, Who Benefits, Who Pays and Who Really Decides, 2004, p. 122 )

“Another World is Possible” is nonetheless an important concept, which characterizes the struggle of the peoples movements against global capitalism as well as the commitment of thousands of committed activists who are currently participated in the Montreal 2016 WSF.

Activism is being manipulated:  « Another World is Possible »  cannot, however, be achieved under the auspices of the WSF which from the outset was funded by global capitalism and organized in close liaison with its corporate and government donors.

The important question for activists in Montreal:

Is it possible to build “an Alternative” to global capitalism, which challenges the hegemony of the Rockefellers et al and then asks the Rockefellers et al to foot the bill?  

We call upon participants of the Montreal World Social Forum (WSF) to raise and debate these issues: the campaign against neoliberalism is financed by corporate foundations (and governments) which are firmly committed not only to the tenets of neoliberalism but also to the US-NATO led military agenda.

Why would they fund organizations which are actively campaigning against war and globalization? The answer is obvious. …

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Rockefeller, Ford Foundations Behind World Social Forum (WSF). The Corporate Funding of Social Activism
Les coûts de la « War on terror »

Interlocking Agencies that Conspire to “Create Terror”: We Do Not Need the Police to “Create More Terrorists”

By Mark Taliano, August 10 2016

Unsuspecting citizens are paying for a nexus of interlocking agencies that conspire to create terror, war, and police-state legislation in a War of Deception that serves to devastate humanity. Without its arsenal of fabricated war pretexts, and its fabricated Fear apparatus, the warmongering oligarchy would be denuded and reveal itself as the mass-murdering terrorist entity that it is.

money-deficit

How Long Can Economic Reality Be Ignored?

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, August 10 2016

Trump and Clinton have come out with the obligatory “economic plans.”  Neither them nor their advisors, have any idea about what really needs to be done, but this is of no concern to the media. The presstitutes operate according to “pay and say.”  They say what they are paid to say and that is whatever serves the corporations and the government.  This means that the presstitutes like Hitlery’s economic plan and do not like Trump’s.

cellphone-620

Cell Towers and Cellphones. Microwave Radiation, Electromagnetic Pollution, Impacts on Human Health

By Joachim Hagopian, August 10 2016

“Electromagnetic pollution may be the most significant form of pollution human activity has produced this century, all the more dangerous because it is invisible and insensible.” — Andrew Weil, MD, bestselling author We live in the information age when we’re bombarded every single day with incoming data to process and interpret whether it’s true or not. Because the government and mainstream media have an agenda of false narratives and disinformation propaganda to willfully keep people confused in the dark, the American public is starved for the truth and in record numbers has sought it from alternative media outlets on the World Wide Web.

Donald_Trump_by_Gage_Skidmore_3_(cropped)

Obama versus Trump, Putin and Erdogan: Can Coups Defeat Elected Governments?

By Prof. James Petras, August 10 2016

“Many of our interlocutors have been purged or arrested”. — James Clapper, US Director of Intelligence on Turkish Coup (Financial Times 8/3/16, p. 4) Washington has organized a systematic, global, no holds barred campaign to oust Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump from the electoral process.  The virulent anti-Trump animus, the methods, goals and mass media resemble authoritarian regimes preparing to overthrow political adversaries.

Nauru_satellite

Refugee Trauma: Australia’s Remorseless Detention Camp on Nauru

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, August 10 2016

“Do I have to kill myself to go to Australia?” — Asylum seeker, Nauru, March 2, 2015. Human sensibility has been given another sound beating with the leak of 2,116 incident reports from Australia’s remorseless detention camp on Nauru.  The reports total some 8,000 pages covering the period of May 2013 to October 2015 and were published by the Guardian on Wednesday.[1] The newspaper notes that children are heavily, in fact “vastly over-represented in the reports” featuring in a total of 1,086 incidents despite making up only 18 percent of the detained population.  Even the bureaucratic “ratings” of harm and risk given by the private security firm Wilson’s can’t varnish the brutalities.

afghanistan war

A Nonviolent Strategy to End War

By Robert J. Burrowes, August 10 2016

There is a long history of anti-war and peace activism. Much of this activism has focused on ending a particular war. Some of this activism has been directed at ending a particular aspect of war, such as the use of a type of weapon. Some of it has aimed to prevent a type of war, such as ‘aggressive war’ or nuclear war. For those activists who regard war as the scourge of human existence, however, ‘the holy grail’ has always been much deeper: to end war.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Selected Articles: Agencies that Conspire to “Create Terror”: We Do Not Need the Police to “Create More Terrorists”

Michael Morell, ancien directeur de la CIA et soutien d’Hilary Clinton a déclaré dans une intervention à la télévision américaine qu’il était nécessaire de «se débarrasser» des Iraniens et des Russes engagés en Syrie au côté de Bachar el-Assad.

«Quand nous étions engagés en Irak, l’Iran a fourni des armes aux milices chiites qui tuaient les soldats américains. Il est temps de faire subir aux Iraniens ce qu’ils nous ont fait subir». C’est la déclaration fracassante que Michael Morell, soutien affiché d’Hilary Clinton et ancien directeur de la CIA, a faite sur la chaîne américaine CBS ce mardi 9 août.

Celui qui accusait récemment Donald Trump d’être manipulé par les services secrets russes a déclaré que les Iraniens et les Russes devaient «payer le prix fort» de leur engagement en Syrie.

Interrogé par le journaliste Charlie Rose, celui-ci lui a demandé de préciser sa pensée : cela signifie-t-il tuer des Iraniens ou des Russes en Syrie ? L’ancien responsable de la CIA a répondu : «Oui, discrètement […] N’attendez pas que le Pentagone dise « nous avons fait ceci », mais soyez assuré qu’a Moscou et à Téhéran, ils savent ce que je veux dire» précise Michael Morell.

A propos des forces rebelles en Syrie soutenues par les Etats-Unis, l’ancien homme fort de la CIA a appelé à les soutenir encore d’avantage contre les troupes de Bachar Al-Assad, mais aussi contre les forces iraniennes ou russes présentes sur place.

Enfin, il appelle à «faire peur» à Bachar el-Assad en le bombardant au plus près : «Je ne préconise pas de l’assassiner, mais je veux mettre la pression sur lui, sur les Russes et les Iraniens pour arriver à une solution diplomatique.

Michael Morell est l’ancien directeur par interim de la CIA (de 2012 à 2013). Dans une tribune publiée dans le New York Times la semaine dernière, il a appelé fermement à soutenir la candidate démocrate à la présidentielle Hillary Clinton, estimant que Donald Trump représentait une menace nationale. Après sa retraite de la CIA en août 2013, Michael Morell a rejoint un cabinet de conseil Beacon Global Strategies, où il a pu travailler avec Leon Panetta, lui aussi ancien directeur de la CIA et soutien affiché d’Hillary Clinton.

  • Posted in Francais @fr
  • Commentaires fermés sur «Il faut tuer les Russes, les Iraniens et menacer Bachar el-Assad», dit l’ex-chef de la CIA

How Long Can Economic Reality Be Ignored?

août 10th, 2016 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

Trump and Clinton have come out with the obligatory “economic plans.”  Neither them nor their advisors, have any idea about what really needs to be done, but this is of no concern to the media.

The presstitutes operate according to “pay and say.”  They say what they are paid to say and that is whatever serves the corporations and the government.  This means that the presstitutes like Hitlery’s economic plan and do not like Trump’s.

Yesterday I listened to the NPR presstitutes say how Trump pretends to be in favor of free trade but really is against it, because he is against all the free trade agreements such as NAFTA, the Trans-Pacific and Trans-Atlantic partnerships.  The presstitutes don’t know that these are not trade agreements.  NAFTA is a “give away American jobs” agreement, and the so-called partnerships give away the sovereignty of countries in order to award global corporations immunity from laws.

As I have reported on many occasions, the Oligarchs’ government lies to us about everything, including economic statistics.  For example, we are told that we have been enjoying an economic recovery since June, 2009, that we are more or less at full emploment with an unemployment rate of 5% or less, and that there is no inflation.  We are told this despite the facts that the “recovery” is based on the under-reporting of the inflation rate, the unemployment rate is 23%, and inflation is high.

GDP is measured in current prices.  If GDP rises 3% this year over last year, the output of real goods and services might have risen 3% or prices might have gone up by 3% or real output might have dropped but is masked by price increases.  To know what really happened the nominal GDP number has to be deflated by the amount of inflation.

In times past we could get a reasonable idea of how the economy was doing, because the measure of inflation was reasonable.  That is no longer the case. Various “reforms” have taken inflation out of the measures of inflation.  For example, if the price of an item in the inflation index goes up, the item is taken out and a cheaper item put in its place.  Alternatively, the price rise is called a “quality improvement” and not counted as a price rise.

In other words, by defining inflation away, price increases are transformed into an increase in real output.

The same thing happens to the measure of unemployment. Unemployment  simply isn’t counted by the reported unemployment rate.  No matter how  long and hard an unemployed person has looked for a job, if that person hasn’t job hunted in the past four weeks the person is not considered to be unemployed.  This is how the unemployment rate is said to be 5% when the labor-force participation rate has collapsed, half of American 25-year-olds live with their parents, and more Americans age 24-34 live with parents than independently.

Finanial reporters never inquire why government statistics are designed to provide an incorrect picture of the economy. Anyone who purchases food, clothing, visits a hardware store, and pays repair bills and utility bills knows that there is a lot of inflation.  Consider prescription drugs.  AARP reports that the annual cost of prescription drugs used by retirees has risen from $5,571 in 2006 to $11,341 in 2013, but their incomes have not kept up.  Indeed, the main reason for “reforming” the measurement of inflation was to eliminate COLA adjustments to Social Security benefits.

https://www.rt.com/usa/334004-drug-prices-doubled-years/

Charles Hugh Smith has come up with a clever way of estimating the real rate of inflation—the Burrito Index.  From 2001 to 2016 the cost of a burrito has risen 160 percent from $2.50 to $6.50.  During these 15 years the officially measured rate of inflation is 35 percent.

And it is not only burritos. The cost of higher education has risen 137% since 2000.  The Milliman Medical Index shows medical costs to have risen far above official inflation from 2005 to 2016. The costs of medical insurance, trash collection, you name it, are dramatically higher than the official rate of inflation.

Food, tuiton and medical costs are major outlays for households.  Add zero interest on savings to the problem of coping with major cost increases when real incomes are stagnant and falling.  For example, grandparents cannot help grandchildren with their student loan debt when zero interest rates force grandparents to draw down their savings in order to supplement essentially frozen Social Security benefits during a time of high inflation.  Savings are being taken out of the economy.  Many families exist by paying only the minimum payment on their credit card balance, which means that their debt grows monthly.

Real economists, if there were any, looking at the real economic picture would see an economy collapsing into widespread debt deflation and impoverishment.  Debt deflation is when consumers after they service their debts have no discretionary income left with which to drive the economy with purchases.

The reason that Americans have no income from their savings is that public authorities put the welfare of a handful of “banks too big to fail” above the welfare of the American people.  The enormous liquidity created by the Federal Reserve has gone into the financial system where it has driven up the prices of financial instruments.  There has been a stock market recovery but not an economic recovery.

In the past liquidity implied economic growth. When the Federal Reserve loosened monetary policy, the increase in consumer demand caused an increase in the output of goods and services.  Stock prices would rise anticipating higher profits.  But in recent years financial markets have not been driven by fundamentals, which are adverse, but by the liquidity that the Federal Reserve has pumped into the banking system in order to save a handful of over-sized banks and insurance giant AIG, all of which should have been allowed to fail.

The liquidity had to go somewhere and it went into the prices of stocks and bonds, causing a tremendous asset inflation.

What sense does it make to have zero interest rates when high inflation is eating away the real value of money?  What sense does it make to have high price/earnings ratios when the consumer market cannot expand?  What sense does it make to have a stable dollar when the Federal Reserve has created far more dollars than the economy has created goods and services? What sense does it make to undermine the financial condition of pension funds and insurance companies with zero interest rates, leaving them with no fixed income hedge against the stock market?

It makes no sense.  We are in a trap in which collapse seems the only way out. If interest rates reflected the real rate of inflation, the hundreds of trillions of dollars in derivatives would blow up, the stock market would collapse, unemployment could not be hidden with under-measurement, budget deficits would rise.  What would public authorities do?

When crisis hits, what happens to corporations that used profits and borrowed money, that is, debt, to buy back their own stocks in order to keep the price high and, thereby, executive bonuses high and shareholders happy and disinclined to support takeovers?  Chaos and its companion Fear take over from Contentment.  Hell breaks loose.

Is more money printed?  Does the money find its way into consumer prices?  Do we experience simultaneously massive inflation and massive unemployment?

Don’t expect the presstitutes, the politicians, or Wall Street to confront any of these questions.

When the crisis occurs, it will be blamed on Russia or China.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur How Long Can Economic Reality Be Ignored?

“Electromagnetic pollution may be the most significant form of pollution human activity has produced this century, all the more dangerous because it is invisible and insensible.” — Andrew Weil, MD, bestselling author

We live in the information age when we’re bombarded every single day with incoming data to process and interpret whether it’s true or not. Because the government and mainstream media have an agenda of false narratives and disinformation propaganda to willfully keep people confused in the dark, the American public is starved for the truth and in record numbers has sought it from alternative media outlets on the World Wide Web.

To circumvent people from grasping the full implications of the ruling elite’s control agenda, hundreds of government shills and internet trolls have been deployed, saturating the net with the expressed purpose of muddying the waters, creating disinfo fog of war to obscure, bury and withhold vital information and knowledge from being accessed and fully grasped by the global masses. Additionally, the fast track pathway to global governance – the TPP and TTIP agreements – are geared to seal off internet flow of lifesaving information that could increase global awareness and coalesce into worldwide resistance and opposition to New World Order tyranny.

CIA invented labels from nearly a half century ago like “conspiracy theory” and its recent mutations like “tin foil hat” and fringe element fanatics have methodically conditioned the public to discard and categorically deny the negative truth that exposes government perpetrators’ treasonous betrayal of American citizens as well as Empire’s global transgressions – especially since 9/11.

In actuality a conspiracy theorist is one who questions the statements of known liars. Speaking of known liars, George W’s admonition to disregard conspiracy theories was just the post-9/11 beginning to squelch the truth that makes him a guilty murderous war criminal of his own people. The same cover-up followed the inside job of the JFK assassination that his daddy played a part in, just like his daddy’s daddy financed Hitler. Unfortunately there’s nothing new about the US government murdering presidents who threaten status quo corruption as well as exterminating national populations to gain oppressive authoritarian control. Democide is the killing of citizens by its own government. Six times more victims in the last century died from democide than fighting in all the century’s wars combined that include humanity’s two bloodiest ones on record. History repeats as the federal government’s currently waging a not so secret war against the American people.

Chief among its formidable lethal arsenal is the feds’ war to control our minds through propaganda, having been crafted and honed now for over a century. Shaping public opinion and perception of reality through any and all means necessary involves deceitful weapons of mass destruction manifesting 24/7 through insidious applications of social engineering, various CIA mind control techniques delivered by mass media propaganda, corporate controlled mass consumerism, and six oligarch owned and operated mega-media corporations controlling the outflow of news and information.

This centralized global spigot spews out materialistic values, warped, distorted messages, dogma and false truths spoon fed globally for mass consumption as the not so covert means to manipulate, brainwash and control the human population. Twenty-first century technology has shrunken our planet into a global village of mass consumers to be pliably manipulated and controlled. This presentation will outline how a sinister globalist agenda is using the incredibly powerful telecom industry as yet another WMD for mass mind control, soft kill eugenics and, when deemed most advantageous, a convenient fast kill, genocidal method for culling the human herd.

Over the last quarter century, cell phones have all but replaced the conventional landline telephone system. 91% of Americans from adolescent to adult ages utilize cellphones as their primary means of spoken word communication, often including texting and other online interactive options as well.

Much has been written about the paradoxical effect that wireless cellphones and tablets offer as convenient multimodal transmitters that both instantly expand our opportunity to interact with fellow humans within a readily accessible cyber-world while simultaneously alienating us from real time, face-to-face, eye-to-eye communication and real world human connection. Today a quick glance observation at any public setting – airports, libraries, doctors’ offices – and the vast majority of people are seen busily interacting with their push button machines far more frequently than direct live conversation with even accompanying friends and family. Like lab rats compulsively pushing levers, people habitually check their cellphones over a hundred times a day. Hi-tech toy gadgetry has become the singular, most addictive device known to modern man. IPhones and Wi-Fi devices control how we increasingly preoccupy our daily waking hours more so than any other modern invention since the radio-television era.

For the last couple decades, countless scientific studies have been warning us of the serious damage being done to our brains and bodies as a consequence of our excessive cellphone habits. The radiation literally fries our neurons, alters our DNA with fractured strand breaks, and causes rising rates of brain cancer, tumors and associated other life threatening diseases. A new study from the British Medical Journal led by Dr. Enrique Navarro concludes that living near cell towers inhibits brain functioning, diminishes memory, disrupts the normal sleep cycle and causes widespread irritability. And an analytical review of all research conducted a half dozen years ago determined that 80% of all studies have determined that a direct correlation does exist between tower proximity and adverse symptoms, tumors and cancer.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the governmental agency that regulates the telecommunications industry, has purposely maintained dangerously high tolerance for the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) – 1.6 watts per kilogram, a radiation level standard that’s literally killing people. Paid off with bribes by the largest telecom giants, the FCC has refused to accurately readjust to lowering its hazardous threshold to save lives despite the preponderance of research showing that it would. Instead at a public meeting last month at the FCC headquarters, the federal agency that’s supposed to protect public safety showed its colors shutting down any dissenting voice. Likewise, Washington has chosen to protect the multibillion dollar industry by historically refusing to fund research that might otherwise decisively reveal the truth and thus hinder telecom growth. The FCC allows the industry to hire its own bogus pseudo-scientists to fudge its own inconclusive data to falsely claim cellphone use poses no serious threat to human health.

Just as the FDA is a bought and paid for Big Parma whore intentionally allowing damaging drugs on the market without adequate testing, and the EPA looks the other way when giant corps. like Monsanto spread deadly contaminants throughout our air, soil and water supply, corruption across all federal and state levels could care less about public health and safety, but instead blindly support transnational killers to ensure maximum profits are achieved at horrific human cost. These across the board policies are consistent with how the US government operates as a corrupt oligarchy acting on behalf of Fortune 500’s special interests – not the people’s, knowing a growing number of Americans are becoming sick, suffering and dying as a result of a government that’s turned its back on its citizens. The cold hard facts clearly show that Washington is a fascist crime cabal at war with its own people, now eliminating us through slow death, soft kill methods that only pad telecom/Monsanto/Big Pharma/health industry profits.

True to form, the co-opted FDA, EPA, World Health Organization (WHO) and American Cancer Society have all gone public claiming that radiofrequency (RF) radiation from cellphones and cell towers carry no determined health effects. That said, in 2011 even the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) conceded to classifying radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as “a possible carcinogen to humans.” Then last October another recent study coordinated by IARC examined over 300,000 nuclear workers from US, UK and France and found even low level radiation exposure over time increases the risk of cancer.

But from the American Cancer Institute’s own website, it states that non-ionized radiation from cell towers and cellphones “do not directly damage the DNA inside cells.” This is a blatant lie. Two decades ago pioneering scientist Dr. Narendra Pal Singh and Dr. Henry Lai empirically demonstrated that DNA single and double strand damage does occur at only 2.45 GHz radiation, a rate of one fifth the level producing previously known toxic biological effects and well below the so called FCC regulated “safe” levels that cellphones emit. Lai and Singh’s valuable research supports the widely accepted (amongst honest observers) the very logical conclusion that cumulative DNA damage occurs over time from prolonged use of cellphones. Two years ago a peer review of 80 studies found that 92% showed that non-ionized radiation from cellphones do damage DNA. Yet the Cancer Institute chooses to continue living the lie.

Megras and Xenos found that five generations of mice exposed to extremely low RF rates from .168 to 1.053 microwatts per square centimeter sustained irreversible sterility. These relative low exposure amounts are equivalent to living near a cellular tower. Thus humans living, attending school and working so close to towers are being dangerously radiated, yet the current FCC safe standard remains at 579 microwatts per square centimeter, a full 500 times higher than what causes sterilization in mice. In a related study, males who carry cellphones on belt clips or in their pants pocket have a measured sperm count 30% lower than men who don’t. The globalist overpopulation cheerleaders wouldn’t have it any other way.

Sweeping all this established hard evidence under the carpet just like the tobacco industry perpetrated for decades has been but a temporary fix strategy that buys more time to sell more wireless products and build thousands of more towers. But just over two months ago for the first time in history even a US federal study under the National Institutes of Health confirmed what the prevailing body of honest researchers have indicated all along – that radiation emitted from chronic use of cellphones does in fact lead to rising cancer rates. The former head of NIH’s National Toxicology Program (NTP) that performed the research study states that the findings between radiation exposure and rare forms of brain and heart cancers are definitely causally-connected. This NTP research is the most comprehensive and robust long term (2 years) investigation measuring varying exposure levels of radiofrequencies on rats ever conducted. But this study applies only to simulated radiation emitted from chronic cellphone use only, not exposure to the radiofrequency waves dangerously released from massive cell towers at close distance nor other wireless devices commonly found in both the home and workplace.

Cellphone and cell tower radiation also cause lowered immune systems and alter hormonal levels, adding further complications posing a serious detriment to human health. Still other recent studies from earlier this year for the first time are indicating that certain individuals experience physical pain accompanied by physiological bodily changes from tower signals at even low, regular levels. This finding validates the very real existence of a growing population of about 5% around the world who may be especially sensitive to wireless radiation. Their medical condition known as electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) typically afflicts them with physical pain, headaches, nosebleeds, fatigue, insomnia, anxiety. Previously many uninformed and/or biased medical practitioners automatically dismissed individuals suffering from EHS as hypochondriacs. Lawsuits have generally ruled against those claiming EHS, citing medical literature that concludes it’s merely a psychosomatic illness not caused by electromagnetic radiation. However, last August a French court ruled in favor of a victim complainant. EHS appears to be following the same path that Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Syndrome and Fibromyalgia Syndrome have undergone in their gradual acceptance within the medical community.

In order to provide service to millions of customers globally, cellphone companies have constructed cell towers and antenna towers across an entire overlapping region since the 360 degree radius of each tower only extends less than 25 miles. That’s why thousands into the millions of towers have been springing up around the globe, especially in densely populated areas where cell phones are at peak use. The trade industry website WirelessEstimator.com lists an updated total amongst the top 121 telecom companies of 118,173 towers in the US. However, the same site maintains that the tower count as of 2009 that includes rooftop antenna transmitters and cell towers number 247,081, further admitting that there is no accurate count. Yet another site antennaesearch.com has an updated US tally of 612,477, and 2,456,899 with wireless rooftop antennas included. Thus, the guesstimated range is enormously wide and for all intents and purposes unknown, but rapidly growing daily around the world.

Meanwhile, a wireless news site article from a year ago stated that due to exponential consumer demand for mobile data, Cisco estimates that by 2019 US mobile traffic will soar to 7 times its 2015 rate. This foretells a far denser concentration of yet even more harmful towers erected in ever-closer proximity to America’s vast sprawling urban population, typically impacting and endangering America’s youth in schools, adults in office buildings and families living in multistory apartment complexes.

In view of thousands of towers built next to or even on school grounds, a growing body of research on children and pregnant mothers is also producing extremely alarming results. Many public schools and universities are also being given cash bribe incentives to permit towers on their premises. Though some local parent and community advocacy groups are beginning to fight back, many education officials are choosing money over their own young people’s health and well-being. Meanwhile, it’s been shown that children absorb twice as much cell phone and tower radiation in the brain, up to three times in the hypothalamus and hippocampus regions, and their blood brain barrier leaks at the smallest traces of radiation. And incredibly kids’ bone marrow takes in ten times the amount of harmful RF waves as adults.

Spiked rates of electromagnetic pollution and its devastatingly harmful effects on human health is a pandemic train wreck currently exploding across the USA and the entire world. And as a direct consequence of chronic, indiscriminate use over the last 25 years, rare forms of brain cancer are now beginning to skyrocket. Predatory telecom giants and bribed governments are exploiting the fact that this weapon of mass destruction cannot be felt as an odorless, tasteless, silent, invisible killer.

All of this is bad enough news, dumbing down citizens and making us ill at national levels, but it’s just now becoming more widely known that a far more diabolical plan is presently in place that is zapping Americans with deadlier levels of radiation from cell towers than before. The most appalling realization is these dangerously higher levels of radiation emanating from weaponized cell towers have absolutely nothing to do with cell phone transmission, but everything to do with democide. They prove that the US government has shifted its soft kill eugenics plan to a faster hard-boil roast of the American population.

A former senior scientist from DARPA, the US deep state black ops research lab that channels all advanced technologies into military WMD’s, recently went public alerting fellow Americans that the federal government is misusing lethal cell tower transmissions as an “act of terrorism” against the US population. With a PhD from Princeton in computational physics and nearly three years at the DARPA Los Alamos National Laboratory, Dr. Paul Batcho is a more than credible source who knows what he’s talking about. When he first began noticing high powered radiation radiating from cell towers in his home in St. Petersburg and surrounding areas of central Florida and Tampa, he followed standard protocol contacting his previous employer DARPA along with DHS, informing them that he believes that the cell towers present a “terrorist” threat. After his repeated attempts to alert authorities drew no response, Batcho contacted longtime activist-writer Dave Hodges of The Common Sense Show. The scientist has written:

These transmissions will cause harmful health affects in the form of enhanced microwave radiation illness. It is imperative that these frequency bands be measured and verified by an official source. These frequency bands do not exist naturally, and there is a technology targeting individuals. The verified measurement and existence of these RF band transmissions constitutes a terrorist act.

The FCC officially limits cell towers to 400 watts of energy output for cell phone data transfer. However, it’s been reported that mammoth sized cables leading into a typical cell phone tower is capable of emitting far greater power, especially when equipped with amplifiers. This makes the enormous level of microwave radiation each tower can project a potential mega-death weapon. And this is the alarm that Paul Batcho is railing against. The death ray machine that each tower represents can generate enough juice to literally cook every human within its city limits. So if the elitist powerbrokers in control plant these WMD’s strategically and so densely across America happen to desire the US population dead, or perhaps under the guise of an invading foreign enemy on American soil, these tower transmitters could conceivably eliminate the entire living population with several million towers at full wattage throttle.

Joachim Hagopian is a West Point graduate and former US Army officer. He has written a manuscript based on his unique military experience entitled “Don’t Let The Bastards Getcha Down.” It examines and focuses on US international relations, leadership and national security issues. After the military, Joachim earned a master’s degree in Clinical Psychology and worked as a licensed therapist in the mental health field with abused youth and adolescents for more than a quarter century. In recent years he has focused on his writing, becoming an alternative media journalist. His blog site is at: http://empireexposed.blogspot.co.id/.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Cell Towers and Cellphones. Microwave Radiation, Electromagnetic Pollution, Impacts on Human Health

Interviewed by Tass ahead of meeting with Putin, Erdogan was asked to explain his agenda. Restoring ruptured economic relations was very much on his mind.

He called his visit “a new landmark in bilateral relations, a clean slate from which to start anew.” He thanked Putin for being the first foreign leader to express support for his leadership by phone after the aborted events of July 15.

“Mr. Putin acted quickly and practically without delay,” he said. “I express my gratitude to him.” At the same time, his comments on resolving years of Syrian conflict were less than reassuring.

On the one hand, Erdogan said “Russia is fundamentally the key and most important player in establishing peace in Syria…(I)f necessary, we’ll also involve Iran…Qatar, Saudi Arabia and America. »

While adding “(w)e don’t want Syria’s disintegration,” he ignored his longtime aim to annex northern portions of its territory illegally. He supports “the departure of Bashar Assad,” irresponsibly calling him “guilty for the deaths of 600,000 people.”

“Syria’s unity cannot be kept with Assad. And we cannot support a murderer (sic) who has committed acts of state terror. Let the Syrian people themselves elect an individual they want to see in power.”

In June 2014, they overwhelmingly reelected Bashar Al Assad with an 89% majority – a process independent observers called open, free and fair. Syrians want no one else leading them.

Despite clear evidence proving it, Erdogan denied involvement in aiding ISIS and other terrorists in Syria – operating from Turkish territory, receiving heavy arms, munitions and medical care for its wounded.

Hard facts show Erdogan, his family members and other Turkish officials profit hugely from selling stolen Syrian and Iraqi oil. He denied all charges.

He said cold-blooded Jabhat al-Nusra (renamed Jabhat Fatah al Sham) killers “should not be considered as a terrorist organization…This is an incorrect approach,” he added.

He ducked responsibility for slaughtering Kurds domestically, in Syria and Iraq, calling them terrorists, saying “ensur(ing) peace (requires) destroying” them.

He lets CIA and other NATO elements operate from Turkish territory, supporting ISIS and other terrorist groups. He’s complicit in waging war on Assad, in slaughtering Syrian civilians, serving his own agenda while aiding Washington’s.

Arms, munitions and military equipment from America, Turkey and other nations pour into Syria through its border.

Nothing so far suggests Erdogan ended support for US-backed terrorists. On August 8, the day preceding his St. Petersburg visit, the Financial Times headlined “Outside help behind rebel advance in Aleppo,” saying:

“(T)he offensive against President Bashar al-Assad’s troops may have had more foreign help than it appears.” One unnamed source said “tens of trucks (were spotted) bringing in weapons” cross-border “daily for weeks…weapons, artillery – we’re not just talking about some bullets or guns.”

“(C)ash and supplies (have been) ferried in for weeks.” While meeting with Putin in St. Petersburg, Erdogan continued actively aiding terrorists slaughtering Syrian civilians.

Did their discussion change things? No evidence so far suggests it, but it’s too early to tell. Turkey is a NATO member with close ties to anti-Assad regimes.

He wants normalized relations with Russia restored while insisting Assad must go – showing he and Putin remain intractably apart on resolving Syria’s conflict diplomatically, at least so far.

Will he shift from being anti-Assad to allying with Russia in combating terrorism in Syria – or at least stop supporting it?

Will he close Turkey’s border with Syria to halt daily flows of weapons, munitions and terrorist fighters to replenish depleted ranks?

Will he change from anti-Syrian belligerent to supporting Russia’s peace initiative? The fullness of time will tell which way he goes. Count on nothing positive unless he proves it conclusively and sticks by any commitment he may make.

Given his complicity with Washington throughout years of conflict as a NATO member and for his own self-interest, it’s hard being optimistic for what lies ahead.

Despite strained relations with Washington, he may try playing the US and Russia card simultaneously, proving he can’t be trusted if that’s his intention.

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. » http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.
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 The Erdogan Putin Meeting: “A New Landmark in Bilateral Relations?”

Ukraine, Instability, and the US Election – No Way Out?

août 10th, 2016 by William Boardman

Headline: Ukraine claims Russian invasion possible ‘at any minute’

Of course this sensationalized claim is as true as it is empty. A possible invasion has been as true for decades as it is now, and it will be just as true as long as Russia and Ukraine share a border (currently almost 1,000 miles long). Since September 2014, Ukraine has been building “Project Wall” along about 110 miles of the Russian border, an admitted “jobs project” reminiscent of the Maginot Line of the 1930s between France and Germany. But a possible invasion is a far cry from an imminent invasion, and a farther cry from an actual invasion, neither of which is shouted among the current cries of wolf in the region.

More realistically, reports from Ukraine in early August suggest that the long-simmering, chronic near-crisis there, while perhaps warming a degree or two, remains a long-simmering, chronic near-crisis (or perhaps, as some optimists suggest, a “frozen conflict”). For now, the unstable stasis of Ukraine seems to suit the needs of the major players – Russia and the U.S./NATO – if not the people actually on the ground in Ukraine, slowly being ground up by the unbroken hostilities of a broken culture. Geopolitically, the structure of peace in Ukraine seems to have more fault lines than support members. This has been true for many years, so maybe the rickety construction will continue to hold, however shakily – until the parties find the will to settle their differences somewhat rationally, or until someone decides to kick out the jambs.

The only constant in the Ukrainian meta-construct is that the country is and remains a shaky buffer against direct confrontation between the world’s two most deadly nuclear-armed states.

The perimeter of Independence Square, known as Maidan in Kiev in 2014. (photo: Brendan Hoffman/Getty Images)

The perimeter of Independence Square, known as Maidan in Kiev in 2014. (photo: Brendan Hoffman/Getty Images) go to original article

The headline shown above is from the Irish Times, over a story quoting unnamed sources in the Kiev government, who in turn quote unnamed sources in Crimea. Nothing in the story, taken as a whole, supports the fearmongering headline. Even Kiev acknowledges that Russian troop movements are exercises, of unstated scale at an unstated distance from the border. Even less ominously, Kiev reported that the Russians closed several (not all) Ukraine-Crimea border crossings along the 114-mile border, then reopened them after several hours, for unstated reasons.

Reporting the same news, the American propaganda outlet Radio Free Europe (RFE) based its story on reports from unnamed “Crimean Tatar activists” who said some border crossings were closed and undefined but “unusually large concentrations of Russian hardware” were seen in the northern region. RFE also quoted Nariman Celal (or Dzhelalov) describing movement of equipment but not troops, also reported by the Crimean Human Rights Group. And RFE quoted a Tatar member of Ukraine’s parliament and member of the Poroshenko Solidarity Party, Refat Chubarov, a Crimean Tatar exile since 1968, as saying the Russian activities appeared to be a training exercise. In the past, Chubarov has described Crimea as a territory of fear for Tatars: “they are prosecuted, sentenced on fabricated charges, forced to leave their land.”

Luhansk assassination attempt 350 miles from Crimea

During the past year, in the breakaway provinces of eastern Ukraine, several rebel commanders have been killed in attacks similar to the August 6 roadside bombing that injured Igor Plotnitsky, the head of the Luhansk People’s Republic since 2014, and two guards riding in the same car. A third guard was killed. Plotnitsky was hospitalized with reportedly severe liver and spleen damage, but was reportedly in stable condition on the evening of the bombing. Luhansk authorities blamed the attack on Ukrainian and Western intelligence agencies. Kiev denied involvement. Plotnitsky himself blamed the U.S. in an online audio:

I am alive and healthy. The war is not over, and behind the Ukrainian government are the intelligence services of the U.S., those who try to roil the situation in Ukraine and in the world in general.

Since declaring independence in 2014, Luhansk has reportedly had an internal power struggle among various factions. Nevertheless, Plotnitsky helped shape the 2015 Minsk peace agreement that achieved an erratic cease-fire and reduced fighting in the region. According to the Moscow correspondent of the Los Angeles Times:

Shortly after declaring independence [in 2014], Luhansk split into several warring enclaves that were controlled by Cossacks, far-right nationalists and other pro-Russia forces. Plotnitsky consolidated control by removing and exiling his opponents whose supporters accused him of trying to assassinate them. Two of Plotnitsky’s main rivals were killed last year [2015] in car explosions. Plotnitsky’s advisor was gunned down in April.

The attack on Plotnitsky comes in the midst of increased violence in the Donbas region, with reports of armed combat and increased shelling on both sides of the ceasefire line established by the Minsk agreement of February 2015. Reporting the highest level of civilian casualties in a year, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, reported on August 3:

The escalation of hostilities and the accompanying civilian casualties in eastern Ukraine over the last two months are very worrying. Civilians are once again having to flee to improvised bomb shelters in their basements, sometimes overnight, with increasing frequency – the price of the ceasefire violations is too high for the women, men and children in eastern Ukraine….

The many casualties we have documented in recent weeks suggest that neither Ukrainian forces nor the armed groups are taking the necessary precautions to protect civilians. We urge all sides to respect the ceasefire provisions, to remove combatants and weapons from civilian areas, and to scrupulously implement the provisions of the Minsk Agreements.

The UN High Commissioner also called on the Kiev government to act on its promise to ratify the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Since the Rome Statute provides for personal, individual accountability for criminal actions, the commissioner argued, its adoption will increase incentive for all parties to act lawfully and protect civilians.

According to an Associated Press report on August 6, “the worst of the fighting in eastern Ukraine [is] now over,” having the effect of releasing a flood of weapons into the rest of Ukraine, creating a “supermarket” for millions of illegal weapons. Crimes committed with guns have more than doubled since 2014. Weapons are also reportedly being smuggled to Europe and to the Middle East. Ukraine has classified all information it has on illegal arms trade.

U.S. shadow war with Russia quietly escalates in smallish increments

After twenty years of stealth aggression, U.S./NATO efforts provoked the Ukrainian coup that drove Russian ally and Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych out of office and out of the country. Facing a hostile takeover of a country on the Russian border, Russian president Vladimir Putin took over Crimea and incorporated it into Russia, which a majority of Crimeans may have preferred, rather than remaining part of a hostile and chaotic Ukraine. If U.S./NATO apparatchiks saw that coming in the wake of their coup, they had no effective plan to head it off, and the ensuing “that’s-not-fair” tantrum by the stymied West is what we’ve had to live with ever since. Russia continues to integrate Crimea into Russia. The U.S./NATO forces continue to bring military threats to Russia’s European borders. This is a quiet cold war, but just as dangerous as the original Cold War.

Since 2014, the U.S. has spent more than $600 million in Ukraine just training the National Guard and the Armed Forces, according to U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense Michael Carpenter. The U.S. is also the largest donor of military equipment to Ukraine, more than $117 million since 2014 (out of a total of $164.1 million from all donors combined). Affirming that these supplies and training are part of continuing Western pressure on Russia by bringing a neighboring state into the NATO military alliance, Carpenter also indicated the Ukrainian forces remain substandard:

They still have a lot of work ahead. Especially, if Ukraine wants to create a new army, compatible with NATO forces, by 2020. This requires a lot of efforts put into structural reorganization, logistics reform, military health system etc.

There are U.S. troops in Ukraine at any given moment, in the hundreds if not thousands, moving in and out with different missions, making any reliable count a transient fact. The Russians also have troops in Crimea, which they consider Russia. And there are likely Russian troops and/or irregulars in eastern Ukraine, present at the behest of the disputed current governments. (A year ago, Ukraine was citing Russian forces on both sides of the Ukraine border as evidence of imminent war, as reported by the Independent, like the Irish Times’ war “at any minute” this year.)

The U.S. commander of NATO frets about the Russians’ ability to move troops more quickly than NATO can, comparing recent training exercises (and assuming what the general says is true). This is designed to raise fear of the Russians. But in the Alice-in-Wonderland world of NATO stealth aggression, there is an unspoken assumption that Russian maneuvers within Russian borders are far more threatening than U.S. troop movements on Russia’s borders, some 5,000 miles from Washington. In this Washington wonderland, somehow it makes sense for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to continue its 15-year-long war in Afghanistan, which is not really that close to the North Atlantic.

What happens if the U.S./NATO forces just stop advancing?

So we have a presidential election underway, right? That means there’s a possibility of power shifting to saner heads than we’ve seen since 1992, at least in theory. So what have the candidates been saying?

Hillary Clinton has called Putin a bully and said she’s stood up to him in the past. She doesn’t talk much about her role as Secretary of State when she chose Dick Cheney puppet Victoria Nuland to stir up the catastrophic Ukraine coup that has brought us to the present unstable mess. Still to be sorted out are the donations Ukrainian oligarchs made to the Clinton Foundation before Mrs. Clinton helped destabilize the country. In an ironic prelude to recent hacking accusations in the current campaign, back in 2011 Secretary Clinton accused Putin of rigging his election and he accused her of meddling in Russian politics. In 2014, Clinton compared Putin’s annexation of Crimea to Adolf Hitler’s 1938 unopposed occupation of the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia. The comparison is as politically raw as it is historically distorted, but never mind, Hitler analogies are useful as a measure of the desperation of their users. Colin Powell’s former chief of staff, Lawrence Wilkerson, is concerned that Clinton sees war as “the first instrument of choice.” If Clinton has any plans to defuse the U.S.-Russian confrontation, she’s kept them well hidden.

Almost a year ago, Donald Trump told a conference on Ukraine that the Russians invaded Ukraine because “there is no respect for the United States…. Putin does not respect our President whatsoever.” He said it was Europe’s problem to clean up the mess, about which he has showed no comprehension, saying it didn’t matter to him whether or not Ukraine was in NATO. More recently Trump, apparently meaning something else, said that Putin is “not going into Ukraine, OK, just so you understand. He’s not going into Ukraine, all right, you can mark it down.” That makes sense if one assumes that Crimea is a fait accompli and that Putin has no desire to embrace the fractious chaos of the rest of Ukraine (beyond maintaining the irritant of Donbas independence).” Of course Trump did not explain it that way, or any other coherent way.

What’s interesting here is that the worse candidate, in his inchoate and apparently mindless way, is stumbling down a road that could lead to peace. The more experienced candidate appears to remain determinedly committed to a course that leads inevitably, sooner or later, to a nuclear confrontation. No wonder Russians are saying, according to USA Today, that Trump’s “rude jokes and fun is like a fresh breeze” and that Trump would be more likely than Clinton to improve U.S.-Russian relations.

And even less wonder that a former CIA director and deputy director is castigating Trump and endorsing Clinton. The CIA has such a wonderful record of alerting the President to bin Laden, affirming WMDs in Iraq, promising the success of the Ukrainian coup, and preventing the rise of the Islamic State, among its peak accomplishments. Michael Morrell, CIA 1980-2013, published an August 5 Op-Ed in The New York Times headlined: “I ran the C.I.A. Now I’m endorsing Hillary Clinton.” That’s a mixed notice well calculated to exacerbate cognitive dissonance, or in more colloquial terms: That’s a joke, right?

William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV, print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.

 

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Ukraine, Instability, and the US Election – No Way Out?

Unsuspecting citizens are paying for a nexus of interlocking agencies that conspire to create terror, war, and police-state legislation in a War of Deception that serves to devastate humanity.

Without its arsenal of fabricated war pretexts, and its fabricated Fear apparatus, the warmongering oligarchy would be denuded and reveal itself as the mass-murdering terrorist entity that it is.

Most recently, in Canada, Justice Catherine Bruce disclosed the true nature of an RCMP terror plot when she overturned terror convictions against two patsies – John Nuttal and Amanda Korody – who were set up by police operatives to commit a terrorist act for which they would otherwise be totally incapable of performing.

Bruce stated the obvious when she observed that,

Simply put, the world has enough terrorists. We do not need the police to create more out of marginalized people who have neither the capacity nor sufficient motivation to do it themselves.

The “forbidden truth” is that agencies of Canada’s federal government created a false flag terror event with a view to:

  • create an atmosphere of fear (aimed at the general public as well as politicians),
  • create  Islamophobia
  • create a false pretext for a War on Terror (translated: illegal imperial invasions using un-Islamic terrorists as proxy armies)
  • create a pretext for unconstitutional, fascist, police state legislation  (C-51 legislation)

Unsuspecting, otherwise peace-loving citizens, are also being duped into paying for Private Intelligence Contractors (PICS) who receive lucrative government contracts to engage in a full spectrum of activities designed to create and sustain war crimes.

The author writes in “Full Spectrum Dominance”, Private Intelligence Contractors and “Engineered Consent” that,

Science Application International Corporation (SAIC) is likely the largest (and least known) PIC, with a huge staff (about 40,000 in 2007, likely more now), and it is fully integrated into the War Machine.

Donald L. Bartlett and James B. Steele report in “Washington’s $ Billion Shadow, that

‘SAIC’s friends in Washington are everywhere, and play on all sides; the connections are tightly interlocked. To cite just one example: Robert M. Gates, the new secretary of defense, whose confirmation hearings lasted all of a day, is a former member of SAIC’s  board of directors …’

The U.S. government, through its incestuous relationship with SAIC, effectively created false intelligence – with impunity —as a fabricated pretext to wage the illegal war of aggression against Iraq.

Fake intelligence reports were also used to pin the East Ghouta (false flag) terror event on the Assad government, and to provoke a direct U.S/Coalition military invasion to depose Syria’s democratically-elected President.

A memo from “Veterans intelligence Professionals for Sanity” (VIPS) indicated that,

some of our former co-workers are telling us, categorically, that contrary to the claims of your administration, the most reliable intelligence shows that Bashar al-Assad was NOT responsible for the chemical incident that killed and injured Syrian civilians on August 21, and that British intelligence officials also know this. In writing this brief report, we choose to assume that you have not been fully informed because your advisers decided to afford you the opportunity for what is commonly known as ‘plausible denial.’

The CIA specializes in the commission of crimes beneath which the protective shield of “plausible deniability” can be invoked should suspicions of CIA complicity be aroused.

Professor Tim Anderson and others also demonstrate, with sustainable evidence, that the East Ghouta gas attack was false flag terrorism.

The Pentagon’s use of PICS to perpetrate war crimes is now becoming normalized.  According to Kate Brannen in “Spies-for-Hire Now at War in Syria”, the Pentagon publicly disclosed the terms of a contract with a PIC called Six3 Intelligence Solutions to provide “intelligence analysis services” in a number of countries, but most notably, Syria.  The public may not be aware that such an intervention in Syria is illegal, or that Six3 Intelligence Solutions has a proven track record as interrogators at the Abu Ghraib torture chambers, or that it will no doubt offer the CIA plenty of “plausible deniability” to perpetrate crimes with impunity.

Whereas the government and its agencies should be using our tax dollars to “create no harm”, and to further the cause of peace and prosperity, it is clear beyond any reasonable doubt that governing agencies are creating much harm, through stealth and deception, thanks to the steady flow of tax dollars streaming into its coffers.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Interlocking Agencies that Conspire to « Create Terror »: We Do Not Need the Police to « Create More Terrorists »

A Nonviolent Strategy to End War

août 10th, 2016 by Robert J. Burrowes

There is a long history of anti-war and peace activism. Much of this activism has focused on ending a particular war. Some of this activism has been directed at ending a particular aspect of war, such as the use of a type of weapon. Some of it has aimed to prevent a type of war, such as ‘aggressive war’ or nuclear war. For those activists who regard war as the scourge of human existence, however, ‘the holy grail’ has always been much deeper: to end war.

There is an important reason why those of us in the last category have not, so far, succeeded. In essence, this is because, whatever their merits, the analyses and strategies we have been using have been inadequate. This is, of course, only a friendly criticism of our efforts, including my own. I am also not suggesting that the task will be easy, even with a sound analysis and comprehensive strategy. But it will be far more likely.

Given my own preoccupation with human violence, of which I see war as a primary subset, I have spent a great deal of time researching why violence occurs in the first place – see

‘Why Violence?‘ and ‘Fearless Psychology and Fearful Psychology: Principles and Practice‘.  – and by taking or teaching strategic nonviolent action in response to many of its manifestations.

Moreover, given that I like to succeed when I work for positive change in this world, I pay a great deal of attention to strategy. In fact, I have written extensively on this subject after researching the ideas of the greatest strategic theorists and strategists in history. If you are really keen, you can read about this in The Strategy of Nonviolent Defense: A Gandhian Approach.

However, because I know that most people aren’t too interested in scholarly works and that nonviolent activists have plenty of worthwhile things to do with their time, I have recently been putting the essence of the information in the book onto two websites so that the strategic thinking is presented simply and is readily available.

One of the outcomes I would like to achieve through these websites is to involve interested peace and anti-war activists from around the world in finalizing the development of a comprehensive nonviolent strategy to end war and to then work with them to implement it.

Consequently, I have been developing this nonviolent strategy to end war and I invite you to check it out and to suggest improvements. You can see it on the Nonviolent Campaign Strategy website. https://nonviolentstrategy.wordpress.com/

If you are interested in being involved in what will be a long and difficult campaign, I would love to hear from you.

You might also be interested in signing the online pledge of ‘The People’s Charter to Create a Nonviolent World’ where the names of many nonviolent activists who will work on this campaign are already listed.

Ending war is not impossible. But it is going to take a phenomenal amount of intelligent strategic effort, courage and time. Whether we have that time is the only variable beyond our control.

Robert J. Burrowes has a lifetime commitment to understanding and ending human violence. He has done extensive research since 1966 in an effort to understand why human beings are violent and has been a nonviolent activist since 1981. He is the author of ‘Why Violence?’ http://tinyurl.com/whyviolence His email address is [email protected] and his website is here. http://robertjburrowes.wordpress.com

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur A Nonviolent Strategy to End War

As Hillary Clinton attempts to seal Henry Kissinger’s endorsement, documents reveal how he undermined Jimmy Carter’s human rights agenda in Argentina.

In a much-awaited step toward uncovering the historical truth of the U.S.-backed Dirty War in Argentina in the 1970’s and 80’s, the United States has delivered over 1,000 pages of classified documents to the South American country. But critics argue that there are major gaps in the files, including the exclusion of CIA documents, that keep in the dark important details of the extent of human rights violations and the U.S. role in such abuses.

The Argentine government delivered the newly-declassified documents to journalists and human rights organizations on Monday after U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry presented the files to President Mauricio Macri during a state visit last week.

The 1,078 pages from 14 U.S. government agencies and departments are the first in a series of public releases over the next 18 months of declassified documents related to Argentina’s last military dictatorship, including Argentine Country Files, White House staff files, correspondence cables, and other archives, according to a statement from the U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

Operation Condor

The files include grisly descriptions of torture, rape, assassinations, and forced disappearances carried out by the military regime under General Jorge Rafael Videla, installed after the 1976 coup against left-wing President Isabel Peron.

The documents also detail Henry Kissinger’s applause of the Argentine dictatorship and its counterinsurgency strategy, including during a visit to General Videla during the 1978 World Cup. National Security staffer Robert Pastor wrote in 1978 that Kissinger’s “praise for the Argentine government in its campaign against terrorism was the music the Argentine government was longing to hear.”

Argentina’s so-called anti-terrorism policy was in reality a brutal crackdown on political dissidents, human rights defenders, academics, church leaders, students, and other opponents of the right-wing regime. It was also part of the regional U.S.-backed Operation Condor, a state terror operation that carried out assassinations and disappearances in support of Sout America’s right-wing dictatorships. In Argentina, up to 30,000 people were forcibly disappeared during the Dirty War.

The documents also detail how then-U.S. President Jimmy Carter raised concern over the human rights situation in Argentina, including in a letter to General Videla rather gently urging him to make progress with respect to human rights. At the time, Kissinger reportedly demonstrates a “desire to speak out against the Carter Administration’s human rights policy to Latin America,” according to a memo by National Security’s Pastor.

The further confirmation of Kissinger’s attrocious legacy in Latin America comes as U.S. presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton courts an endorsement from Kissinger, widely condemned as a war criminal by human rights groups.

However, despite the revealing details, the batch of documents is also lacking in key archives, the Argentine publication El Destape pointed out. The package does not include files from the CIA or the Defense Intelligence Agency, which specializes in military intelligence.

What’s more, although the documents were expected to cover the period of 1977 to 1982, the latest documents are dated 1981, which means that cables related to the 1982 Malvinas War between Argentina and Britain and the U.S. role in the conflict are not included.

The Macri administration hailed the release of the documents as the result of a “new foreign policy” that has steered the country to rekindle ties with the United States after former Presidents Nestor Kirchner and Cristina Fernandez championed anti-imperialist politics for 12 years. But the self-congratulatory government narrative ignores the fact that Argentine human rights organizations have demanded for years that the archives be released in a fight for historical truth that first bore fruit in 2002 with the release of over 4,500 U.S. documents.

Furthermore, Macri has come under fire for undermining investigations into dictatorship-era crimes after his sweeping austerity campaign scrapped departments charged with gathering historical evidence in certain public institutions. The Argentine president has also been criticized over his indirect ties to the military regime, which proved to hugely benefit his family business, the Macri Society, also known as Socma.

U.S. President Obama described the move as a response to the U.S. “responsibility to confront the past with honesty and transparency.” Obama announced plans to release documents related to the Dirty War during a visit with Macri in Argentina in March, which coincided with the 40th anniversary of the 1976 military coup.

Obama’s visit was widely criticized by human rights activists over the insensitivity of the timing. Although he announced plans for the United States to “do its part” with respect to uncovering historical truth about the dictatorship period, he did not apologize for the United States’ involvement in human rights abuses and widespread forced disappearance.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Declassified Docs Detail US Role in Argentina Dirty War Horrors

Raging Anti-Trumpism

août 10th, 2016 by Stephen Lendman

It seems like the whole universe opposes him with an unprecedented daily blizzard of anti-Trump articles, commentaries and editorials in US print media and what passes in America for television news – stuff no respectable independent news director would allow on air.

Make no mistake. He’s not above reproach, not by a long shot. He didn’t get to be a billionaire by being a good guy. He’s unaccountable for lots of unsavory baggage, what it takes to become a corporate tycoon. Maybe he’s not all bad.

His anti-establishment sounding rhetoric rattles bipartisan power brokers, especially Wall Street, war-profiteers and other corporate interests wanting no changes from current policies – not even around the edges, the most to be hoped for from a Trump presidency if elected.

Giving overwhelming opposition from powerful interests and media scoundrels, it’s hard imagining him having any chance to succeed Obama.

He calls things rigged against him. America’s sordid history of election rigging shows he’s right, today with electronic ease and other dirty tricks.

Clinton was chosen to succeed Obama last year before campaigning began. Trump’s nomination defied predictions. Long knives emerged to stop him straightaway after announcing he’d seek the GOP nomination last year. They continue their daily dirty work, especially after he got it.

Why? He says things on the stump other aspirants for high political office wouldn’t dare, virtually unique in US presidential races.

Some comments are outrageous like wanting a wall on Mexico’s border and “a complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”

Others suggest important steps in the right direction if implemented – including a new role for NATO, rapprochement with Russia (the best hope for preventing WW III), perhaps better relations with China, Iran and other independent countries, opposition to TPP and other jobs-destroying trade deals, as well as hopefully less eagerness for war to be America’s top geopolitical strategy of choice.

Advocating these type policies even rhetorically mobilizes America’s bipartisan establishment militantly against anyone suggesting them – wanting Trump defeated in November by fair or foul means.

Electing Clinton assures continuity on steroids, accelerating America’s war on humanity at home and abroad.

If Trump emerged victorious, defying long odds against him, at least they’d be a chance for turning US policy modestly in the right direction.

Preventing WW III is the best reason for opposing Clinton. Trump would rather make money from planet earth than destroy it.

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. » http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

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 Raging Anti-Trumpism

“Many of our interlocutors have been purged or arrested”. — James Clapper, US Director of Intelligence on Turkish Coup (Financial Times 8/3/16, p. 4)

Washington has organized a systematic, global, no holds barred campaign to oust Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump from the electoral process.  The virulent anti-Trump animus, the methods, goals and mass media resemble authoritarian regimes preparing to overthrow political adversaries.

Comparable propaganda efforts led to political coups in Chile in 1973, Brazil 1964, ad Venezuela in 2002.  The anti-Trump forces include both political parties, a Supreme Court judge, Wall Street bankers, journalists and editorialist of all the major media outlets and the leading military and intelligence spokespeople.

Washington’s forcible and illegal ouster of Trump is part and parcel of a world-wide campaign to overthrow leaders and regimes which raise questions about aspects of the imperial policies of the US and EU.

We will proceed to analyze the politics of the anti-Trump elite, the points of confrontation and propaganda, as a prelude to the drive to oust opposition in Latin America, Europe, the Middle East and Asia.

The Anti-Trump Coup

Never in the history of the United States, has a President and Supreme Court Judge openlyadvocated the overthrow of a Presidential candidate.  Never has the entire mass media engaged in a round-the-clock one-sided, propaganda war to discredit a Presidential candidate by systematically ignoring or distorting the central socio-economic issues of their opposition.

The call for the ouster of a freely elected candidate is nothing more or less than a coup d’état.

Leading television networks and columnists demand that the elections be annulled, following the lead of the President and prominent Republican and Democratic Congressional and Party leaders.

In other words, the political elite openly rejects democratic electoral processes in favor of authoritarian manipulation and deception.  The authoritarian elite relies on magnifying tertiary, questionable personal judgement calls to mobilize coup backers.

They systematically avoid the core economic and political issues which candidate Trump has raised – and attracted mass support – which challenge fundamental policies backed by the two Party elites.

The Roots of the Anti-Trump Coup

Trump has raised several key issues which challenge the Democratic and Republican elite.

Trump has drawn mass support and won elections and public opinion polls by:

(1)  rejecting the free trade agreements which has led major multinationals to relocate abroad and disinvest in well-paying industrial jobs in the US

(2)  calling for large scale public investment projects to rebuild the US industrial economy, challenging the primacy of financial capital.

(3)  opposing the revival of a Cold War with Russia and China and promoting  greater economic co-operation and negotiations.

(4)  rejecting US support for NATO’s military build-up in Europe and intervention in Syria, North Africa and Afghanistan.

(5)  questioning the importation of immigrant labor which lowers job opportunities and wages for local citizens.

The anti-Trump elite systematically avoid debating these issues; instead they distort the substance of the policies.

Instead of discussing the job benefits which will result from ending sanctions with Russia, the coupsters screech that ‘Trump supports Putin, the terrorist’.

Instead of discussing the need to redirect investment inward to create US jobs, the anti-Trump junta mouth clichés that claim his critique of globalization would ‘undermine’ the US economy.

To denigrate Trump, the Clinton/Obama junta resorts to political scandals to cover-up mass political crimes.  To distract public attention, Clinton-Obama falsely claim that Trump is a ‘racist’, backed by David Duke, a racist advocate of “Islamophobia”.  The anti-Trump junta promoted the US- Pakistani  parents of a military war casualty  as victims of Trump’s slanders even as they rooted for Hillary Clinton, promotor of wars against Muslim countries and author of  military policies that sent thousands of US soldiers to their grave.

Obama and Clinton are the imperial racists who bombed Libya and Somalia and killed, wounded and displaced over 2 million sub-Saharan Black-Africans.

Obama and Clinton are the Islamaphobes who bombed and killed and evicted five million Muslims in Syria and one million Muslims in Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq.

In other words, Trump’s mistaken policy to restrict Muslim immigration is a reaction to the hatred and hostility engendered by the Obama- Clinton million-person Muslim genocide.

Trump’s “America First” policy is a rejection of overseas imperial wars – seven wars under Obama-Clinton.  Their militarist policies have inflated budget deficits and degraded US living standards.

Trump’s criticism of capital and job flight has threatened Wall Street’s billion-dollar profiteering – the most important reason behind the bi-partisan junta’s effort to oust Trump and the working class’s support for Trump.

By not following the bi-partisan Wall Street, war agenda, Trump has outlined another business agenda which is incompatible with the current structure of capitalism.  In other words’ the US authoritarian elite does not tolerate the democratic rules of the game even when the opposition accepts the capitalist system.

Likewise, Washington’s quest for ‘mono-power’ extends across the globe.  Capitalist governments which decide to pursue independent foreign policies are targeted for coups.

Obama-Clinton’s  Junta Runs Amok

Washington’s proposed coup against Trump follows similar policies directed against political leaders in Russia, Turkey, China, Venezuela, Brazil and Syria.

Russian President Putin has been demonized by the US propaganda media on an hourly basis for the better part of a decade.  The US has backed oligarchs and promoted economic sanctions; financed a coup in the Ukraine; established nuclear missiles on Russia’s frontier; and launched an arms race to undermine President Putin’s economic policies in order to provoke a coup.

The US backed its proxy Gulenist ‘invisible government’ in its failed coup to oust President Erdogan, for failing to totally embrace the US Middle East agenda.

Likewise, Obama-Clinton have backed successful coups in Latin America. Coups were orchestrated in Honduras, Paraguay and more recently in Brazil to undermine independent Presidents and to secure satellite neo-liberal regimes.  Washington presses forward to forcibly oust the national-populist government of President Maduro in Venezuela.

Washington has escalated efforts to erode, undermine and overthrow the government of China’s President Xi-Jinping through several combined strategies.  A military build-up of an air and sea armada in the South China Sea and military bases in Japan, Australia and the Philippines; separatist agitation in Hong Kong, Taiwan and among the Uyghurs; a US- Latin American- Asia free trade agreements which excludes China.

Conclusion

Washington’s strategy of illegal, violent coups to retain the delusion of empire stretches across the globe, ranging from Trump in the US to Putin in Russia, from Erdogan in Turkey to Maduro in Venezuela to Xi Jinping in China.

The conflict is between US-EU imperialism backed by their local clients against endogenous regimes rooted in nationalist alliances.

The struggle is ongoing and sustained and threatens to undermine the political and social fabric of the US and the European Union.

The top priority for the US Empire is to undermine and destroy Trump by any means necessary.  Trump already has raised the question of ‘rigged elections’. But each elite media attack of Trump seems to add to and strengthen his mass support and polarize the electorate.

As the elections approach, will the elite confine themselves to verbal hysteria or will they turn from verbal assassinations to the ‘other kind’?

Obama’s global coup strategy shows mixed results: they succeeded in Brazil but were defeated in Turkey; they seized power in the Ukraine but were defeated in Russia; they gained propaganda allies in Hong Kong and Taiwan but suffered severe strategic economic defeats in the region as China’s Asian trade policies advanced.

As the US elections approach, and Obama’s pursuit of his imperial legacy collapses, we can expect greater deception and manipulation and perhaps even frequent resort to elite-designed ‘terrorist’ assassinations.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Obama versus Trump, Putin and Erdogan: Can Coups Defeat Elected Governments?

“Do I have to kill myself to go to Australia?” — Asylum seeker, Nauru, March 2, 2015

Human sensibility has been given another sound beating with the leak of 2,116 incident reports from Australia’s remorseless detention camp on Nauru.  The reports total some 8,000 pages covering the period of May 2013 to October 2015 and were published by the Guardian on Wednesday.[1]

The newspaper notes that children are heavily, in fact “vastly over-represented in the reports” featuring in a total of 1,086 incidents despite making up only 18 percent of the detained population.  Even the bureaucratic “ratings” of harm and risk given by the private security firm Wilson’s can’t varnish the brutalities.

Interspersed in this horror story are the features that are meant to make such detention conditions modest. Such is the cynicism of refugee and asylum seeker management – part torment, part amelioration.  Internet facilities are provided; children undertake classes, though the incident reports note instances of sobbing and depression within them.

Other features of a grotesque system have also been noted in the sordid pile, one that has been growing for some years now.  A security guard in one incident report from January 2015 is noted as threatening a fleeing child after being “jokingly tapped”. After resettlement had been obtained, the guard issued a solemn promise to the fearful youth: “I will kill you in Nauru.”[2]  Hardly cheerful banter.

There are numerous instances of self-harm, denoted in the leaked files as “actual self-harm”. One asylum seeker slashed his left wrist on March 29 last year, leaving “blood on the floor and drops of blood in the hallway leading to the room.”[3]

Others focus on instances of starvation or threatened starvation, that great weapon of anti-establishment disaffection.  Described as a “major” incident, one case is reported as involving an asylum seeker who “had informed the staff that he will not eat or drink anything until he gets to Australia.”[4]

The incident reports also note the disturbed and disrupted world view of those in the facility.  Hemmed in and closed, fearing indefinite detention, claustrophobia sets in, with desires to inflict self-harm.  Accompanied by a mental health nurse and interpreter, one asylum seeker expresses her desire to perish. Asked whether she had been eating, the response is glum.  “Eating?  I don’t want to eat; I want to die.”

According to the report, she then “threw the top half of her body around and hit her head on the end of the bed metal railing.”[5]  She was subsequently restrained by the security staff, held down to prevent attempts to “punch herself in the face.”

Then come fears of what will happen to those yet to be born.  Another mother noted to a case worker in October 2015 about her refusal to have her baby in the complex.  “If I am made to have my baby on Nauru, I will have a baby in my tent and kill myself and my baby.”[6]

The waters in light of this disclosure should still be warm after the revelations of persistent and brutal treatment of youths in Australia’s own Northern Territory juvenile detention system. What is good for Australia’s internal system of mistreatment of youths is evidently good for children who arrive under designated “illegal” conditions.

Both instances demonstrate the chronic hypocrisy in the approach of the Australian political and security establishment to those it designates as outside the legal frontiers of society. Beyond the contrived letter of the law, lawlessness on the part of security guards and brutal conditions within the facilities are permitted – even against children.

The difference, however, is that the Australian prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, enfeebled by the reactionary elements of his party, is unlikely to consider a Royal Commission or any such panacea regarding Nauru.  Nor is the opposition Labor Party going to buck the trend.

Both major sides of politics have previously been inundated with reports of sexual abuse by guards, non-consensual sex within the community, instances of self-harm, and the dangers of the system to children.

In January this year, to take one example, Nauru’s police forces confirmed it was investigating the sexual molestation of an Iranian six-year-old girl, along with that of her father, by an individual in the camp complex.

The Nauru Police Forces, in an attempt to mollify any initial outrage, released a statement claiming that the alleged assaults had been inflicted “against a refugee by another refugee” and that it had taken place in the “community/workplace, not processing centre.”[7]

There is one heartening matter about this squalid affair: no legislative regime attempting to close off the borders of information has worked.  The Australian Border Force Act passed last year in an effort to criminalise whistleblowing touching upon material connected with the camp, was a crude attempt at shutting off the flow of information and keeping discussion about Nauru down to a minimum.

For all that, the detention complex continues to leak evidence of abuse and mistreatment like the very sinking vessels the Australian government repels with corrupt determination. May it continue to spring more over time, eventually stunning an otherwise indifferent public to indignant reaction.

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

Notes

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/aug/10/the-nauru-files-2000-leaked-reports-reveal-scale-of-abuse-of-children-in-australian-offshore-detention

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Refugee Trauma: Australia’s Remorseless Detention Camp on Nauru

Libya’s post 2011 King Idris Flag

It is rare for a historian to write a history of a significant issue and bring it into the present time; even rarer when the work coincides with the reemergence of that issue on the world stage.  Paolo Sensini has done just that with Sowing Chaos: Libya in the Wake of Humanitarian Intervention (Clarity Press, 2016).  It is a revelatory historical analysis of the exploitation and invasion of Libya by colonial and imperialistic powers for more than a century.

It is also timely since the western powers, led by the United States, have  once again invaded Libya (2011), overthrown its government, and are in the process (2016) of creating further chaos and destruction by bombing the country for the benefit of western elites under the pretext of humanitarian concern.

As with the history of many countries off the radar of western consciousness, Libyan history is a tragic tale of what happens when a country dares assert its right to independence – it is destroyed by violent attack, financial subterfuge, or both.

Although an Italian and Italy has a long history of exploiting Libya, a close neighbor, Sensini stands with the victims of colonial and imperial savagery.  Not an armchair historian, he traveled to Libya during the 2011 war to see for himself what was true.  Despite his moral stand against western aggression, his historical accuracy is unerring and his sourcing impeccable.  For 234 pages of text, he provides 481 endnotes, including such fine sources as Peter Dale Scott, Patrick Cockburn, Michel Chossudovsky, Pablo Escobar, and Robert Parry, to name but a few better known names.

His account begins with Italy’s 1911 war against Libya that “Francesco Saverio Nitti charmingly described …. as the taking of a ‘sandbox’.”  The war was accompanied by a popular song, “Tripoli, bel suol d’amore” (Tripoli, beauteous land of love).  Even in those days war and love were synonymous in the eyes of aggressors.

This war went on until 1932 when the Sanusis’s resistance was finally crushed by Mussolini.  First Italy conquered the Ottoman Turks, who controlled western Libya (Tripolitania); then the Sanusis, a Sunni Islamic mystical militant brotherhood, who controlled eastern Libya (Cyrenaica).  This Italian war of imperial aggression lasted 19 years, and, as Sensini writes, “was hardly noticed in Italy.”

I cannot help but think of the U.S. wars against Afghanistan and Iraq that are in their 15th and 13th years respectively, and counting; they are not making a ripple on the placid indifference of the American people.

Sensini presents this history clearly and succinctly.  Most of the book is devoted to the period following the 1968 overthrow of King Idris by the Free Unionist Officers, led by the 27 year old captain Mu’ammar Gaddafi.  This bloodless coup d’état by military officers, who had all risen from the poorer classes, was called “Operation Jerusalem” to honor the Palestinian liberation movement.  The new government, The Revolutionary Command Council (RCC), had “three key themes …. ‘freedom, socialism, and unity,’ to which we can add the struggle against western influences within the Arab world, and, in particular, the struggle against Israel (whose very existence was, according to Gaddafi, a confirmation of colonialization and subjugation).”

Sensini explains the Libyan government under Gaddafi, including his world theory that was encapsulated in his “Green Book” and the birth of what was called “Jamahiriyya” (State of the Masses).  Gaddafi called Libya the “Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriyya.”

Under Gaddafi there was dialogue between Christians and Muslims, including the establishment of diplomatic relations with the Holy See, and visits from Eastern Orthodox and Anglican religious leaders.  Fundamentalist Islamic groups criticized Gaddafi as a heretic for these moves.  Gaddafi described Islamists as “reactionaries in the name of Islam.”  His animus toward Israel remained, however, due to the Palestinian issue. He promoted women’s rights, and in 1996 Libya “was the first country to issue an international arrest warrant with Osama bin Laden’s name on it.”

He had a lot of enemies: Israel, Islamists, al Qaeda, the western imperial countries, etc.  But he had friends as well, especially among the developing countries.

A large portion of the book concerns the U.S./NATO 2011 attack on Libya and its aftermath.  This attack was justified and sanctioned by UN Resolutions 1970 (2/26/11) and 1973 (3/17/11).  These resolutions were prepared by the work of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) that in 2000-2001 produced a justification for powerful nations to intervene in the internal affairs of any nation they chose.  Termed the “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P), it justified the illegal and immoral “humanitarian” attack on Libya in 2011.  The ICISS, based in NYC, was founded by, among others, the Carnegie Corporation, the Simons, Rockefeller, William and Flora Hewitt, and John D. and Catherine MacArthur foundations, elite moneyed institutions devoted to American interventions throughout the world.

When the US/NATO attacked Libya, they did so despite the illegality of the intervention (an Orwellian term) under the UN Resolutions that prohibit arming of ‘rebels’ who do not represent the legal government of a country.  On March 30, 2011 the Washington Post, a staunch supporter of US aggression, reported an anonymous government source as saying that “President Obama has issued a secret funding that would authorize the CIA to carry out a clandestine effort to provide arms and other support to Libyan opposition groups.”  None of the mainstream media, including the Washington Post, noted the hypocrisy of reporting illegal activities as if they were legal.  The law had become irrelevant.

The Obama administration had become the opposite of the Kennedy administration.  Whereas JFK, together with Dag Hammarskjold the assassinated U.N. Secretary General, had used the UN to defend the growing third world independence movements throughout the world, Obama has chosen to use the UN to justify his wars of aggression against them.  Libya is a prime example.

Sensini shows in great detail which groups were armed, where they operated, and who they represented.  The US/NATO forces armed and supported all sorts of Islamist terrorists, including the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), led by Abu al-Laith al Libby, a close Afghan associate of Osama bin Laden, and al Qaeda’s third in command.

“These fanatical criminals (acclaimed as liberators by the mainstream media worldwide) were to form Libya’s emerging ruling class.  These were people tasked to ensure a democratic future for Libya.  However, the ‘rebel’ council of Benghazi did what it does best – ensuring chaos for the country as a whole, under a phantom government and a system of local fiefdoms (each with a warlord or tribal chief).  This appears to be the desired outcome all along, and not just in Libya.”

Sensini is especially strong in his critical analysis of the behavior of the corporate mass media worldwide in propagandizing public opinion for war.  Outright lies – “aligning its actions with Goebbels’ famous principle of perception management” and the Big Lie (thanks to Edward Bernays, the American father of Public Relations) – were told by Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya, and repeated by the western media, about Gaddafi allegedly slaughtering and raping thousands of Libyans.  Sensini argues persuasively that Libya was a game-changer in this regard.

Here, the mass media played the part of a military vanguard.  The cart, as it were, had been put before the horse.  Rather than obediently repackaging and relaying the news that had been spoon fed to them by military commanders and Secretaries of State, the media were called upon actually to provide legitimation for armed actors.  The media’s function was military. The material aggression on the ground and in the sky was paralleled and anticipated by virtual and symbolic aggression.  Worldwide, we have witnessed the affirmation of a Soviet approach to information, enhanced to the nth degree.  It effectively produces a ‘deafening silence’ – an information deficit.  The trade unions, the parties of the left and the ‘love-thy-neighbor’ pacifists did not rise to this challenge and demonstrate against the rape of Libya.

The US/NATO attack on Libya, involving tens of thousands of bombing raids and cruise missile, killed thousands of innocent civilians.  This was, as usual, explained away as unfortunate “collateral damage,” when it was admitted at all.  The media did their part to downplay it. Sensini rightly claims that the U.S./NATO and the UN are basically uninterested in the question of the human toll.  “The most widely cited press report on the effects of the NATO sorties and missile attacks on the civilian population is most surely that of The New York Times.  In ‘Strikes on Libya by NATO, an Unspoken Civilian Toll’, conveniently published after NATO’s direct intervention had ceased.  The article is truly a fine example of ‘embeddedness’:”

While the overwhelming preponderance of strikes seemed to hit their targets without killing noncombatants, many factors contributed to a run of fatal mistakes.  These included a technically faulty bomb, poor or dated intelligence and the near absence of experience military personnel on the ground who could direct air strikes.  The alliances apparent presumption that residences thought to harbor pro Gaddafi forces were not occupied by civilians repeatedly proved mistaken, the evidence suggests, posing a reminder to advocates of air power that no war is cost or error free.

The use of words like “seemed” and “apparent,” together with the oft used technical excuse and the ex post facto reminder are classic stratagems of the New York Times’ misuse of the English language for propaganda purposes.

Justifying the killing, President Obama “explained the entire campaign away with a lie.  Gaddafi, he said, was planning a massacre of his own people.”

Hilary Clinton, who was then Secretary of State, was aware from the start, as an FOIA document reveals, that the rebel militias the U.S. was arming and backing were summarily executing anyone they captured: “The State Department and Obama were fully aware that the U.S.-backed ‘rebel’ forces had no such regard for the lives of the innocent.”

Clinton also knew that France’s involvement was because of the threat Gaddafi’s single African currency plan posed to French financial interests in Francophone Africa.  Her joyous ejaculation about Gaddafi’s brutal death – “We came, we saw, he died” – sick in human terms, was no doubt also an expression of relief that the interests of western elites, her backers, had been served.

It is true that Gaddafi did represent a threat to western financial interests.  As Sensini writes, “Gaddafi had successfully achieved Libya’s economic independence, and was on the point of concluding agreements with the African Union that might have contributed decisively to the economic independence of the entire continent of Africa.”

Thus, following the NATO attack, Obama confiscated $30 billion from Libya’s Central Bank.  Sensini references Ellen Brown, the astute founder of the Public Banking Institute in the U.S., who explains how a state owned Central Bank, as in Libya, contributes to the public’s well-being.  Brown in turn refers to the comment of Erica Encina, posted on Market Oracle, which explains how Libya’s 100% state owned Central Bank allowed it to sustain its own economic destiny.  Encina concludes, “Hence, taking down the Central Bank of Libya (CBL) may not appear in the speeches of Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy [and Clinton] but this is certainly at the top of the globalist agenda for absorbing Libya into its hive of compliant nations.”

In five pages Sensini tells more truth about the infamous events in Benghazi that resulted in the deaths of US Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three American colleagues than the MSM has done in five years.  After the overthrow of Gaddafi, in 2012 Stevens was sharing the American “Consulate” quarters with the CIA.  Benghazi was the center of Sanusi jihadi fundamentalism, those who the US/NATO had armed to attack Gaddafi’s government.  These terrorists were allied with the US.  “Stevens’s task in Benghazi,” writes Sensini, “now was to oversee shipments of Gaddafi’s arms to Turkish ports.  The arms were then transferred to jihadi forces engaged in terrorist actions against the government of Syria under Bashar al-Assad.”  Contrary to the Western media, Sensini says that Stevens and the others were killed, not by the jihadi extremists supported by the US, but by Gaddafi loyalists who had tried to kill Stevens previously.  These loyalists disappeared from the Libyan and international press afterwards.  “The reports now focused on al-Qaida, Islamists, terrorists and protesters.  No one was to mention either Gaddafi … or his ghosts.”

The stage for a long-term Western intervention against terrorists, who were armed by the US/NATO, was now set. The insoluble disorder of a vicious circle game meant to perpetuate chaos was set in motion.  Sensini’s disgust manifests itself when he says, “Given its record of lavish distribution of arms to all and sundry in Syria, the USA’s warning that, in Libya, arms might reach ‘armed groups outside the government’s control’ is beneath contempt.”

Sowing Chaos: Libya in the Wake of Humanitarian Intervention is a superb book.  If you wish to understand the ongoing Libyan tragedy, and learn where responsibility lies, read it.  If the tale it tells doesn’t disgust you, I’d be surprised.

In closing, I would be remiss if I didn’t mention that former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, a stalwart and courageous truth teller, has written a fine forward where she puts Libya and Sensini’s analysis into a larger global perspective.  As usual, she pulls no punches.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur The Façade of « Humanitarian Intentions » in Libya

I was privileged to visit Syria as part of the US Peace Council delegation.  We spent six intense days in Syria at the end of July 2016. During this time we met with President Bashar Al Assad, the Grand Mufti Hassoun, many opposition leaders and dissidents, parliamentary speakers and members, Syrian NGOs, education ministers, university directors, health sector officials, lawyers, Chamber of Commerce and many more.

The experience was enriching, overwhelming and emboldening as we all realised to what extent our governments are attempting to destroy this noble country that is surviving through stubborn unity and resistance against the attempts to fracture their society along sectarian lines that never existed prior to the US allied illegal intervention.

The following is an interview Henry Lowendorf and I gave to Syria TV at the end of our trip. It was an emotional experience, the testimonies we had heard during our short time were compelling and moving. Meeting President Bashar Al Assad and listening to his wise and pertinent analysis of events in Syria and globally were a wake up call for us, living under true tyrants and oligarchs whose intent is mass murder, theft and rape of sovereign nations in order to feed their inhumane and ravenous hegemony. Henry and I both struggled to keep emotions under control during the interview.

Thank you Syria for welcoming us with such generosity and hospitality despite the ravages being inflicted upon you by our governments and their media/NGO propaganda operatives.  

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur US Peace Council Delegation Visit to Syria: « Our Governments are Attempting to Destroy This Noble Country »: Vanessa Beeley

Six Tu-22M3 bombers took off from the Russian territory and carried out concentrated air strikes on ISIS targets near al-Sukhnah and Arak in the Syrian province of Homs. The bombers destroyed the terrorists’ control centres and concentrations, ammo storage, 3 infantry fighting vehicles, 12 crossover utility vehicles with weapons were near Palmyra and Arak. A command and control centre and a large field camp located near al-Sukhnah were also destroyed by the air strikes.

The Syrian army and the National Defense Forces have been making major advances in northern Latakia after redeployment of significant jihadist forces to Aleppo city. Pro-government forces have already captured Shir al-Qaboo, al-Qantarah and the strategic town of Kinsibba.

The situation remains tense in southwestern Aleppo.

The Jaish al-Fatah operation room holds positions in the corridor to the militant-controlled areas in eastern Aleppo while clashes are reported at the Cement Plant and in the 1070 Apartment Project. The jihadists also shell the pro-government positions in the 3000 Apartment Project. However, they have not been able to launch a successful advance there. The Syrian army’s artillery and the Russian and Syrian air power have been striking on targets in the 1070 Apartment Project, the Ramouseh Artillery Base and the jihadists’ rear.

The both sides have difficulties with providing supplies to the besieged areas because the opened corridors through the Castello Highway and the Alramousa road don’t allow free passage of aid convoys. If the jihadists are able to widen the opened corridor and launch constant delivers to eastern Aleppo, it will be a major military, PR and diplomatic blow to the Assad government and its Russian and Iranian allies. Some believe that if this redline is passed, Moscow could be pushed to use ground forces in order to save its achievements of the operation in Syria that had already drawn significant human, organizational and financial resources.

Follow us on Social Media:
http://google.com/+SouthfrontOrgNews
https://www.facebook.com/SouthFrontENTwo
https://twitter.com/southfronteng

 

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Video: Stalemate in Battle for Aleppo? Opposition Terrorists Strike Back

In a damning judgment, British Columbia Supreme Court Justice Catherine Bruce ruled Friday that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) broke the law and “manufactured” a terrorism plot as part of a months-long entrapment operation that ended in a Vancouver-area couple being arrested and ultimately sentenced to life in prison.

John Nuttall and Amanda Korody were arrested July 1, 2013 and accused of planting bombs on the grounds of the British Columbia legislature in Victoria.

But Justice Bruce found that the couple would never have taken any action had it not been for the active encouragement and coercion of undercover RCMP officers. “This was not a situation in which the police were attempting to disrupt an ongoing criminal enterprise,” declared Bruce in her 210-page judgment. “Rather, the offences committed by the defendants were brought about by the police and would not have occurred without their involvement. By any measure, this was a clear case of police-manufactured crime.”

Undercover officers posing as Islamist extremists, befriended the isolated couple, who were recent converts to Islam, and encouraged them to act on statements they had made decrying the killing of Muslims in US-led wars and threatening to wage jihad and die as martyrs for Islam. Subsequently, the police suggested and facilitated the legislature bomb plot, removing obstacles that the police themselves acknowledged Nuttall and Korody would not have been able to overcome alone, and going so far as threaten them when they appeared reluctant to proceed.

Justice Bruce found that “Operation Souvenir,” which involved over 240 RCMP officers and cost $900,000 in overtime hours alone, breached the Criminal Code and tarnished the administration of justice.

Calling police claims Nuttall and Korody constituted a grave threat to public safety “quite farcical,” Justice Bruce wrote, “I find that the RCMP knowingly facilitated a terrorist activity by providing money and other services to the defendants that helped and made easier the terrorist activities.”

The spectre of the defendants serving life sentences for a crime that the police manufactured, exploiting their vulnerabilities, by instilling fear that they would be killed if they backed out … is offensive to our concept of fundamental justice.

The Crown has announced it will appeal Justice Bruce’s ruling.

Despite Bruce issuing a stay on proceedings, with the life imprisonment sentences for both being quashed, Nuttall and Korody were brutally rearrested within a few hours. They appeared before a provincial court judge Friday afternoon and were compelled to sign peace bonds, a draconian power at the disposal of the state to restrict the activities of so-called terrorist suspects even if they have not been convicted of a crime. Nuttall and Korody will be restricted from certain areas, including the legislature grounds, synagogues and Jewish cultural centers, are not allowed to visit certain internet sites, and must regularly report to a bail officer.

In comments to the press, Crown lawyer Peter Eccles claimed Justice Bruce’s decision would undermine the police’s ability to pursue terrorism suspects and sought to link Nuttal and Korody to the recent horrific attacks carried out by lone perpetrators in Germany and France, even though the court had just ruled that there was no evidence to support the suggestion that the couple intended to carry out an attack. He declared, “As we’ve seen even in the last six weeks, lone participants are undeniably the greatest challenge law enforcement faces.” Such scare-mongering neglects to mention the fact that the individuals who have carried out such attacks have frequently been disorientated, alienated and sometimes radicalized by the aggressive policies of war abroad and repression of refugees and attacks on democratic rights at home.

The state’s power to use peace bonds was expanded dramatically under Bill C-51. This sweeping police-state law was rushed through parliament by the previous Conservative government with the backing of the then-opposition Liberals in the wake of attacks on armed forces personnel in Ottawa and St. Jean-sur-Richelieu in October 2014 that killed two people. In fulfillment of an election pledge, the Liberal government of Justin Trudeau has pledged to make cosmetic changes to the legislation, including implementing a parliamentary oversight committee, but intends to leave the peace-bond system untouched.

Nuttall and Korody’s conviction as “terrorists” was itself an important element in the right-wing, anti-democratic campaign whipped up by the political elite and media last year to justify ramming Bill C-51 through parliament without any serious public debate.

More broadly, the constant invocation of the threat of “terrorism” has been exploited to accustom the population to a drastic assault on their basic democratic rights, as well as to legitimize Canada’s expanded involvement in military operations in the Middle East in alliance with the United States.

The Liberal government upholds the key provisions of Bill C-51, including the right of the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service (CSIS) to actively disrupt vaguely defined “threats” to public security, the right of the police to detain terrorist suspects for up to seven days without charge, a new criminal offence of promoting terrorism in general, and a catch-all ban on “terrorist propaganda” that could be used to clamp down on social and political opposition to the government.

The fate that befell Nuttall and Korody makes clear the dangers faced by working people from authorities wielding such unchecked powers.

The couple, who lived in a basement apartment in a Vancouver suburb, were extremely socially isolated and recovering drug addicts. They rarely left their home, and were described by the judge as “naive,” “childlike” and “gullible.” Even police briefing notes presented at the original trial acknowledged Nuttall was possibly “developmentally delayed.”

Marilyn Sandford, Nuttall’s attorney, pointed out that her client suggested a number of outlandish ideas for attacks, including hijacking a nuclear submarine and firing rockets across the border at Seattle.

When the couple showed signs of refusing to go through with the legislature attack, they confronted threats from the undercover officers, including warnings they would be killed. They were also induced with offers of jobs and help in an elaborate escape plan.

Finally, when a new primary investigator was appointed to the case a week before the alleged plot was to take place, he had the couple removed from their home to get rid of distractions. Vaz Kassam explained to the court that other officers were frustrated because the pair were not preparing for the attack as planned.

“The police decided they had to aggressively engineer the plan for Nuttall and Korody and make them think it was their own,” Bruce noted.

Maureen Smith, Nuttall’s mother, said the pair would require counseling to recover from the ordeal they had experienced over the past three years.

The media immediately sought to portray the vast undercover sting, which theNational Post admitted was ordered at “senior levels,” as simply an error or bungled operation. The Post commented in its article, “It took one clear-headed judge to see through the stupidity and explain to the public the true facts of this policing and prosecutorial affront.”

In reality, the methods employed against Nuttall and Korody are standard practice for the security and intelligence apparatus in Canada, which functions in close collaboration with its partner organizations in the United States.

In a Human Rights Watch (HRW) report published in 2014, the organization noted a worrying trend in Canada of “discriminatory investigations, often targeting particularly vulnerable individuals (including people with intellectual and mental disabilities and the indigent), in which the government—often acting through informants— is actively involved in developing the plot, persuading and sometimes pressuring the target to participate, and providing the resources to carry it out.”

HRW also issued a specific warning related to the prosecution of Nuttall and Korody. Andrea Prasow, HRW’s deputy director in Washington, compared the proceedings in BC to the US government’s determined efforts to entrap vulnerable individuals in concocted “terrorism” plots in the aftermath of 9/11. “What we’ve seen allegations of [in BC] are at least similar practices to what we’ve seen in the US,” she commented last June following the original convictions.

In the so-called VIA Rail terror plot, an undercover FBI agent and other security officials used an elaborate entrapment scheme to implicate Chiheb Esseghaier and Raed Jaser in a plan to derail a passenger train traveling between Toronto and New York. The agent repeatedly refused to answer questions in court, citing the secrecy of his work, and the media was banned from the courtroom and prohibited from reporting his two weeks of testimony.

Even though two psychiatrists ruled that Esseghaier was mentally unfit for the sentencing process, declaring him potentially schizophrenic, the judge ignored pleas from his lawyers to consider delaying sentencing and placing him in a hospital for treatment. Esseghaier and Jaser were sentenced to life in prison last September.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Canadian Police « Manufactured » Terror Plot to Ensnare Couple

Il y a un trou bleu dans la mer de Chine du Sud. Le Longdong − Trou du Dragon − a une profondeur étonnante de 300,89 mètres, dans les eaux bleues profondes autour de Yongle, un récif de corail majeur dans les îles Paracels (ou Xisha, dans leur dénomination chinoise).

Les cyniques peuvent faire valoir qu’après la récente décision de La Haye, largement opposée à la ligne des neuf tirets de la Chine, l’ensemble de la mer de Chine méridionale serait plus comme un trou géopolitique noir − pas bleu − où une turbulence sérieuse est presque inévitable.

J’ai examiné ailleurs la façon dont l’histoire de la mer de Chine méridionale est maintenant entrée en collision avec les impératifs dérivés du système westphalien, et comment le pivot vers l’Asie des États-Unis accélère le conflit. J’ai également examiné comment l’obsession de la marine américaine de « l’accès » piétine le droit souverain des nations à profiter des eaux environnant un groupe d’îles ou de rochers.

Et puis, il y a cette logique incontournable qui enveloppe toutes les guerres de l’énergie : « C’est le pétrole, stupide ».

Dans le bleu profond

Le différend territorial actuel centré sur la Chine et les Philippines − beaucoup plus que sur la Chine et l’ASEAN − tournant autour de ce qui est prescrit par la Convention des Nations Unies sur le droit de la mer (UNCLOS), sera finalement résolu par une décision simple. Manille devra décider entre suivre la décision de La Haye à la lettre ; ou reculer, de facto, sur la souveraineté au profit des gains, plutôt tôt que tard, sur la sécurité énergétique − en partenariat avec les Chinois. Le Président philippin Duterte a déjà donné des signes qu’il va opter pour le pragmatisme.

CNOOC et d’autres grandes compagnies pétrolières chinoises vont sans tabou exploiter le pétrole et le gaz dans la mer de Chine méridionale. Mais il y a un gros lézard. La majorité absolue des géoscientifiques − par exemple, les membres de la  Southeast Asia Petroleum Exploration Society (SEAPEX) basée à Singapour − conviennent que la plupart des ressources énergétiques sont en fait à l’extérieur de la ligne des neuf tirets de la Chine, donc pas du tout près de ces rochers, récifs, hauts-fonds contestés.

Seuls quelques endroits dans les îles Spratleys seraient considérés comme une bonne affaire. Essentiellement, dans l’eau profonde, très profonde − à plus de 6000 mètres, bien plus profonde que le Trou du Dragon − il n’y a que de la croûte océanique sans aucune trace de pétrole ou de gaz. Pire encore, aucun réservoir dans lequel le pétrole et le gaz pourraient s’accumuler.

L’US Energy Information Administration a estimé il y a trois ans que la mer de Chine méridionale ne contient que 11 milliards de barils de pétrole et 190 mille milliards de pieds cubes de gaz, comme réserves commercialement viables.

A titre de comparaison, ce serait comparable à tout le pétrole du Mexique ou de l’Europe occidentale − sans tenir compte de la Russie, bien sûr. Et cela vaut pour l’ensemble de la mer de Chine méridionale − y compris les zones qui appartiennent incontestablement à certaines des zones économiques exclusives des nations littorales (ZEE).

Pour les Philippines − ou même le Vietnam − cela pourrait changer la donne. Mais pas pour la Chine. Même si toute cette énergie était expédiée en vrac vers la Chine dans un proche avenir, elle suffirait pour seulement quelques années de consommation.

La mer de Chine méridionale est en fait plus importante comme voie de transit maritime privilégiée pour plus d’un tiers du pétrole et la moitié du gaz naturel liquéfié (GNL) mondial. Au moins 10% − et ça augmente − de la consommation totale d’énergie de la Chine passe par la mer de Chine méridionale.

Mais pourquoi l’obsession de l’exploitation de l’énergie sous-marine persiste-t-elle ?

Le HYSY 981 voyagera

 

HAI YANG SHI YOU 981
La plate-forme de forage chinoise HYSY 981 

Encore une fois, nous devons revenir au concept chinois de souveraineté mobile. Entre en scène la plate-forme de forage en eau profonde Haiyang Shiyou 981. HYSY 981 a été fameusement décrite par nul autre que le chef de CNOOC, Wang Yilin, comme une arme stratégique faisant partie de la souveraineté nationale mobile de la Chine. On peut deviner que les analystes purs et durs du Pentagone apprécieront le concept.

Ainsi, lorsque CNOOC utilise HYSY981, il n’y a pas besoin d’occuper une île, un rocher, un récif, ou les eaux environnantes, quelle que soit la façon dont l’UNCLOS peut choisir de les décrire. Vous déplacez votre arme stratégique sur un coin contesté de la mer. Vous faites votre exploration en eau profonde, extrayez ce que vous pouvez, puis revenez en arrière dans les eaux internationales. La seule chose dont vous avez besoin est la main de la marine chinoise pour vous protéger pendant une courte période de temps − par exemple, de la marine vietnamienne. Et si les choses se corsent, vous pouvez toujours vous retirer comme signe de bonne volonté.

Peu en Occident le savent peut-être, mais la Chine construit et déploie aujourd’hui plus de HYSY981 que de matériel militaire. Bienvenue dans la version asiatique sous-marine de « Drill, baby, Drill ».

En ce qui concerne l’équation de l’énergie, la construction sans relâche d’îles artificielles par la Chine dans ce que l’UNCLOS définit comme des rochers, et l’offensive des HYSY981 pointent tous deux sur le Saint Graal de la sécurité énergétique de la Chine : échapper à Malacca. L’impératif goulet d’étranglement contrôlé par l’US Navy doit être progressivement évité.

Il importe peu qu’il n’y ait pas beaucoup de pétrole ni de gaz dans la mer de Chine du Sud. Ce qui importe, c’est que cela fait partie d’une très longue stratégie de réseaux de communications dans laquelle Pékin investit pour la mise en place d’une chaîne d’infrastructures − tout au long du chemin qui va de l’océan Indien jusqu’au Pacifique occidental, pour garantir et protéger son approvisionnement commercial et énergétique.

Et c’est tout ce que signifie le concept de « souveraineté mobile », imité de Sun Tzu.

 Pepe Escobar

Article original en anglais : What «Drill, Baby, Drill» Means in the South China Sea, Strategic Culture, 31 juillet 2016.

Traduit et édité par jj, relu par Catherine pour le Saker francophone

Pepe Escobar est l’auteur de Globalistan : How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007), Red Zone Blues : a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge (Nimble Books, 2007), Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009), Empire of Chaos (Nimble Books) et le petit dernier, 2030, traduit en français.

  • Posted in Francais @fr
  • Commentaires fermés sur Que signifie « Forage, chéri, forage » en mer de Chine du Sud?

« El grado de civilización de una sociedad se mide entrando a sus cárceles” , Fiódor Mijailovich Dostoyevski

Medios de prensa en Costa Rica han anunciado en estos recientes días la decisión del juez Roy Murillo Rodríguez de ordenar al Estado el cierre definitivo de la Unidad de San Sebastián, por tratarse de una verdadera « jaula humana » (ver  nota  de La Nación). En esta otra  nota del medio digital CRHoy, se precisa que las autoridades de Costa Rica deberán reubicar a más de 1260 personas privadas de libertad.

El jurista Roy Murillo Rodríguez es un juez ejecutor de la pena: se trata de una figura legal que no necesariamente existe en todas las legislaciones penales, y que permite  a quienes ostentan este cargo, proceder a visitas regulares a centros de detención, como parte de sus funciones.

Recordemos que hace tres años, se leyó por parte de otra entidad pública costarricense a cargo de visitas regulares a los centros de detención en Costa Rica (pero ajena al sistema judicial) que: « La Defensoría de los Habitantes consideró que las cárceles costarricenses “son depósitos de personas” que violan la dignidad humana tanto de reos, como del personal técnico y de seguridad. Así se consignó en el informe anual sobre la situación en el 2012, del sistema penitenciario, trabajo elaborado por el Mecanismo Nacional de Prevención de la Tortura de la Defensoría » (ver  nota  de La Nación del 28 de mayo del 2013).

Políticas de “mano dura”, “mano firme”, y leyes altamente represivas en Costa Rica adoptadas hace algunos años, así como el uso abusivo de la detención preventiva ante la presión ejercida por los medios de comunicación, explican, al menos en parte, el problema de hacinamiento actual que sufre el sistema carcelario costarricense (y en particular la Unidad de San Sebastián), al igual que muchos otros en América Latina. Con relación a la detención preventiva, se lee en una reciente  nota  publicada en Perú en el sitio Ius360, algunas valoraciones que pueden aplicar a la situación de algunos jueces costarricenses: “Coyuntura y realidad nacional: En muchos casos, los magistrados de los juzgados de investigación preparatoria tiene un rol provisional en la jerarquía judicial; con lo cual, esperan cumplir con la exigencia social de aplicar “mano dura” contra la delincuencia y temor al escándalo mediático. Medios de Comunicación: Es común que los medios de comunicación ataquen tanto al propio Estado como a los operadores de justicia en su accionar; más aún si este accionar no es acorde con lo esperado por el común de las personas (no siempre lo legalmente correcto o debido)”. 

Sobre las penas de cárcel, el mismo juez Roy Murillo Rodríguez, en una entrevista en el año 2014 concedida a la periodista Natalia Rodríguez Mata, recordaba que mientras la tenencia de droga se sanciona en España con 4 o 5 años, 3 años en Argentina, el mínimo impuesto en Costa Rica es de 8 años (ver   entrevista  en YT, del Programa Sobre la Mesa, Canal 15 UCR, emisión del 19/06/2014, “Política Carcelaria en Costa Rica”, Minuto 21:00).

La luz de una visita ante la oscuridad rampante

Como es bien sabido, tradicionalmente las cárceles de un Estado constituyen lugares sombríos, mantenidos voluntariamente en una suerte de oscuridad institucionalizada: la única ventana de esperanza para los que en ellos cohabitan a diario, es la luz que puede arrojar la visita de un ente fiscalizador externo al sistema carcelario como tal. Precisamente, entre 1991 y el 2002, Costa Rica lideró exitosamente duras negociaciones en el seno de las Naciones Unidas: estas culminaron con la adopción, el 18 de  diciembre del 2002, en Nueva York, de un novedoso instrumento internacional, bajo la forma de un protocolo facultativo. El objetivo de este tratado arduamente negociado (y cuya adopción se dio mediante un inusual voto, con tan solo cuatro votos en contra: Estados Unidos, Islas Marshall, Nigeria y Palau) es el de prevenir significativamente los malos tratos y la tortura en los centros de privación de libertad con base en un sistema de visitas regulares a lugares en los que, por alguna razón, personas se encuentran privadas de su libertad (Nota 1)

El sistema establecido en el Protocolo Facultativo a la Convención contra la Tortura de Naciones Unidas consta de un mecanismo internacional (el Subcomité para la Prevención de la Tortura o SPT) y uno nacional, el Mecanismo Nacional de Prevención (MNP), que cada Estado Parte debe establecer en función de su marco normativo e institucional.

En el caso de Costa Rica, Estado que ratificó el Protocolo en el 2005, el MNP es un órgano adscrito directamente a la Defensoría de los Habitantes (u Ombudsman), creado mediante la ley 92014 adoptada en febrero  del 2014 (ver  sitio oficial  del MNP).  Anterior a esta ley, un Decreto Ejecutivo del 2005 designaba de manera provisional a la Defensoría de los Habitantes como MNP.  La opción costarricense, no exenta de críticas, fue seguida por otros Estados, como México o la misma España (ver  informe  del MNP español adscrito al Defensor del Pueblo): en el caso de España, la discusión previa a la designación del MNP en el 2010 dio  lugar a un intenso debate (Nota 2), al igual que en el caso de México, cuya designación de su MNP fue antecedida por una larga serie de consultas entre el 2004 y el 2007 auspiciadas por Naciones Unidas para intentar conciliar posiciones encontradas (Nota 3).

En su primer informe de labores del 2014 luego de su creación mediante ley (ver texto completo), el MNP de Costa Rica concluye recordando las serias limitaciones con las que desempeña sus labores: “Se reitera que el MNPT adolece de una infraestructura (oficina) adecuada y suficiente para desarrollar su trabajo, lo cual representa un problema, debido a que no se tiene espacio para alojar a los (as) dos funcionarios (as) nuevos (as), para lo cual se deberán tomar medidas emergentes. De tal manera, para el presupuesto del año 2016, se solicitarán los recursos correspondientes para la construcción de las oficinas del Mecanismo Nacional de Prevención de la Tortura” (p. 59).

Al momento de redactar estas líneas, el Protocolo Facultativo cuenta con 81 Estados Partes (ver  estado oficial  de firmas y ratificaciones). Mientras que, con excepción de Belice, los demás Estados anglófonos del hemisferio americano (incluyendo a Canadá y a Estados Unidos) se mantienen distantes de dicho instrumento, en América Latina, faltan al llamado Colombia, Cuba, El Salvador, Haití y República Dominicana (Estados que, al igual que los precitados Estados anglófonos, no han considerado oportuno ni tan siquiera suscribirlo); así como Venezuela, que lo ha firmado más no ratificado.

 

Imagen extraía de portada de  publicación  sobre la implementación del Protocolo Facultativo a la Convención de Naciones Unidas contra la Tortura, (APT/Suiza).

De algunas iniciativas novedosas

Mencionemos que el tema de la privación de libertad ha generado desde varios años en Costa Rica valiosas iniciativas por parte de algunas entidades sociales y personas,  en particular en el ámbito cultural y artístico: ver por ejemplo esta  nota  del 2014 sobre presentación en la Alianza Francesa de un poemario, así como esta  nota  sobre encuentro sobre danza y cárceles del 2011 y el artículo de la Revista Perfil « El arte, redescrubiendo a los privados de libertad » del 2011.  En una reciente entrevista a una poeta costarricense galardonada en el 2016 en España, Paola Valverde Alier (ver  nota ), se lee que: “Me tocó trabajar durante cuatro años dando clase de poesía en una cárcel de hombres aquí en Costa Rica. Tenía 17 años y me acompañaba mi mamá al no tener cédula”.  En esta  nota  del 2006 de La Nación sobre otro espacio para la poesía en varias cárceles de Costa Rica, se lee que: “Uno de los grupos, integrado por Espinoza, Marenco, Valverde, Ilama y Mora, llegó al centro penal de Cocorí, ubicado en Cocorí, a las 9:30 a. m. Lo jóvenes regalaron cuatro rondas de poemas a más de 40 internos que se reunieron en el gimnasio de la cárcel. Con el lema de que « la poesía salva », Paola Valverde presentó a los invitados y, de inmediato, cada quien se lanzó con su artillería”. En una nota anterior, del año 2003, sobre los talleres de poesía de Paola Valverde Alier, se lee que: “Creo que es un espacio de formación muy importante porque amplía los horizontes de los privados de libertad. Ellos siempre están deseosos de aprender y muestran un gran interés en la materia, sus apreciaciones y sus comentarios son mucho más profundos que otros que he escuchado como profesor universitario”.

También merece mención la elaboración y venta de artesanías en exposiciones nacionales por parte de los privados de libertad (ver  nota  de CRHoy del 2013). Las posibilidades de trabajo de los privados de libertad fue objeto de una interesante tesis en el 2011 (ver  texto completo ) de Licenciatura en Derecho en la Universidad de Costa Rica (UCR), por parte de la entonces estudiante Maricel Gómez Murillo, en cuanto a su alcance real en la práctica y las mejoras requeridas. Según el autor de otra tesis universitaria (ver  nota  publicada en el Semanario Universidad del 2013) « para los privados de libertad, la oportunidad de participar en la expresión creativa puede convertirse en una experiencia exitosa en cuanto a su rehabilitación y sus procesos de reeducación, pues se ha demostrado que el disfrute y los logros alcanzados propician una reintroducción al sistema educativo de muchos de ellos« .

No obstante estas y muchas otras iniciativas que no dejan siempre rastro en medios de prensa, las condiciones de hacinamiento y el deterioro de la infraestructura están alcanzado niveles tan críticos en Costa Rica, que hacen a un lado estos esfuerzos, e interpelan al sistema carcelario costarricense y, más generalmente, a la sociedad costarricense como tal.  La cárcel de San Sebastián no es la única en mantener altos índices de hacinamiento. Por ejemplo, en este   artículo   del juez Roy Murillo Rodríguez publicada en la Revista de la Maestría en Ciencias Penales en el 2014, leemos que: “en la cárcel de San José (San Sebastián) con espacio para 664 internos, hay 1191 –un 79,6% de hacinamiento, el más alto por centro penitenciario en estos momentos – y en San Carlos, con espacio para 442 personas tenemos a 763 sujetos – 72,6%. Peor aún, en este último recinto carcelario, en la unidad de indiciados, con espacio para 104 hay 236 personas, sea un hacinamiento del 126,9%” (p. 659).

Las razones alegadas por el juez Roy Murillo Rodríguez en el caso de San Sebastián

Luego de repasar de forma muy detallada la gran cantidad de sentencias de la  Sala Constitucional  de la Corte Suprema de Justicia de Costa Rica no acatadas por las entidades recurridas del Ministerio de Justicia a cargo de la Unidad de San Sebastián,  y precisar, datos en mano,  sus hallazgos en calidad de juez ejecutor de la pena, el juez Roy Murillo Rodríguez concluye que:

« En definitiva la cárcel de San Sebastián es hoy una jaula humana deteriorante, aplastante y humillante y esa situación no puede ser tolerada por esta autoridad. El hacinamiento unido a las pésimas condiciones de infraestructura y la gravísima limitación para el acceso a luz y ventilación natural –nótese que se trata de una estructura de tres niveles donde los pocos espacios para la luz y el aire se han ido limitando por razones de seguridad al techar esos accesos- han convertido ese espacio carcelario en un calabozo gigante. Nos encontramos ante un evidente ejercicio de terror de Estado que no es válido en una Democracia y que no puede prolongarse sino que por el contrario se hace necesario cesar con urgencia. Ya no se trata solamente de un problema de hacinamiento sino de una infraestructura y condiciones penitenciarias deterioradas y lesivas de la dignidad humana.  Son más de veinte años que la autoridad judicial ordinaria y constitucional ha esperado soluciones y la degradación y trato inhumano que esa cárcel impone no puede tolerarse bajo ningún motivo o razón. Conforme el pacto fundacional de la sociedad democrática costarricense, ni un solo ciudadano puede ser expuesto a condiciones degradantes y humillantes como las que impone el Centro de Atención Institucional de San José.

(Véase “Medida correctiva de cierre definitivo del Centro de Atención Institucional de San José, N° 1023-2016” con fecha del 20 de julio del 2016,   texto completo  reproducido por DerechoalDia).

En la parte final y resolutiva de su resolución, se lee que:

Por lo tanto, conforme los artículos 5 de la Convención Americana de Derechos Humanos, 33 de la Constitución Política, 51 del Código Penal, las Reglas Mínimas, los Principios y Buenas Prácticas para la Protección de las Personas Privadas de Libertad en las Américas y el Reglamento de Derechos y Deberes de los Privados y Privadas de Libertad, así como la Ley de Creación del Mecanismo Nacional de Prevención de la Tortura, se ordena la clausura o cierre definitivo del Centro de Atención Institucional de San José, el que vencido el plazo de dieciocho meses a partir de la firmeza de esta resolución, no podrá funcionar más para la custodia de población penal institucionalizada, plazo que se otorga considerando los efectos y la crisis que generaría el cierre inmediato del centro penal, ordenándose a la autoridad penitenciaria que a partir de la notificación de esta resolución NO INGRESARÁ UN SOLO PRIVADO DE LIBERTAD MÁS a dicho Centro Penitenciario y en adelante, deberá asegurar el egreso –por resolución judicial que ordene libertad, por traslado a otros centros penitenciarios o a otros programas de atención- de al menos setenta privados de libertad cada mes, hasta su completo desalojo”.

Es menester indicar que una solicitud del mismo juez relacionada con la misma Unidad de San Sebastián, sólidamente respaldada desde el punto de vista técnico (ver  nota  de prensa publicada en La Extra), había ordenado en setiembre del 2013 que no se ingresará a más personas en San Sebastián (véase  texto completo  de las medidas correctivas del 24 de setiembre del 2013, reproducidas por DerechoalDia). Se leyó en aquel entonces por parte de la jurista Cecilia Sánchez Romero (quien ostenta desde el 2015 la cartera del Ministerio de Justicia en Costa Rica) que: « No permitamos hoy que la propia institución conspire contra esta garantía, pretendiendo someter a revisión la decisión de un juez de ejecución de la pena, que no ha hecho más que cumplir con sus obligaciones constitucionales y legales. Un juez que resuelve con fundamento jurídico, con apoyo en normativa procesal, con sólido respaldo de pronunciamientos de la Sala Constitucional en la materia y, por supuesto, con un elemental sentido de humanidad » (ver   nota   publicada en DerechoalDia).

Sistema penitenciario ante escrutinio internacional

Se podría pensar que un espacio que se  sitúa en las mismas entrañas de un Estado, como lo son sus cárceles, no interesa mayormente la esfera internacional. Es posiblemente lo que algunas autoridades estatales desearían, dejando a manos de entidades fiscalizadoras adscritas al mismo aparato estatal represivo el examinar la situación que impera en ellas.

No obstante, la realidad es otra: la situación de los privados de libertad dentro de un Estado no escapa al ámbito del derecho internacional. Por ejemplo, cuando en materia de derechos humanos se menciona la lucha contra la tortura (o su prevención), se incluye también la lucha contra los tratos o penas crueles, inhumanos o degradantes que violentan los principios más básicos de la dignidad humana: los malos tratos que lleguen a calificarse como inhumanos, o crueles, o degradantes, son tan violatorios como la tortura, razón por la que ambas expresiones son indivisibles y así consta en los numerosos instrumentos internacionales de derechos humanos.

Los estándares internacionales, en particular los establecidos en el marco del sistema interamericano de derechos humanos, así como la jurisprudencia en materia de integridad personal y privación de libertad (ver  estudio ) de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos constituyen a ese respecto una útil guía para todos los Estados del hemisferio americano. En uno de sus fallos (ver sentencia en el caso Montero Aranguren y otros versus Venezuela), la Corte Interamericana sentenció que:

el espacio de aproximadamente 30 centímetros cuadrados por cada recluso es a todas luces inaceptable y constituye en sí mismo un trato cruel, inhumano y degradante, contrario a la dignidad inherente del ser humano y, por ende, violatorio del artículo 5.2 de la Convención” (párr. 89).

Para dar otro ejemplo en América Latina, el Procurador General en Colombia, en el año 2003, ya advertía en un pronunciamiento (ver  texto completo ) que:

De acuerdo con el parámetro internacional, cualquier sistema de reclusión o prisión que trabaje bajo condiciones de hacinamiento superiores a 20 por ciento (es decir, 120 personas recluidas por 100 plazas disponibles) se encuentra en estado de “sobrepoblación crítica”. Una situación de “sobrepoblación crítica” puede generar violaciones o desconocimiento de los derechos fundamentales de los internos” (p. 3).

Foto extraída de  artículo  de prensa del 2015 titulado « Hacinamiento en cárceles alcanza cifra récord de 51% », La Nación (Costa Rica), 11 de marzo del 2015

Recientemente, en el mes de marzo del 2016, la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (CIDH), a raíz de la inspección in situ realizada por otro ente habilitado a realizar visitas, el Relator sobre Derechos de las Personas Privadas de Libertad, había hecho públicas sus recomendaciones al Estado costarricense sobre el deplorable estado en el que se encuentran sus cárceles. La Unidad de San Sebastián no escapó a dicho examen, al externar por parte del Relator de la CIDH que:

Asimismo, la Relatoría observó con suma preocupación las precarias condiciones de infraestructura y salubridad. En particular, la Relatoría constató la falta de ventilación en los dormitorios y el calor que prevalece en los mismos. De igual forma, en los diferentes pabellones visitados en la Cárcel de San Sebastián, la delegación de la CIDH observó la falta de privacidad en el uso de servicios sanitarios, así como la total ausencia de espacios para guardar objetos de tipo personal. La Relatoría también recibió diversos testimonios de los internos respecto a las dilaciones en sus procesos judiciales respectivos. Asimismo, expresaron quejas relacionadas con la supuesta falta de atención médica, en particular, sobre la demora en recibir dicha atención y la falta de servicios dentales » (ver texto del informe detallado reproducido en esta  nota  de nuestro blog).

Con relación a la detención preventiva, el órgano interamericano señaló que en vez de ser usado de manera excepcional, es la regla a la que recurren los jueces costarricenses en muchos casos, de manera abusiva. En su informe de marzo del 2016 sobre Costa Rica, sobre este preciso punto, se lee que:

… una persona privada de libertad en la cárcel de San Sebastián manifestó que “No nos investigan para detenernos. Nos detienen para investigarnos”. En la cárcel de San Sebastián, que alberga únicamente a internos en prisión preventiva, las autoridades penitenciarias informaron que el 34% de las personas salen de la cárcel a más tardar 15 días después de su ingreso, y que el 60% deja el penal en un periodo de 60 días; no obstante, refirieron también que en muchos casos la permanencia de los internos era “indefinida”,  incluso personas que habían permanecido en el centro penitenciario por más de ocho años. De igual forma, las autoridades manifestaron su preocupación ante el “regular” uso de la prisión preventiva –que se reflejaría en que aproximadamente una tercera parte de personas en prisión preventiva permanece en la cárcel durante 15 días– y las consecuencias que su uso traería en el aumento del hacinamiento, el “desgaste económico” para el Estado, y el estigma en la vida de las personas. Por otra parte, una funcionaria judicial señaló que “la permanencia entre uno y tres meses de la mayoría de los reos demuestra que en realidad no se justifica la aplicación de [esta medida]””.

En el 2013, en su  informe  sobre el uso de la detención preventiva, la misma Comisión exhortaba en sus conclusiones a todos los Estados Miembros de la OEA a:

1.  …adoptar las medidas judiciales, legislativas, administrativas y de otra índole requeridas para corregir la excesiva aplicación de la prisión preventiva, garantizando que esta medida sea de carácter excepcional y se encuentre limitada por los principios de legalidad, presunción de inocencia, necesidad y proporcionalidad; evitando así su uso arbitrario, innecesario y desproporcionado. Estos principios deberán guiar siempre la actuación de las autoridades judiciales, con independencia del modelo de sistema penal adoptado por el Estado.

2. Intensificar esfuerzos y asumir la voluntad política necesaria para erradicar el uso de la prisión preventiva como herramienta de control social o como forma de pena anticipada; y para asegurar que su uso sea realmente excepcional. En este sentido, es esencial que se envíe desde los niveles más altos del Estado y la administración de justicia un mensaje institucional de respaldo al uso racional de la prisión preventiva y al respeto del derecho presunción de inocencia” (p. 121 del informe de la CIDH titulado “Informe sobre el uso de la prisión preventiva en las Américas”, 2013).

Gráfico publicado en el 2014 por el Mecanismo Nacional de Prevención (MNP) de Costa Rica, órgano técnico adscrito a la Defensoría de los Habitantes, sobre el aumento vertiginoso de la tasa de personas privadas de libertad por cada 100.000 habitantes en Costa Rica

Al analizar brevemente las recientes observaciones realizadas por otra entidad internacional, el Comité de Derechos Humanos de Naciones Unidas, al informe de Costa Rica, nos permitimos referir (ver nuestra modesta  nota   publicada en DerechoalDía del 10 de abril del 2016) a un aspecto que, según todo pareciera indicar, no despertó mayor interés por parte de la prensa nacional y mucho menos por parte de las autoridades costarricenses:

« Finalmente, entre muchos de los señalamientos realizados, quisiéramos incluir en estas muy breves referencias lo que se lee en el punto 25 por parte del Comité de Derechos Humanos, y que ameritaría una explicación detallada por parte de las autoridades: “25. Preocupa al Comité que el Estado parte no haya proporcionado información sobre investigaciones y sanciones por violaciones de derechos humanos cometidos por agentes del orden en centros de detención y por miembros de la Policía, especialmente relacionadas con tortura y malos tratos (art. 7 y 10) ”.

A modo de conclusión: el resultado de advertencias desoídas

Sin lugar a dudas, la situación de las personas privadas de libertad se ha convertido en Costa Rica en un verdadero lunar en materia de derechos humanos. Recomendaciones de unos y otros no parecieran encontrar eco alguno ante un parco aparato estatal. Una obra que lleva el sello de la Comisión Nacional para el Mejoramiento de la Administración de la Justicia (CONAMAJ) publicada en el 2003 concluía ya que:

Mientras tanto, en lo que respecta a esta realidad tantas veces invisibilizada, todo indica que tras los muros de la prisión costarricense sigue prevaleciendo el “universo del no-derecho”, cimentado sobre la persistente devaluación de los derechos fundamentales de las personas privadas de libertad” (Nota 4).

Una zona de “no derecho” en un Estado de Derecho constituye un señalamiento que, en buena teoría,  debiera ser inmediatamente objeto de atención por parte de sus autoridades: en efecto, el “no derecho” desatendido tiende, usualmente, a extenderse.

En esta breve nota de Informa-tico publicada el 25 de junio del 2014, titulada « Día Internacional de la lucha contra la Tortura y los malos tratos La lucha contra la tortura y los malos tratos en Costa Rica« , nos permitíamos concluir nuestras líneas con las palabras redactadas en el 2001 (es decir hace … 15 años) por el entonces Presidente de la Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia de Costa Rica:

« Nuevamente, ante reclamos desatendidos y advertencias desoídas, se recurre a entidades internacionales, con una leve diferencia con relación a otras experiencias recientes: no se trata de víctimas o de comunidades indignadas por la desatención del Estado a sus legítimos reclamos, sino que se trata esta vez del mismo Estado costarricense procediendo a hacer un llamado a estas entidades internacionales… para forzarlo (¿forzarse?) a cumplir con exigencias mínimas en cuanto a condiciones de detención se refiere. Las consecuencias para un sistema penitenciario (ya colapsado) de las políticas represivas de las últimas administraciones debería de constituir un primer ejercicio al que se proceda, en aras de encontrar vías y soluciones duraderas a un problema que, lejos de circunscribirse a las paredes de una cárcel, afecta a la sociedad costarricense como tal. Ya en el año 2001 el Presidente de la Sala Constitucional de Costa Rica, Luis Paulino Mora alertaba: “Con mucha razón se ha dicho que el grado de verdadera democracia y libertad de un país puede medirse por el tipo de cárceles que tenga. Si ello es así, vergüenza nos da a muchos vernos en el espejo de cárceles desgarradas” (Nota 5).

Pese a esta y otras innumerables advertencias hechas, sea desde fuera de Costa Rica o desde la misma Costa Rica, sea desde el mismo sistema judicial, sea desde fuera del mismo, la situación ha ido empeorando. Con relación a las diversas sentencias judiciales relacionadas a la Unidad de San Sebastián, sería interesante verificar si no estamos ante un caso en el que el Estado costarricense se muestra particularmente renuente a acatar lo que le ordenan… sus propios jueces.

Nicolas Boeglin

 

Nota 1: Remitimos a nuestro lector a la descripción detallada de dicho proceso de negociación internacional en el que Costa Rica puso a disposición de este instrumento lo que posiblemente haya sido el mejor equipo de su aparato diplomático en muchos años en IIDH – APT, EL Protocolo Facultativo a la Convención de las Naciones Unidas contra la Tortura y Otros Tratos o Penas Crueles, Inhumanos o Degradantes, San José- Ginebra, APT / IIDH, 2004, en particular páginas 50-73. Texto completo de la obra disponible aquí.

Nota 2: En el caso de España, además de fustigar la falta de transparencia en el diálogo durante el proceso de designación del MNP español (ver nota de la AEDIDH  – Asociación Española para la Aplicación del Deerchop Internacional de los Derechos Humanos –  del 2007), se criticó duramente la designación de la Defensoría del Pueblo como MNP. Se lee en un comunicado de varias ONG españolas del 2010 que: “al estar incluido dentro de la estructura de otra institución del Estado, no se garantiza su independencia funcional del Mecanismo, ni dispondrá de recursos y financiación propios y diferenciados; al estar dentro de la estructura del Defensor del Pueblo, la amplitud de su mandato podría hacer que pasara desaperciba la función de prevención del mecanismo, basado en las visitas periódicas y que requieren alto grado de especialización”.  Se leyó, por parte de especialistas, que. “Sería recomendable, si se quiere potenciar el impacto del Protocolo, que en España se optase por la creación de un órgano mixto en el que tuviesen cabida el Defensor del Pueblo y las organizaciones de la sociedad civil, incluyendo no solo a las ONG, sino también al sector académico, las asociaciones de familiares de presos, asociaciones religiosas, etc…”: véase CEBADA ROMERO A., “El Protocolo Facultativo a la Convención de Naciones Unidas contra la tortura y los centros de internamiento de extranjeros en España”, in MARIÑO MENENDEZ F.M. & CEBADA ROMERO A. (Editores), La creación del mecanismo español de prevención de la tortura, Madrid, Iustel, 2009, pp. 195-221, p. 211.

Nota 3: El suscrito tuvo la oportunidad de asistir a tres de las cuatro rondas de consultas que se organizaron en México entre el 2005 y 2007 entre autoridades nacionales y organizaciones mexicanas de la sociedad civil, con presencia de observadores internacionales (León, Guanajuato, diciembre del 2005; Querétaro, mayo del 2006 y México DF, marzo del 2007). Perceptible, y pese a los ingentes esfuerzos de organismos internacionales invitados a participar y facilitar el diálogo, la desconfianza pareció imponerse ronda tras ronda y, al final, la designación inconsulta por parte de las autoridades de México de la Comisión Nacional de Derechos Humanos (CNDH) como MNP en el 2007, evidenció que la desconfianza por parte de las organizaciones de la sociedad civil era fundamentada. El mismo miembro mexicano del Subcomité Internacional para la Prevención de la Tortura, el académico Miguel Sarre es enfático: “es inaceptable que la CNDH monopolice la función de MNP, cuando sólo debiera ser una parte, una pieza del mecanismo que ya constituye el sistema nacional no jurisdiccional de protección a los derechos humanos en México, formado por 32 comisiones públicas locales de derechos humanos y la CNDH”: véase SARRE M., “El Protocolo Facultativo de la Convención contra la tortura: un instrumento generador de cambios estructurales necesarios para prevenir la tortura”, in MARIÑO F.M. MENENDEZ & CEBADA ROMERO A. (Editores), La creación del mecanismo español de prevención de la tortura, Madrid, Iustel, 2009, pp. 99-116, p.113. Las conclusiones y recomendaciones de estas cuatro consultas en México están consignadas en, OACNUDH, Oficina de México, Aportes al debate sobre el diseño e implementación en México del Mecanismo Nacional de Prevención de la Tortura y Otros Tratos o Penas Crueles, Inhumanos o Degradantes, México DF, 2008, pp. 323-345. Texto de esta publicación disponible aquí.

Nota 4: Véase CHAN MORA G. y  GARCÍA AGUILAR R., Los derechos fundamentales tras los muros de la prisión, CONAMAJ, San José, 2003, p. 214.

Nota 5: Véase MORA L.P., “Sobrepoblación penitenciaria y derechos humanos: la experiencia constitucional ”, in CARRANZA E., (Coord.), Justicia Penal y sobrepoblación penitenciaria, San José, ILANUD, 2001, pp. 58-84, p. 84.

 

Nicolas Boeglin : Profesor de Derecho Internacional Público, Facultad de Derecho, UCR

  • Posted in Español
  • Commentaires fermés sur El cierre ordenado de la Unidad de San Sebastián: breve puesta en perspectiva

Malgré les milliards d’aide militaire reçus annuellement par Israël, les autorités de ce pays sont mécontentes parce que l’administration Obama veut mettre un terme à une mesure ancienne stipulant que plus d’un quart de cette aide peut être dépensée en Israël, et non aux Etats-Unis. 

Israël pourrait prochainement accepter de recevoir la plus importante dotation en armes jamais attribuée par les USA, en complément d’un don annuel déjà évalué à plusieurs milliards.

Actuellement, Israël reçoit plus de 3,1 milliards de dollars chaque année des USA, suite à un accord datant de 10 ans, signé à l’époque du président George W. BUSH, et qui va expirer en 2018. Cependant, l’administration Obama envisage de prolonger cet accord pour une durée équivalente.

« De plus, le Congrès a voté des crédits supplémentaires concernant la couverture anti-missiles », a indiqué le Washington Post.

« Les autorités israéliennes, y compris le Premier Ministre Benjamin NETANYAHU, mènent depuis des mois des négociations secrètes, dans le but d’obtenir pas moins de 5 milliards par an », ont révélé les journalistes Carol MORELLO et Ruth EGLASH, du Washington Post.

« Les Israéliens font valoir qu’ils ont besoin d’augmenter leurs dépenses d’armements défensifs, suite à l’accord nucléaire avec l’Iran de l’année dernière ; ils craignent que les capitaux  bancaires iraniens débloqués à cette occasion ne soient utilisés pour financer une agression iranienne dans la région. » écrit-il.

Pourtant, les propres services de renseignements israéliens ont émis des doutes quant à la menace que représente l’Iran pour Israël. Néanmoins, il est possible qu’un Iran enrichi puisse contrarier le projet d’Israël de contrôler les ressources énergétiques dans la région, y compris sur les hauteurs du Golan, en Syrie, qu’Israël occupe illégalement.

Un problème toujours non réglé est celui de la subvention spéciale que les USA attribuent aux Israéliens, autorisant ceux-ci à dépenser jusqu’à 26 % de cet argent dans leur propre pays.

« Aucun des pays qui reçoivent des fonds des USA n’ont le droit de procéder ainsi, mais cet avantage a été établi dans les années 80, pour permettre à Israël de mettre en place les bases de son infrastructure de défense. » écrit The Post.

L’administration Obama veut mettre fin à ce privilège, en obligeant Israël à dépenser l’ensemble de cet argent aux USA. « Compte tenu la bonne santé actuelle de l’industrie d’armement israélienne, l’administration américaine veut revoir la répartition de ses dépenses et exige que l’aide des USA profite aussi aux entreprises américaines de biens et de services. » expliquent MORELLO et EGLASH.

62% des Américains jugent qu’Israël reçoit déjà trop d’aides, d’après un sondage effectué en mars.

De son côté, un expert militaire israélien a déclaré que l’heure est venue de ne plus dépendre de l’aide militaire étrangère. Le Général de Division Gershon HACOHEN, ex-chef des collèges des Forces Armées israéliennes et Commandant des forces du Nord, a déclaré à Defense News la semaine dernière que l’aide des USA a un effet « néfaste et corrupteur sur nous », et que les militaires israéliens devraient chercher à réduire progressivement cette aide, plutôt que de vouloir toujours l’augmenter. « Cela exigera de la volonté, mais si nous nous montrons organisés et compétents, nous pourrons rétablir notre souveraineté, retrouver notre autonomie militaire, et ainsi développer notre capacité industrielle », a-t-il ajouté.

En février dernier, Ali Abunimah, d’Electronic Intifada, un site en faveur de la libération de la Palestine, a suggéré que ces aides américaines – alors que Washington s’obstine à ignorer les crimes de guerre israéliens contre la Palestine – serviraient à pousser Israël à accepter des solutions diplomatiques dans la région. « En effet, les droits et les vies des Palestiniens sont la monnaie d’échange qu’Obama a utilisée pour donner à Israël une « compensation » en échange de l’accord passé avec l’Iran« , écrit-il. De la même façon que l’Iran ne constitue pas une réelle menace pour Israël, Abunimah conclut qu’Israël n’a aucun intérêt à compromettre les intérêts américains en Iran.

« Le nouvel envoi d’armes d’Obama, le plus important à ce jour, ne sera pas utilisé par Israël pour attaquer l’Iran, et n’aura donc pas d’influence sur l’hégémonie américaine dans la région. Les armes qu’Obama donne à Israël seront utilisées pour maintenir et renforcer l’occupation des forces israéliennes en Palestine, ainsi que l’apartheid et l’installation de colons, sans parler des habituels massacres perpétrés à Gaza. »

Kit O’Connell

 

Original : US To ‘Compensate’ Israel For Iran Deal With Biggest Military Aid Package Evers, MintPressNews, 2 août 2016.

Traduit par Jean-Claude Levaton pour Arret sur Info

  • Posted in Francais @fr
  • Commentaires fermés sur Les Etats-Unis vont fournir à Israël la plus grosse aide militaire de son histoire en compensation de l’accord nucléaire avec l’Iran

« L’individu est handicapé en se retrouvant face à face avec une conspiration si monstrueuse qu’il ne peut pas croire qu’elle existe. »

(J. Edgar Hoover, Elks Magazine, août 1956)

Le 23 mai, Sean Adl-Tabatabai a écrit ce qui allait devenir un article prophétique : « Erdogan se prépare en vue d’un coup d’État militaire en Turquie. » 

L’auteur lançait cet avertissement :

« Le président Recep Tayyip Erdogan semble avoir perdu le contrôle. Il musèle l’opposition, emprisonne ses opposants et saisit les organes de presse (…). Le dirigeant turc a menacé de dissoudre la Cour constitutionnelle. » Tout cela à un moment où (…) « les problèmes de sécurité se sont envenimés alors que sévit une vague de terrorisme. »

Par ailleurs :

« Ces événements font en sorte que les militaires turcs reviennent dans le paysage politique après avoir été marginalisés pendant de nombreuses années sous le règne du sultan Erdogan. Les divisions entre les militaires turcs et Erdogan remontent à loin, mais sont aujourd’hui amplifiées par les événements tumultueux à l’intérieur et à l’extérieur du pays. Par exemple, les hauts gradés militaires s’opposent à la volonté de créer une zone tampon au nord de la Syrie et d’envoyer des troupes turques en Syrie et en Irak. » (soulignement ajouté)

« Les militaires turcs se sont longtemps considérés comme les gardiens de la démocratie turque, cet État résolument laïque créé par Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, le fondateur de la République turque moderne. »

Faits liés à la préparation d’un putsch militaire menant à un « coup d’État raté »? 

Le 5 mai, Erdogan a limogé le premier ministre Ahmet Davutoglu, ce qui a amené Murat Yetkin à écrire ceci dans le quotidien Hurriyet : « Tant qu’Erdogan sera président, le poste de premier ministre n’aura pas d’importance. »

Davutoglu semblait peu disposé à endosser le plan d’Erdogan de changer la constitution de la Turquie, dans le but de créer un système présidentiel à l’américaine, mais sans les garanties constitutionnelles qui existent aux USA (même si certains les jugent inadéquates) et dans d’autres démocraties présidentielles.

Le 24 mai, Erdogan a remplacé Davutoglu par son proche allié et ancien ministre des Transports Binali Yildrim. Yildrim était aussi responsable de la censure gouvernementale et a étendu la surveillance de l’État. Les mesures de répression contre des milliers de sites Web ont amené Cyber-Rights.org à affirmer que « la loi turque en place sur le contrôle du contenu Internet, qui comporte d’importantes lacunes procédurales, est destinée à censurer et à réduire au silence le discours politique. »

En plus de se heurter constamment à des allégations d’activités financières douteuses, Yildrim est aussi accusé d’être ségrégationniste (on dit que sa femme est assise à l’écart dans les dîners officiels). Il aurait aussi refusé de se rendre à une université en particulier après avoir vu des étudiants et des étudiantes ensemble dans les jardins ce qui, d’après lui, l’entraînerait dans la mauvaise voie.

Deux jours après la nomination de Yildrim au poste de premier ministre, le président du parlement turc, Ismail Kahraman, a déclenché des manifestations quand il a parlé de la nouvelle constitution que le président Erdogan espérait adopter : « Premièrement, la nouvelle constitution ne devrait pas être laïque », a‑t‑il dit selon les médias turcs.

« Elle doit parler de la religion (…). Elle ne devrait pas être irréligieuse; la nouvelle constitution, elle devrait être une constitution religieuse. »

Le Parti de la justice et du développement (AKP) d’Erdogan, qui a ses racines dans l’Islam politique, cherche ainsi à remplacer la constitution en place par la charia. En sa capacité de président du parlement, Kahraman supervise le travail d’élaboration du nouveau texte constitutionnel. Ses propos ont été largement perçus comme un ballon d’essai politique au nom du président.

Pour mettre les choses en contexte, dans le plus récent sondage détaillé (avril 2013) concernant les attitudes à l’égard de la charia dans les pays où la population est majoritairement musulmane, le Pew Research Center a indiqué que seuls 12 % des Turcs voulaient en faire la loi officielle de leur pays.

Tout compte fait, la Turquie, cet allié de l’OTAN aspirant à faire partie de l’UE, naviguait en eaux troubles sur le plan politique avant le putsch, qui soulève d’ailleurs bien des interrogations.

Le président Erdogan était en vacances à Marmaris, une ville portuaire d’une beauté à couper le souffle sur la côte méditerranéenne au sud‑ouest de la Turquie, lorsqu’il a été informé de la crise le vendredi 15 juillet. On nous a dit qu’il s’est enfui quelques minutes seulement avant qu’un gang se précipite à son hôtel pour le liquider.

Soit dit en passant, Marmaris a connu bien des drames dans son histoire et nombreux sont ceux qui y ont échappé. La région où elle se trouve a été envahie par Alexandre le Grand en 334 av. J.‑C. et prise par Mehmet le Conquérant au milieu du XVe siècle. En 1798, l’amiral Lord Nelson « et l’ensemble de sa flotte ont accosté au port (…) en route vers l’Égypte pour défaire l’armada de Napoléon pendant la campagne méditerranéenne ». En 1958, la ville a été pratiquement détruite par un tremblement de terre, qui n’était cependant pas politique. (Wikipédia.)

Quelques minutes après qu’Erdogan eut quitté l’hôtel, « Environ 25 soldats à bord d’un hélicoptère sont descendus (sur l’hôtel) en tirant (…) dans une tentative apparente de s’en emparer », d’après CNN Turk.

Ne l’ayant pas trouvé, les soldats n’ont curieusement jamais pensé utiliser leur hélicoptère pour poursuivre le véhicule transportant Erdogan sur la route menant à l’aéroport le plus proche, Dalaman, à 90 minutes de là.

Plus tard, une fois Erdogan à bord de son avion, un ancien officier militaire au courant des faits a affirmé ceci :

« Au moins deux F-16 ont harcelé l’avion d’Erdogan alors que celui‑ci volait en direction d’Istanbul. »

« Ils ont verrouillé leurs radars sur l’avion et sur deux autres F‑16  qui protégeaient celui‑ci. »

« Pourquoi ils n’ont pas tiré reste un mystère. » En effet.

Une fois arrivé au palais présidentiel lourdement endommagé (le parlement a été ravagé aussi, il y avait des débris partout et l’on comptait déjà 265 morts et 1 440 blessés), le président Erdogan aurait déclaré que la tentative de coup d’État était « un cadeau d’Allah ».

La purge contre les conspirateurs a aussitôt commencé, avec l’arrestation de 2 839 membres du personnel militaire et la mise en détention de 2 745 juges et avocats.

En moins d’une semaine, 60 000 personnes ont été congédiées ou détenues et 2 300 institutions ont fermé leurs portes sous les ordres d’Erdogan. Les derniers chiffres s’élèvent à 70 000 personnes travaillant dans les secteurs des médias, de la santé, de l’éducation et de la justice ayant été congédiées ou détenues selon l’agence de presse Anadolu, que parraine l’État. Ce pourrait bien être le seul organe de presse qui reste, car « au moins 131 journaux, stations de télévision et de radio, magazines, maisons d’édition et agences de presse ont reçu l’ordre de fermer cette semaine seulement. » (The Independent, 31 juillet 2016)

Le président dont le pays est membre de l’OTAN et a le statut de candidat à l’Union européenne n’est certes pas un grand fervent de la liberté de la presse. Des rapports indiquent que même avant la tentative de putsch (depuis 2014), 1 845 journalistes, critiques et auteurs ont été accusés d’insulte au président, qui peut mener à une peine d’emprisonnement.

Au sujet de la plus récente répression, les propos de Tyler Durden (2), sur le site Web Zero Hedge, sont stupéfiants :

« En vertu de son premier décret attribuant des pouvoirs d’exception, (…) Erdogan a autorisé la fermeture de 1 043 écoles privées, 1 229 organismes de bienfaisance et fondations, 19 syndicats, 15 universités et 35 hôpitaux (…). Le gouvernement a aussi annoncé qu’il allait saisir les biens de toutes ces écoles, universités et institutions privées. »

Un beau petit gain, comme qui dirait, qui est sûrement l’une des plus grosses prises de biens immobiliers de l’histoire. Fait intéressant, les saisies ont eu lieu seulement deux jours après que Standard and Poor « a réduit encore plus la notation de la Turquie à l’état de pacotille, en disant que la tentative de putsch a compromis l’économie et le climat d’investissement du pays ».

« Elle a désormais une notation double B avec perspectives négatives, ce qui laisse présager d’autres baisses de notation. » (Wall Street Journal, 20 juillet)

Il n’y a rien de tel que des biens immobiliers de premier ordre pour se reprendre quand les temps sont durs.

Cette prise de biens immobiliers est-elle légale? Il se pourrait bien qu’à l’instar des droits de la personne, le droit lui-même soit mis en veilleuse, puisque les juges sont devenus une espèce menacée.

D’autres chiffres liés à la purge donnent des frissons dans le dos. Selon The Independent, le 21 juillet 2016 :

·      9 000 policiers ont été congédiés

·      6 000 membres du personnel militaire ont été arrêtés

·      15 200 enseignants et autre personnel de l’éducation ont été congédiés

·      6 500 employés du ministère de l’Éducation ont été suspendus

·      1 577 doyens d’université ont été sommés de démissionner

·      8 777 employés du ministère de l’Intérieur ont été suspendus

·      1 500 employés du ministère des Finances ont été congédiés

Deux cent cinquante membres du personnel de Turkish Airlines, le quatrième transporteur aérien en importance en Europe, ont été congédiés, dont certains s’occupaient de fonctions d’administration et de gestion.

L’opérateur de téléphonie fixe Turk Telekom, dont 30 % des actions appartiennent à l’État, a congédié des employés en « coopération avec les forces de sécurité », certains cadres ayant été convoqués par des procureurs.

À cela s’ajoutent 50 000 annulations de passeports.

Amnistie internationale a déjà publié un rapport alarmant (3) :

« (…) des rapports crédibles selon lesquels la police turque à Ankara et Istanbul aurait maintenu des détenus dans des positions douloureuses jusqu’à 48 heures, en les privant de nourriture, d’eau et de soins médicaux (…). Dans les pires cas, certains ont été roués de coups et torturés, parfois violés. »

« (…) Les détails sinistres recensés ne sont qu’un aperçu des abus commis dans les lieux de détention », a déclaré le directeur d’Amnistie internationale Europe John Dalhuisen. »

Aussi :

« des détenus se trouvent dans des centres de détention non officiels, comme des complexes sportifs et une écurie. Certains, dont au moins trois juges, sont détenus dans des couloirs de palais de justice. »

En outre :

« (…) entre 650 et 800 soldats – tous des hommes – étaient détenus dans le gymnase du siège de la police d’Ankara. Au moins 300 présentaient des marques de coups. Certains souffraient de contusions, de coupures ou de fractures osseuses. Une quarantaine étaient même incapables de marcher. Deux étaient incapables de tenir debout. Une femme également détenue dans un autre bâtiment présentait des contusions au visage et sur la poitrine. »

« D’après les avocats, les détenus ont été présentés aux procureurs pour être interrogés alors que leur chemise était couverte de sang. » La lecture du rapport en entier concernant un allié de l’OTAN et membre aspirant de l’UE a de quoi choquer, tout comme le quasi-silence des pays membres de l’OTAN et de l’UE. L’Occident est remarquablement sélectif à l’endroit des présumés despotes qui « torturent et tuent leurs propres ressortissants ».

Autre atrocité rapportée :

« Le principal responsable de la lutte anti-terroriste chargé de la campagne de la Turquie contre le groupe armé État islamique s’est rendu à une réunion au palais présidentiel à Ankara. On l’a retrouvé les mains liées derrière le dos, atteint d’une balle dans le cou, selon un haut responsable. »  (4)

Ironiquement, la Turquie est membre du Conseil de l’Europe et assujettie aux articles de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme. Elle est aussi signataire de la Convention des Nations Unies contre la torture.

On a aussi rapporté que M.  Erdogan a l’intention de proposer des changements constitutionnels pour que les services du renseignement et le chef de l’état-major de la Turquie relèvent directement de lui. Seulement quatre jours après le putsch présumé, il a parlé de ramener la peine capitale et de l’imposer à ce nombre effarant de 8 777 personnes qui n’ont même pas encore été accusées et encore moins jugées.

Il aurait demandé :« Pourquoi devrais-je les garder et les nourrir en prison pendant des années? » (5)

Il convient de se demander comment il se fait que le président et ses partisans, pris par surprise par la tentative de coup d’État, ont pu organiser la logistique nécessaire à l’arrestation, à la capture et au congédiement de 70 000 personnes en un si court laps de temps.

Dresser des listes de noms, d’adresses et de lieux de travail, organiser les équipes chargées d’arrêter des gens, d’écrire des lettres ou d’annoncer leur congédiement. Une opération d’une telle magnitude prend sûrement des semaines, voire des mois à organiser. 

En abordant la question avec un homme d’affaires turc perspicace et bien avisé sur le plan politique, il a donné son point de vue : « Non, il ne l’a pas planifié, mais il a obtenu tout ce qu’il pouvait en tirer. Là encore, qui l’a placé aux commandes?

Soit dit en passant, la définition au dictionnaire du terme « cui bono » est la suivante : principe voulant que la responsabilité probable d’un acte repose sur celui qui en retire un avantage (Merriam Webster.)

Felicity Arbuthnot

 

Article original en anglais :

Erdogan

Turkey’s Attempted Coup – Cui Bono? An [Organized] Gift From Allah? publié le 2 août 2016

Traduit par Daniel pour Mondialisation.ca

 

Notes

1.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3694546/At-height-Turkish-coup-bid-rebel-jets-Erdogans-plane-sights.html 

2.http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-23/first-emergency-decree-erdogan-shuts-down-thousands-hospitals-schools-charities 

3.https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/07/turkey-independent-monitors-must-be-allowed-to-access-detainees-amid-torture-allegations/ 

4.http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/07/the-after-coup-purges-in-turkey-continue-the-erdogan-administration-is-firing-any-public-servant-who-might-just-might-not.html#more 

5.http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/turkey-pm-warns-against-feeling-revenge-after-coup-496420178

  • Posted in Francais @fr
  • Commentaires fermés sur Tentative de putsch en Turquie – Cui Bono? Un cadeau (organisé) d’Allah?

Le secret de la mer de Chine du Sud

août 9th, 2016 by Pepe Escobar

La mer de Chine du Sud est et continuera d’être la principale poudrière géopolitique en ce début du XXIe siècle, loin devant le Moyen-Orient ou les frontières occidentales de la Russie. Ce n’est pas moins que le futur de l’Asie, ainsi que celui de l’équilibre des rapports Est-Ouest qui sont en jeu.

Pour avoir une vue d’ensemble, nous devons nous référer aux écrits du président de l’Académie navale des États-Unis en 1890, Alfred Mahan, le très fondamental L’influence du pouvoir maritime dans l’Histoire, 1660-1783. La thèse centrale de cet ouvrage de Mahan, est que les États-Unis doivent déployer une présence mondiale en quête de nouveaux marchés, et protéger ces nouveaux axes commerciaux par l’intermédiaire d’un réseau de bases navales.

Il s’agit là de l’embryon de l’actuel Empire américain de bases militaires, qui a débuté dans les faits après la guerre hispano-américaine il y a plus d’un siècle, moment où les États-Unis devenaient la puissance régionale dans l’océan Pacifique suite à leur annexion des Philippines, de Hawaii et de Guam.

Le colonialisme occidental, américain et européen, est sans équivoque le grand responsable du climat explosif qui caractérise la bataille de souveraineté qui est en train de se dérouler en mer de Chine du Sud. C’est bien l’Occident qui est responsable de la majorité des tracés des frontières terrestres et navales de tous ces États. La liste est impressionnante. Les Philippines ont été séparées de l’Indonésie par l’Espagne et le Portugal en 1529. La séparation entre la Malaisie et l’Indonésie est dûe aux interventions britannique et néerlandaise en 1842. La frontière entre la Chine et le Vietnam a été imposée aux Chinois par les Français en 1887. Les frontières des Philippines ont été redessinées par les États-Unis et l’Espagne en 1898. La frontière entre les Philippines et la Malaisie a été retracée par les États-Unis et le Royaume-Uni en 1930.

Il s’agit de frontières entre différentes possessions coloniales, ce qui implique des problèmes insolubles depuis le départ, dont ont ensuite hérité ces nations à l’ère post-coloniale. Et dire que tout avait débuté comme une configuration souple… Les meilleurs études anthropologiques sur le sujet, comme celle de Bill Solheim par exemple, appellent du terme de Nusantao, un mot composé austronésien regroupant les termes de îles du sud et peuples, les populations semi-nomades qui voyageaient et commerçaient dans toute la mer de Chine du Sud depuis des temps immémoriaux. Les Nusantao ne constituaient pas un groupe ethnique séparé, mais plutôt un réseau de populations nomades maritimes. A travers les siècles, ils ont développé plusieurs nœuds commerciaux, s’étendant des côtes du centre du Vietnam, à Hong Kong, en passant par le delta du Mékong. Ils n’étaient rattachés à aucun État, et la notion de frontières n’existait même pas. Ce n’est qu’à la fin du XIXesiècle que le système westphalien a figé la mer de Chine du Sud dans un carcan inamovible. Ce qui nous amène à la raison pour laquelle la Chine est si sensible à la question frontalière; parce qu’elle est directement liée au siècle d’humiliation, c’est à dire l’époque où la corruption interne au système chinois et ses faiblesses ont permis aux barbares occidentaux de prendre possession de territoires appartenant à la Chine.

Tensions à l’intérieur de la ligne en neuf traits

L’éminent géographe chinois Bai Meichu était un fervent nationaliste chinois qui a redessiné sa propre version de ce qui s’appelait «la carte de l’humiliation chinoise». En 1936, il publia une carte incluant une ligne en forme de U, qui englobait toute la mer de Chine du Sud jusqu’au Banc James, un banc de sable sous-marin situé à 1500 kilomètres au sud des côtes chinoises, et à seulement 100 kilomètres des côtes de Bornéo. De nombreuses autres cartes maritimes chinoises se sont par la suite inspirées des cartes de monsieur Bai. La plupart incluent les îles Spratly dans les revendications chinoises, mais excluent le Banc James.

Le fait le plus important est que monsieur Bai est l’inventeur de la ligne en neuf traits, centrale dans la rhétorique du gouvernement chinois avant même qu’il ne soit communiste, et qui est utilisée comme base juridique aux revendications historiques de la Chine sur les îles de mer de Chine du Sud.

Tout fut mis en suspens lorsque le Japon envahit la Chine en 1937. Le Japon occupait Taïwan depuis 1895. Imaginons en plus les Américains abandonnant les Philippines aux troupes japonaises en 1942. Cela signifiait que pratiquement tout le littoral de la mer de Chine du Sud était, pour la première fois dans l’Histoire, contrôlé par un seul et même Empire. La mer de Chine du Sud était devenue un lac japonais.

Cela ne devait pas durer longtemps, en fait seulement jusqu’en 1945. Les Japonais ont bien occupé l’île Woody dans l’archipel des Paracels, et Itu Aba (aujourd’hui l’île Taiping) dans l’archipel des Spratly. A la fin de la Deuxième Guerre mondiale, suite au bombardement atomique du Japon, les Philippines ont gagné leur indépendance en 1946, et l’archipel des îles Spratly a aussitôt été déclaré territoire philippin.

En 1947, les Chinois ont accéléré leurs manœuvres pour récupérer les îles Paracels de la tutelle coloniale française. Simultanément, toutes les îles de mer de Chine du Sud reçurent des autorités chinoises un nom en chinois. Le Banc James fut rétrogradé du statut de banc de sable à celui de récif corallien (en fait, ce banc de sable est immergé, mais Pékin le considère toujours comme le point le plus austral du territoire maritime chinois).

En décembre 1947, toutes les îles de la région furent placées sous le contrôle de Hainan (elle-même une île en mer de Chine du Sud). De nouvelles cartes maritimes, basées sur celles de monsieur Bai, furent publiées, mais désormais dénommées en chinois pour toutes les îles, jusqu’aux récifs et aux bancs de sable. Le problème est que personne n’a jamais expliqué la signification des neufs traits (qui à l’origine étaient au nombre de onze).

Donc, en juin 1947, le République de Chine [pas encore communiste, NdT] revendiqua tout ce qui était inclus à l’intérieur de cette ligne, tout en se déclarant ouverte, dans un futur proche, aux négociations pour les frontières maritimes définitives avec les États limitrophes. Mais à l’époque, toujours aucune frontière ne fut décidée, donnant ainsi naissance à l’ambiguïté stratégique en mer de Chine du Sud, tant décriée jusqu’à aujourd’hui.

La Chine communiste [en 1949, NdT] reconnut toutes les cartes et les décisions qui y étaient liées. Cependant, la frontière maritime entre la Chine et le Vietnam, par exemple, ne fut établie qu’en 1999. En 2009, la Chine inclut la ligne en U ou la ligne en neuf traits dans une présentation à la Commission des Nations unies pour les limites du plateau continental; c’était la première fois que cette ligne était utilisée officiellement dans une négociation internationale.

Il n’est pas étonnant que les autres pays d’Asie du Sud-est aient été furieux de cette culmination de la transition d’un réseau maritime peuplé de cultures semi-nomadiques, vers le système westphalien de définition des États. La guerre post-moderne en mer de Chine du Sud venait de débuter.

La liberté par la canonnière

En 2013, les Philippines, poussées par les États-Unis et le Japon, ont décidé de porter la question des Zones économiques exclusives (EEZ en anglais) en mer de Chine du Sud devant la Convention des Nations-unies sur le droit de la mer (UNCLOS dans son acronyme anglo-saxon), ratifiée à la fois par la Chine et les Philippines, mais pas par les États-Unis. L’objectif des Philippines, comme de la Chine,  était de parvenir à ce que l’UNCLOS, et non pas d’hypothétiques droits historiques, définisse ce qu’est une île, un récif, et qui a le droit de son côté pour les revendiquer (avec les zones économiques exclusives qui s’y rattachent aux alentours). L’existence même de l’UNCLOS est le résultat d’années de féroces arguties juridiques. Toutefois, des nations importantes, incluant les membre du groupement des BRICS que sont la Chine, l’Inde et le Brésil, mais aussi, de façon significative, le Vietnam et la Malaisie, ont bataillé pour modifier une clause de la Convention UNCLOS, visant à rendre obligatoire à tout navire militaire étranger la demande d’une autorisation de naviguer avant de pénétrer dans toute zone économique exclusive.

C’est à ce stade-là qu’on entre vraiment en eaux troubles, même très agitées, à savoir la définition même de liberté de navigation.

Pour l’Empire américain, la liberté de navigation depuis la côte ouest des États-Unis jusqu’à l’Asie, à travers l’océan Pacifique, la mer de Chine du Sud, le détroit de Malacca et l’océan Indien, est strictement soumise à sa doctrine militaire. Imaginons qu’une zone économique exclusive soit un jour fermée à la navigation pour l’US Navy, ou si une autorisation devait être demandée à chaque fois; dans ce cas, l’Empire des bases militaires perdrait l’accès à… ses propres bases militaires.

Ajoutons à cela la paranoïa habituelle du Pentagone; que se passe-t-il si une nation hostile décidait de bloquer le commerce mondial dont dépend l’économie des États-Unis (même si le postulat de départ, à savoir que la Chine considérerait cette option, est tout à fait ridicule) ? A cause de ce postulat de départ ridicule, le Pentagone développe réellement un programme sur la liberté de navigation. Pour entrer dans le détail, il s’agit ni plus ni moins qu’un programme de diplomatie de la canonnière remise au goût du jour pour le XXIe siècle, à savoir le spectacle permanent de ces porte-avions américains qui paradent en mer de Chine du Sud. Pour les dix États-membres de l’Association des États d’Asie du Sud-Est (ASEAN), le Saint Graal dans cette affaire, serait d’aboutir à un Code de bonne conduite régulant les disputes maritimes entre les Philippines, le Vietnam, la Malaisie, Brunei et la Chine. La rédaction de ce Code peine à voir le jour depuis de nombreuses années, principalement parce que les Philippines souhaitaient piéger la Chine pour qu’elle accepte une série de mesures contraignantes, mais seulement après que les dix États-membres de l’ASEAN seront tous tombés d’accord sur ces mesures au préalable.

La stratégie de Pékin est à l’opposé de cette façon de négocier, à savoir que Pékin recherche la multiplication de négociations bilatérales avec les États de l’ASEAN [au lieu de négocier avec un groupe d’États tous d’accord entre eux, NdT], dans lesquelles elle peut peser de tout son poids relatif par rapport à d’autres nations de taille plus modeste. C’est ainsi que, grâce au soutien du Cambodge, assez évident cette semaine, lorsque ce dernier a réussi à empêcher la condamnation de la Chine lors d’un important sommet au Laos sur la question de la mer de Chine du Sud; Chine comme ASEAN ont toutes les deux opté pour la retenue de leurs ambitions.

Admirez Hillary faire le culbuto

En 2011, le ministère américain des Affaires étrangères était tétanisé à l’annonce par l’administration Obama de son intention de retirer les troupes américaines d’Irak et d’Afghanistan; qu’arriverait-il aux ambitions territoriales de la super-puissance? Cette inquiétude fut levée dès la fin du mois de novembre 2011, lorsque la ministre des Affaires étrangères d’alors, Hillary Clinton, a inventé la nouvelle doctrine, aujourd’hui célèbre, du pivot vers l’Asie.

Six axes de projection ont été insérés dans ce pivot. Quatre de ces axes sont un copié-collé d’un rapport du groupe de réflexion basé à Washington, le CSIS (Center for Strategic and International Studies), datant de 2009 : revitaliser les alliances existantes, développer les relations avec les puissances émergentes, développer les relations avec les entités régionales multilatérales et travailler de concert avec les pays d’Asie du Sud-Est sur les questions économiques. Hillary Clinton a ajouté deux axes de sa propre initiative : une large présence militaire américaine en Asie et la promotion de la démocratie et des droits de l’homme.

Il est clair pour tout le monde, et pas seulement pour les pays du Sud, que depuis la création de cette nouvelle doctrine, le charabia rhétorique de pivot est, en clair, une façon de dire offensive militaire pour contenir la Chine. Plus grave encore, cette doctrine est apparue au moment géopolitique où une dispute territoriale maritime en Asie du Sud-Est a coïncidé avec une confrontation entre un hégémon, les États-Unis, et un adversaire de même niveau, la Chine, et ce, sur tous les théâtres d’opérations dans le monde.

Ce que Hillary Clinton voulait vraiment dire par «faire participer les puissances émergentes» était plutôt, selon ses propres aveux, «de nous rejoindre dans la fondation et l’animation d’un ordre mondial et régional basé sur des règles de conduite»,règles de conduites évidemment décidées par l’hégémon, les États-Unis, en clair toute la mécanique déployée par les entités du Consensus de Washington [FMI, Banque mondiale et le Département du Trésor américain, NdT].

Il n’est donc pas surprenant que la mer de Chine du Sud soit d’une importance hautement stratégique, puisque l’hégémonie américaine dépend largement de sa capacité à régner sur les mers (se rappeler des écrits d’Alfred Mahan). C’est là le centre de la stratégie militaire nationale américaine. La mer de Chine du Sud est le point de passage décisif reliant les océans Pacifique et Indien, le golfe Persique et finalement l’Europe. Et c’est là que nous découvrons le secret ultime de la mer de Chine du Sud. Dans l’ordre mondial et régional imaginé par Hillary Clinton et son administration, la Chine se doit d’obéir à l’hégémon américain et de garantir la libre circulation de l’US Navy en mer de Chine du Sud.

Cela augure d’une inévitable escalade de la confrontation le long de ces voies de navigation maritimes. La Chine, lentement mais sûrement, développe une panoplie d’armes sophistiquées, qui pourraient en dernier ressort interdire l’entrée de l’US Navy en mer de Chine du Sud, ce que les faucons de Washington n’ignorent pas.

Ce qui aggrave la situation est qu’il s’agit là de deux stratégies antagonistes. Pékin se définit comme une puissance anti-impérialiste; cela implique qu’elle récupère les territoires nationaux saisis par les puissances coloniales avec l’aide de traîtres chinois (ces îlots sur lesquels la Cour internationale de justice de La Haye s’est récemment prononcée ne sont rien de plus que des rochers ou même des hauteurs de terre émergées qui n’apparaissent qu’à marée basse).

Les États-Unis, de leur côté, ont la bouche pleine de leur destin manifeste et de leur caractère exceptionnel. Ainsi, il apparaît que la mer de Chine du Sud est la région où, plus qu’aux frontières occidentales de la Russie, dans les États baltes ou en Irak/Syrie, les règles décrétées par l’Empire américain sont ouvertement contestées.

Les enjeux pourraient devenir plus importants encore, le jour où l’US Navy se verra interdire l’entrée de la mer de Chine du Sud. Ce jour-là sonnera la fin de l’hégémonie de l’Empire.

Pepe Escobar

Article original en anglais : The Real Secret of the South China Sea, Sputnik News, 26 juillet 2016.

Traduit par Laurent Schiaparelli, vérifié par Wayan, relu par nadine pour Le Saker francophone

  • Posted in Francais @fr
  • Commentaires fermés sur Le secret de la mer de Chine du Sud

Selected Articles: Hillary Clinton and the Big (Neoliberal) Lie

août 9th, 2016 by Global Research News

election-2016-US

Hillary Clinton and the Big (Neoliberal) Lie

By Eric Draitser, August 09 2016

This election season has brought to the surface an issue that, until recently, seemed to have become a neoliberal sacred cow, the holy writ of the lords of capital: free trade. And while this cornerstone of US economic hegemony has come under fire from a deeply reactionary, and to varying degrees racist and xenophobic, perspective, as expressed by Donald Trump, it has nevertheless sparked a much needed conversation about free trade and its destructive impact on both the American working class, and the Global South as well.

African_National_Congress_logo.svg

Global Implications of the Local Governmental Elections in South Africa

By Abayomi Azikiwe, August 09 2016

African National Congress remains dominate party over two decades after democratic transformation Perhaps the most observed local elections in decades were held in the Republic of South Africa on August 3. In final results of this poll the ruling African National Congress (ANC) gained 54 percent of the vote to the opposition party the Democratic Alliance (DA) 26 percent. In actual percentages the ANC won twice as many votes as the DA and many more times as the putative ultra-left Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), which garnered approximately eight percent.

Fidel

¡Fidel 90 y más! Fidel Castro: A Revolutionary Legacy

By Isaac Saney, August 09 2016

On August 13 Fidel Castro Ruz, the historic leader of the Cuban Revolution, turns 90. Progressive, anti-war and social justice forces across the world will join in the celebration of the life of one of the world’s most influential and significant leaders. It is especially worthwhile and necessary to mark and valorize the life and times of a man whose heart, without missing a beat, has withstood more than 600 assassination attempts by U.S imperialism.

Smoky_and_Peace_rivers

Turning off the Tap: Site C and Water Privatization in Canada

By Jennifer O’Keeffe, August 09 2016

Site C Dam is a proposed 60-metre high, 1,050m length dam on the Peace River on Treaty 8 territory in northeastern British Columbia (see image below), a project that if built, would create an 83km reservoir submerging 78 First Nations heritage sites in violation of the Constitution Act, but how does it connect to continental water diversion? To date, much has been said in the media regarding the issue of Site C Dam, but very little has touched on the matter of NAFTA and water.

750px-Flag_of_Spain.svg

Understanding Transversality: Spain’s Podemos

By Juan Antonio Gil de los Santos, August 09 2016

When the 15-M movement broke out onto the streets across Spain in 2011, it didn’t coalesce into a series of political parties on either end of the political spectrum. In fact, there was a common declaration that stood out among all of the indignados: “They don’t represent us”. This referred to the “Regime of ‘78”  and the dominant political actors that have been ruling Spain since the death of Franco, and have made the rupturing of the social contract possible over the last 30 years.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Selected Articles: Hillary Clinton and the Big (Neoliberal) Lie

Former acting director of the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Michael Morell during a televised interview with American talk show host Charlie Rose, openly conspired to commit a raft of war crimes in Syria, suggesting that the US should take measures to « covertly » kill Russians and Iranians through armed proxies on the ground.

He also suggested targeting Syria’s senior leadership through a series of terrorist attacks in and around Damascus, according to CBS News.

 

During the interview, Morell would state:

I’d give them the things that they need to both go after the Assad government but also to have the Iranians and the Russians pay a little price. When we were in Iraq, the Iranians were giving weapons to the Shia’a militia who were killing American soldiers. The Iranians were making us pay a price. We need to make the Iranians pay a price in Syria. We need to make the Russians pay a price.

Charlie Rose would then interrupt Morell to clarify by stating:

You make them pay the price by killing Russians? And killing Iranians?

To which Morell replied emphatically:

Yes. Yes. Covertly. You don’t tell the world about it, right? You don’t stand up at the Pentagon and say we did this. Right? But you make sure they know it in Moscow and Tehran

Morell’s plans echo those laid out by other US policymakers, including those at the Brookings Institution.

And indeed, this appears to be precisely what the US has already been doing. At least two Russian helicopters have been shot down over Syria. The first near the Syrian city of Palmyra by terrorists from the self-proclaimed Islamic State using what Russian sources claimed was a US-made TOW anti-tank missile system, which is also capable of shooting down slow, low-flying aircraft.

The second more recently was over territory in Syria’s northwestern Idlib province controlled by US State Department-designated foreign terrorist organisation, Jabhat Al Nusra. The helicopter was engaged in humanitarian operations relieving a town besieged by Western-backed militant groups.

Nursa forces are now leading a US-backed offensive on the Syrian city of Aleppo.

Both incidents appear to be the precise manifestation of Morell’s admitted conspiracy to kill Russians covertly, with Moscow apparently having gotten the message, and subsequently relaying it to the rest of the world by linking the incidents to US-armed terrorist organisations.

« Morell’s Plan » Could Never Work 

Morell’s plan to kill Russians and Iranians, has not deterred Moscow or Tehran. Unlike the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, predicated on a premeditated lie as clearly exposed by the recent UK government-published Iraq Inquiry, Russia and Iran are engaged in Syria at the behest of the Syrian government.

Furthermore, their objective is not simply to project Russian and Iranian power beyond their borders, but to prevent the collapse of Syria into a NATO-induced Libya-style failed state that will serve as a staging ground for the spread of war back over their own borders. In other words, unlike the US’ intervention in Iraq seeking extraterritorial geopolitical gain, Russia and Iran’s intervention is based on very real and immediate existential concerns.

Thus, Morell’s plan to kill Russians and Iranians was an ill-conceived attempt to convince both nations to capitulate to US designs in Syria today, so that an even greater loss of Russian and Iranian lives could be embarked upon by wider proxy war in the near future.

In the process of organising this ill-conceived plan, the US has now further implicated itself as a state-sponsor of terrorism, further undermining its own pretext for intervention in Syria to allegedly « fight terrorism. »

With US-made TOW missiles conveniently, or very likely, covertly falling into the hands of designated terrorist organisations and being turned against Russian and Iranian forces, the US has also further undermined its own narrative revolving around its primacy as a stabilising force both within the region and globally.


TRANSCRIPT: SELECTED EXCERPTS ON TRUMP, PUTIN AND WAR ON SYRIA

Copyright Charlie Rose Inc.

HEADLINE:  Conversation with Mike Morell

BYLINE: CHARLIE ROSE

August 8, 2016

Selected Excerpt (emphasis added)

The Republican presidential nominee delivered a major policy address today in Detroit, Michigan. He stressed his ability to create new jobs and bring prosperity to those who have the very least. Mike Morell is a former acting and deputy director of the CIA who is also a contributor to CBS News but recently resigned in order to publicly endorse Hillary Clinton. On Friday, he wrote a scathing op-ed said in « The New York Times » where he called Trump a poor and dangerous commander-in-chief. Donald Trump, Morell writes, is not only unqualified for the job but he may well pose a threat to our national security

CHARLIE ROSE: Mike Morell is here. He`s a former acting and deputy director of the CIA who is also a contributor to CBS News but recently resigned in order to publicly endorse Hillary Clinton. On Friday, he wrote a scathing op-ed said in « The New York Times » where he called Trump a poor and dangerous commander-in-chief. Donald Trump, Morell writes, is not only unqualified for the job but he may well pose a threat to our national security. I am pleased to welcome Mike Morell back to this table. Welcome.

….

MIKE MORELL: No. In fact, they say, they say that two of their biggest concerns, right, is his narcissism and the constant need to feed it, and two, that he doesn`t listen. He doesn`t listen to anybody. And when that, don`t listen to anybody scares the heck out of me. You are who you are, you`re not going to change when you become the president of the United States. I didn`t see the entire speech today.

What I did see were references to isolation, right, references to we got to take care of ourselves rather than the rest of our world. You know, references to trade, you know bad trade deals, that all concerns me. You know, here`s what I would like to see him do. I would like to see him stand up tomorrow and denounce Putin`s military incursion into Ukraine. I would like to see him denounce Putin`s annexation of Crimea.

I`d like to see him denounce Putin`s assistance to the rebels in eastern Ukraine that resulted in the shoot down of the Malaysian airliner. I`d like to see him renounce what Putin is doing in Syria supporting a butcher and a dictator, right. I`d like to see him just stand up and denounce Putin and I`ll tell you that at the end of the day Putin would have more respect for him than he does now.

CHARLIE ROSE: Why do you think he doesn`t do that? I mean, some of those things had come at different ways, for example why he doesn`t denounce Putin in Ukraine. Do you think it`s because he believed Putin did the right thing or he believes it`s okay?

MIKE MORELL: No.

ROE: Or he believes that it`s okay for them to take over Crimea?

MIKE MORELL: No, I think…

CHARLIE ROSE: Or because he just doesn`t understand the consequences of providing leadership of a country that is, you know, the world`s greatest power.

MIKE MORELL: You know, the single thing in my op-ed that got most attention was I said this guy has been recruited.

CHARLIE ROSE: So said he`s an agent of the Russian Federation.

MIKE MORELL: Unwitting.

CHARLIE ROSE: Unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.

MIKE MORELL: Unwitting agent of federation. He`s been recruited by Putin. That`s why he`s taking the positions he`s taken.

CHARLIE ROSE: And you suggest he`s recruited by the way that Putin played to his ego.

MIKE MORELL: Putin is a trained intelligence officer. He was a very talented KGB officer, right. He`s trained to look at an individual and play to them and to get them to do what he wants them to do, right. And that`s what an agent is.

CHARLIE ROSE: So, you really think that Vladimir Putin sat there, watched American politics and said, I`ll be better off from my objectives for Russia if in fact Donald Trump is elected, and therefore what I will do is do everything I can to make him an agent at my wishes. If I support him he`d become an agent of my wishes.

MIKE MORELL: So, I think there`s two things going on, right. One I wrote about and one I didn`t.

CHARLIE ROSE: And you got to say, OK, go ahead, because when you — you never talk about speculations you do not know.

MIKE MORELL: I do not know this.

CHARLIE ROSE: What Putin thinks and what he`s trying to do with respect to Trump.

MIKE MORELL: Look. I happen to know something about how you recruit people, OK. So, I`ve got a lot of experience with that. So, it`s kind of like my — it is my professional assessment, right.

CHARLIE ROSE: Right.

MIKE MORELL: That this is what Putin has done.

CHARLIE ROSE: You`re riding on skills you learned at the CIA.

MIKE MORELL: Yes. But I think — I think — I think Putin was thinking two things. One, Putin does not like Secretary Clinton.

CHARLIE ROSE: People that I talked who know Putin say that it is more that than it is Donald Trump as an agent.

MIKE MORELL: I think it`s both, right. I think it`s both. You and I have had a conversations, have that many conversations around this table about Russia and Putin, right.

CHARLIE ROSE: Right.

MIKE MORELL: And we sat around this table that there`s one thing above all else that Vladimir Putin fears, and that is a Arab spring green revolution- style uprising in the streets of Moscow, all right.

CHARLIE ROSE: Exactly.

MIKE MORELL: And that`s what happened after the parliamentary elections during Barack Obama`s first term, right. People — the Russian middle class was in the streets. He blamed that on Secretary Clinton. He believes that Secretary Clinton was behind that. She wasn`t.

CHARLIE ROSE: It is part of an overall view he has about of chaos and the strong state and it`s necessary to have a strong state and you cannot allow people on the streets.

MIKE MORELL: Right. So, part of it he`s afraid of her, right. The other part of it is he wants…

CHARLIE ROSE: That is so much more than Secretary Clinton. I mean that doesn`t seem like a smart, wise intelligence agent to say that was all about Hillary Clinton.

MIKE MORELL: Look, there are a lot of things that he believes that aren`t true. A lot.

CHARLIE ROSE: But foreign policy comes from the White House more than it does from the state department. And she was the agent of — she was a representative and implementer of foreign policy of Barack Abama.

MIKE MORELL: There are a lot of things that he believes that simply aren`t true, right. He believes, he really believes, right, that the United States was behind the Democratic movement in Ukraine.

CHARLIE ROSE: He does. But he said it to me. (Inaudible) when I was there.

MIKE MORELL: He believes that. Deep in his heart. He`s not making it up, right. He believes this.

CHARLIE ROSE: I believe the CIA (inaudible).

MIKE MORELL: Where (ph) is the CIA, right. So that`s one thing. The other thing is I do believe absolutely that he looked at Trump and said this is the guy who I can play, right. All I have to do is compliment him, tell him how great it is and he`s going to come to my side of the fence.

CHARLIE ROSE: For me to — go ahead — but you got to prove, what`s your best exhibit of where he has done that and he`s once again doing it again?

MIKE MORELL: Here`s my best exhibit, OK. My best exhibit is, give me another reason why Donald Trump would have said all of the incredibly positive things he has said about Putin as a person and about Russian policy. That is at odds with the United States of America in a campaign where nobody`s really focused on Russia. Why would he have done that?

CHARLIE ROSE: Well, one example that`s Donald Trump being Donald Trump. In other words, Donald Trump, this guy sort of says certain things and so he responded to it by intuition, by instinct, all that kind of stuff without putting it in an international conflict context. You see what I mean.

MIKE MORELL: Which is — yes.

CHARLIE ROSE: I mean that`s who he is.

MIKE MORELL: Yes, but you`re making my point.

CHARLIE ROSE: He spends his time on tweets, he spends his time watching television as all — people oppose him a lot of time. It doesn`t mean he doesn`t get the job done on the campaign trail. He obviously won the Republican nomination.

MIKE MORELL: But you`re making my point, right. You`re absolutely making my point that his personality, right, gets him to react in these ways that are inconsistent with American interests.

CHARLIE ROSE: And because he — but to react is — I would argue, I`m now arguing the other side. I don`t want to use the term devil`s advocate but to react that way, does not make him — it makes him — it doesn`t make him a tool of the Russian Federation. It doesn`t make him an unwitting agent because he hasn`t done anything than offer some words up, responded to a guy who says some nice things about him, OK, but stay with me.

MIKE MORELL: Yeah, I disagree, but go ahead.

CHARLIE ROSE: OK, you disagree, in what way?

MIKE MORELL: I disagree because…

ROSE What has he done other than said some things.

MIKE MORELL: He has undermined U.S. policy, western policy, with regard to Russia, right. He has told all of those people who follow him, right, the low 40 percent of the people who follow him and believe his every word that Putin is a good guy and Putin is a good leader, right. That undermines what the United States is trying to do.

Putin, you know, has his intelligence agencies, right, try to get that kind of propaganda. This has been free propaganda for Vladimir Putin in the United States of America. No doubt. And Charlie, Putin would never ever say this, of course, but I believe Putin sees Trump as a tool of his now and that`s why I said what I said.

CHARLIE ROSE: He thinks he can elect Trump.

MIKE MORELL: He wants Trump to be elected. And there is, you know, there is some evidence that he`s trying to help that along.

CHARLIE ROSE: But president Obama says I don`t trust Vladimir Putin. That`s an opinion about Vladimir Putin.

MIKE MORELL: Right.

CHARLIE ROSE: Donald Trump says whatever he says, he likes him or he said.

MIKE MORELL: He just saying he`s a great leader.

CHARLIE ROSE: He`s a great leader.

MIKE MORELL: He`s a great leader he`s a guy I can work with.

CHARLIE ROSE: OK, but hold on a second of great leader. I mean, is he — is he — take a look at what he has done with respect to Russia as president. Has he been a terrible leader? Has he been a good leader?

MIKE MORELL: Yes, terrible.

CHARLIE ROSE: Has he made Russia more of a player in the world than it was earlier.

MIKE MORELL: Yes, so this is a conversation you had with the vice president, right. So yes, he`s made Russia more of a player, but I will tell you that I believe at significant cost to Russia. Think about it this way — think about it this way, Charlie. Who is — just think about Ukraine for a second and we`ll come back to Syria.

CHARLIE ROSE: OK.

MIKE MORELL: OK. If you look at Syria — if you look at Ukraine and you ask who is the big loser, with Ukraine, right? Well, first of all, Ukrainian people, who had their aspirations crushed. Second, the United States and the west, which were shown to be unable to stop Putin, right. So we lost something. But the biggest loser in my view, the absolute biggest loser in my view was the Russian economy, the Russian middle class…

CHARLIE ROSE: What sanctions did…

MIKE MORELL: …and the future — not only sanctions, not only sanctions, right, which have crippled the economy. But Russia`s only future is to be integrated with the west. And because of what Putin did in Ukraine, he made sure that that`s not going to happen for at least a decade. So Russia`s the big loser. This guy is not a great leader, he`s a horrible leader. He`s undermining the future of his own country by trying to be seen as a greater power. He`s not benefiting — Russia`s not benefiting from being seen as a great power it`s actually being undermined.

CHARLIE ROSE: « The New York Times » today, today made the point, because I`m sure you read — I can`t see it on the front page but it made the point that what Putin had done in Syria had changed the dynamic.

MIKE MORELL: True.

CHARLIE ROSE: And was a net plus for Vladimir Putin. This is « The New York Times » reporting today.

MIKE MORELL: Yes, for Vladimir Putin.

CHARLIE ROSE: Yes, for Russia. You think it just Putin as a leader and is not for Russia.

MIKE MORELL: Yes.

CHARLIE ROSE: Because he represents Russia.

MIKE MORELL: Right.

CHARLIE ROSE: He is the…

MIKE MORELL: So I agree, the vice president told you, right, that Putin, you know, Putin would like to get the hell out of there.

CHARLIE ROSE: And the president told me that too, both in interviews.

MIKE MORELL: Yes, right. And I think that`s right because he understands he`s paying a price. This is very expensive. This is extremely expensive for an economy that can`t pay for it. There are Russian soldiers, right, just like in Ukraine — there are Russians soldiers who are coming home dead. It`s a political cost to him as well. So, this is not as brilliant strategic stroke on Vladimir Putin`s part.

CHARLIE ROSE: When you look at Secretary Clinton, tell me how you think she is different in looking at the world from Barack Obama.

MIKE MORELL: Look, here`s the way — here`s the way that I think about her. And then maybe we can get to the differences, which is hard. You know —

CHARLIE ROSE: That it seems to be important if you want to know where he wants to take the country and it`s simply a third term for the Obama administration.

MIKE MORELL: A lot of time with her in the situation room, a lot of time with her.

CHARLIE ROSE: Oh, this is right where I want to go. So, you what?

MIKE MORELL: OK, a lot of time in the situation room, time with her at the State Department, time with her with foreign visitors visiting Washington, foreign leaders visiting Washington, time with her overseas meeting with foreign leaders — a lot of time with her. I`ll tell you the first thing that always struck me in the situation room, and this is going to sound small but it`s not.

It`s not small at all and we`ll compare it to Trump. She was always prepared, you know. There are big thick books, right, that people have to go through, you know. And I would spend hours going through these books for these meetings. It was absolutely clear to me that she had read through these books, she was prepared, she knew what she was talking about, right. That`s unusual for principles. I simply don`t see Donald Trump doing that. She asked really good questions.

She was not locked into her view. She would change her view if somebody made a compelling argument. She was — she was one of the few cabinet members who came into the situation room and didn`t automatically take the bureaucratic view of her department. I mean she was — Leon Panetta was this way, Bob Gates was this way, right. They went…

CHARLIE ROSE: They were different than the bureaucratic view of the institution they serve whether the state or defense or CIA.

MIKE MORELL: Yes, yes, yes, and incredibly impressed me, right, that they would go to what they thought was the best thing for their country even if it was at odds with the bureaucratic view of their own, you know, their own department. The other thing…

CHARLIE ROSE: Bob Gates said the other day that one of the central qualities of a president he respected was a, temperament and b, they listened. He said every good president he knew was a good listener.

MIKE MORELL: And I saw that over and over again, right, and I saw it in just the questions that she asked and how carefully she answered them and then how those answers were reflected in her views as the conversation moved forward, right. And she was calm and she was collected. And she was tough. I thought she was the toughest person in the room. In terms of…

CHARLIE ROSE: In terms of what she advocated?

MIKE MORELL: Yes, yes. Toughest in terms of — toughest in terms of —

CHARLIE ROSE: Her analysis of the…

MIKE MORELL: Toughest. No, no. Toughest in terms of understanding that — and I put this in the op-ed — toughest in terms of understanding that for diplomacy to be effective, that there had to be a belief on the part of the adversary that you were willing and able to use force if necessary, right? She understands that. She understands that diplomacy without that cannot be effective.

CHARLIE ROSE: OK, let me just stop you there. Because I`m — we now talk about what it is to be president day to day and to be, you know, head of the CIA and recommend things to the president. It is the idea of when you use force. It is argued that that — that the president who will probably claim rightly so, that he uses force.

He used his force with drones. He used his force against Osama Bin Laden. He`s used force on a number of times. But often people make a sharp distinction between when she`s prepared to use force whether it`s Syria or whether it`s Libya or whether it`s somewhere else than the president is.

MIKE MORELL: Right.

CHARLIE ROSE: So, that`s one way you try to understand where she stands and how she`s different from Barack Obama and you`ve been in the room with both of them. And you know how they talk, how they argue. And not — well to make the point, that what you argue is not necessarily what you believe. You can make an argument to try to understand the problem.

MIKE MORELL: So, you know, she was pushing aggressively, quite frankly along with Leon Panetta and Dave Petraeus for us to be more supportive of the moderate opposition in Syria, in late 2012, early 2013 when Assad was…

CHARLIE ROSE: On his heels.

MIKE MORELL: Was on heels, right. And there were many people who thought he was about ready to go. And not only to push him, right, but also to give diplomacy some leverage.

CHARLIE ROSE: True.

MIKE MORELL: Right. You can`t — you can`t…

CHARLIE ROSE: That`s what the 51 diplomats who made the letter argued. You need to have — diplomats need leverage from the military on the ground to be able to negotiate what is in the best interest the country they represent.

MIKE MORELL: Right. And I think based on the conversation in the sit room, that she thought that significant assistance to the moderate opposition, that you could do that without going down a slippery slope to U.S. military involvement.

CHARLIE ROSE: Which is what the president thought?

MIKE MORELL: Which is what the president feared, I think.

CHARLIE ROSE: Yeah.

MIKE MORELL: And I think that was the difference between the two at the end of the day, right. So, I believe that she — I believe she understands that you can — that you can go a certain distance, right, without having to go the rest of the way, that each step in the process can be a specific decision and just because you take one step doesn`t mean that you have to take all of them.

CHARLIE ROSE: This conversation is about why you wouldn`t trust Donald Trump but admired Hillary Clinton and believed she would be an effective force. Let`s go down the lines in terms of important points. How would she be different? What is her position on ISI and what is about it that recommends itself to you that has not been done?

MIKE MORELL: Yes. So, she`s very supportive of what the president`s done. She would go a little bit further is what she said, right. So she would, you know, show would — more Special Forces, consider no-fly zone.

CHARLIE ROSE: The president has been doing that gradually.

MIKE MORELL: Gradually, right. And so he`s been getting — moving down the line, right, and she would just do more of that. You said something really important earlier, Charlie, which was for this to end, right, there`s got to be — Russia and the United States and quite frankly the Iranians have seen a table for two.

CHARLIE ROSE: Right, absolutely.

MIKE MORELL: That there`s got to be an agreement on a transition to a new government, right. I think she understands that for us to have leverage in that conversation, that we got to have more skin in the game from a military perspective. Not U.S. troops — not U.S. boots on the ground but more skin on the game, right.

That`s why she`s talking about a no-fly zone, right. That`s why she`s talking about more Special Forces. She understands that that is necessary for the leverage you need in those political discussions.

CHARLIE ROSE: Is that possible because it looks like Russia`s moving away from that kind of agreement?

MIKE MORELL: I don`t know if it`s possible, right. I don`t know if it`s possible.

CHARLIE ROSE: Then maybe they`re waiting for the next president?

MIKE MORELL: Now we switch to Michael Morell`s view, and you said you wanted to touch on all these, right. I`d switch to Michael Morell`s view for a second. So, I think that given where we are — because I don`t think — I think it`s possible to squeeze ISI down to almost nothing in Iraq and Syria.

But I fear without a resolution to the Syrian civil war, that other jihadist groups are just going to pop up in its place. Al-Nusra, right, which is the Al-Qaeda group in Syria is already growing in strength, right, as a result of — for lack of resolution of the Syrian civil war.

CHARLIE ROSE: And is redefining itself.

MIKE MORELL: So that`s got to be resolved, right. That Syrian civil war has to be resolved and you have to be able to convince the Russians and the Iranians that it`s in their interest. Here`s quite frankly what I would recommend. I would recommend that we, that — let me back up a second.

So, the outcome we want is a transition from Assad to a government that can represent all the Syrian people, but we want to do it without destroying the institutions of the Syrian government.

CHARLIE ROSE: Which is what we did in Iraq?

MIKE MORELL: Which is what we did in Iraq and which is what happened on its own in Libya.

CHARLIE ROSE: Right.

MIKE MORELL: So we want to make our transition keeping the Syrian military, the Syrian Security Services, keeping them as intact as possible, right, as we want to do.

CHARLIE ROSE: Exactly what Putin says he wants to do.

MIKE MORELL: So you don`t want to destroy those things, right. You don`t want to destroy those things. So here`s what I think you want to do. I think you want to covertly, not openly but covertly, but you certainly want them to know, you want to covertly tell the moderate opposition that you`re supporting to go after — this is a big deal — to go after the Russians and the Iranians who are on the ground.

They got to pay a price for what they`re doing. Just like we made the Russians pay a price in Afghanistan for what they`re doing. We have to make them pay a price. We have to make them…

CHARLIE ROSE: By supporting the Mujahedin.

MIKE MORELL: Yes. We have to make them to want to go home. We have to make them want to have a deal, right, so that`s number one.

CHARLIE ROSE: Now, how do we do that?

MIKE MORELL: We ask the moderate opposition — we give the moderate opposition weapons.

CHARLIE ROSE: What is it they want that they don`t have?

MIKE MORELL: You know, Dave Petraeus could tell you exactly what they want. You know, I`m not a military guy.

CHARLIE ROSE: In Afghanistan we (inaudible).

MIKE MORELL: Right. But I`d give them the things that they need to both go after the Assad government, but also to have the Iranians and the Russians pay a little price. When we were in Iraq, the Iranians were giving weapons to the Shi`a militia who were killing American soldiers, right. The Iranians were making us pay a price. We need to make the Iranians pay a price in Syria. We need to make the Russians pay a price. The other thing we need to do…

CHARLIE ROSE: We make them pay the price by killing Russians?

MIKE MORELL: Yes.

CHARLIE ROSE: And killing Iranians?

MIKE MORELL: Yes. Covertly. You don`t tell the world about it, right. You don`t stand up at the Pentagon and say we did this. Here`s the other thing I want to do, I want to go after — I want to go after those things that Assad sees as his personal power base, right. I want to scare Assad. So, I want to — I want to go after his presidential guard. I want to bomb his offices in the middle of the night.

CHARLIE ROSE: Well, that happened about two years ago as you remember when his brother in law was…

MIKE MORELL: I want to destroy his presidential aircraft on the ground. I want to destroy his presidential helicopters. I want to make him think we`re coming after him, right. I`m not advocating assassinating him, I`m not advocating that. I`m advocating going after that what he thinks is his power base, right, and what he needs to survive.

I want him to think about this is not going to end well for me, right. I want to put pressure on him, I want to put pressure on the Iranians, I want to put pressure on the Russians to come to that diplomatic settlement.

CHARLIE ROSE: Because that`s the only thing that will achieve it if they feel like they`re hurting.

MIKE MORELL: Yes. This is me talking here.

CHARLIE ROSE: OK, well do you think Hillary Clinton believes as you do —

MIKE MORELL: I don`t know, I have not talked to her about this.

CHARLIE ROSE: OK.

MIKE MORELL: I do believe she believes that we need more diplomatic leverage.

CHARLIE ROSE: Why did you come to this conclusion? Because there was a failure of everything else and it wasn`t happening? It was moving not towards that kind of agreement…

MIKE MORELL: We`re moving away from it.

CHARLIE ROSE: Away from it.

MIKE MORELL: We`re moving away from it. That`s what « The New York Times » article said. That`s what I believe.

CHARLIE ROSE: « The New York Times » article also said that we — that the Saudis had stopped supplying weapons to the opposition forces too.

MIKE MORELL: Right.

CHARLIE ROSE: The Saudis.

MIKE MORELL: Right.

CHARLIE ROSE: Let me talk about people in the region.

MIKE MORELL: Yeah, this is a good one.

CHARLIE ROSE: What do we need to do?

MIKE MORELL: Our allies in the region — I`ll leave (ph) a couple things. They believe that the United States of America — they believe that the Obama administration is not listening to them, right. That they`ve got points of view they feel strongly about — another thing they believe is that the United States does not have their back, particularly with regard to Iran.

They believe that we don`t understand that they see Iran as their Soviet Union, right. So there are two things I`d say about Secretary Clinton here. One is, they do believe that Secretary Clinton listens and I think where Secretary Clinton is on Iran, based on what I`ve heard her say and based on what I`ve read is look, the nuclear deal, a really good thing, I think.

She thinks that — I think that too, but at the same time I think she believes that I know, based on what she said that she believes that we need to push back harder against Iranian malign behavior in the region, right.

CHARLIE ROSE: A support should we be doing.

MIKE MORELL: Let me give you an example and I think we`ve talked about this around the table. They provide money and assistance to terrorist groups, Hamas, Hezbollah, right. Hezbollah could not exist without the support it gets from Iran.

They supply money and weapons to Shi`a groups in the region who are trying to overthrow governments. Best example is Yemen, right, where they provided weapons and money to the Houthis who actually overthrew the government there.

CHARLIE ROSE: Where they`re competing with the Saudis.

MIKE MORELL: Where they`re competing with the Saudis, right. So, a very simple example, right, ships leave Iran filled with weapons for the Houthis, right. I believe the U.S. Navy should board those ships and if there are weapons on them, they should turn them around and send them back. That`s pushing back against Iranian bad behavior.

CHARLIE ROSE: Is that what Secretary Clinton believes needs to do? Be more aggressive in terms of the Iranian behavior.

MIKE MORELL: Yes. So, use the nuclear…

CHARLIE ROSE: Which is not part of the deal?

MIKE MORELL: So, use the nuclear agreement — use the nuclear agreement to try to forge a more positive relationship at the same time while you push back, right, against their bad behavior.

CHARLIE ROSE: North Korea, Secretary Clinton said it`s a real risk, North Korea. What should we do? What would Secretary Clinton do? We don`t what Donald Trump would do. I don`t.

MIKE MORELL: Donald Trump has said what he would do. He had said he`d sit down and talk to Kim Jong-un. He said he would invite Kim Jong-un to come to the United States of America for a conversation.

CHARLIE ROSE: Let me stop you there. Forget that it came from Donald Trump. Is it a mistake to talk to Kim Jong-un?

MIKE MORELL: Yes.

CHARLIE ROSE: To talk to him?

MIKE MORELL: Yes.

CHARLIE ROSE: Because you give him credibility?

MIKE MORELL: Because what he wants more than anything else is for the United States of America to acknowledge that he is a nuclear power and that he will remain a nuclear power. And it is the policy of the United States of America and I don`t think Mr. Trump gets any of this — understands any of this, right. It is the policy of the United States of America for North Korea to get rid of its nuclear weapons. That is our policy.

CHARLIE ROSE: So, as a condition to talking, get rid of your weapons?

MIKE MORELL: As a condition, yes, yes. You have to — you have to get rid – -we`re not going to recognize you. We`re hot going to normalize relations with you until you agree to get rid of your weapons, right. And what Donald Trump said is come talk to me, right. And so he would give him incredible credibility.

CHARLIE ROSE: China and the South China Sea. What should we be doing with respect to Chinese aggression in the South China Sea potentially building bases there?

MIKE MORELL: Yeah, so, can I just back up a second and then take the 25,000 foot view and then come back to the South China Sea. And here I think — I think president Obama and Secretary Clinton understand this perfectly. The most important bilateral relationship for the future of East Asia, for the future of the world I think is the relationship between Washington and Beijing, and there are two things, as a strong statement but I believe it to be true.

There are two things that are pulling us together in a good way and two things that are pulling us apart. The two things pulling us together, Charlie, are one, we both have an interest, we both have an interest in the success of the Chinese economy particularly a reforming Chinese economy, right.

CHARLIE ROSE: Because of its impact on the global economy.

MIKE MORELL: Because of its impact on the global economy.

CHARLIE ROSE: And the confidence it gives them as a state.

MIKE MORELL: Absolutely, absolutely. And the disincentive it gives them for messing around, right. Two is, and I base this, you know, on my own conversations with Chinese officials, you know, my counterparts, base this on conversation with my counterparts in China. I believe there are growing numbers of places in the world where our national security interests overlap than actually where they are in conflict. And I believe there`s potential for us to cooperate together.

CHARLIE ROSE: Do the Chinese believe that?

MIKE MORELL: Yes.

CHARLIE ROSE: Do they want to do that?

MIKE MORELL: Yes. I think they believe it and I think increasingly they`re coming to understand would be in their interest. So that is potentially pulling us together, right — two positive things. What are the two negative things? The two negative things are we both have large militaries on the same place on the planet, right. That means you have…

CHARLIE ROSE: The Pacific.

MIKE MORELL: The pacific. So, that means you have — what does that mean? It means you have to plan for war against each other, and we both do. It means you have to equip yourself in terms of weapons systems for war against each other, and both of us do. And it means you have to exercise those forces for war against each other and both of us do. Both sides see all three of those things. That leads to a national tension in the relationship that pulls you apart. And then you got…

CHARLIE ROSE: But they also — they are very upset about the fact, you know, that we seem to be increasing our relationship with India and Vietnam and Philippines and drawing a circle around them.

MIKE MORELL: Yes, and that comes to the final point that`s pulling us apart, and you`re absolutely right. So the final thing that`s pulling us apart is, you know, we are the power in East Asia and we`re established co- power. They are a rising power. They don`t have a lot of say. They want more say in the world around them as they gain strength, right. They want more say, we have it. How does that get resolved, right?

I think there`s an answer to that that president Obama understands and that Secretary Clinton understands, and that is that we will give China more room to exercise influence if they play by the rules of the international order. So, what does that mean, right? What does that mean? It means for example that I think it was a mistake for the United States of America to push back when China want to create a regional development bank.

CHARLIE ROSE: Right. Clearly, that looks like — because Europe broke ranks right away.

MIKE MORELL: The Brits broke rank immediately, right. So, you don`t push back on stuff like that where they`re actually trying to play by the rules, right. You push back on the South China Sea stuff where they are breaking the rules, right.

CHARLIE ROSE: Mr. Xi, tear down those islands.

MIKE MORELL: And I think that`s the right approach. I think president Obama understands that. I think that he`s taken us down the road towards a better solution to this relationship long term and I think she will continue in that direction.

CHARLIE ROSE: Is it fair to say — I`ve got to close this — Is it fair to say the two, since you were there although they were there at the time, Osama Bin Laden and all that, but the two changes that are so apparent to decision makers today, one is cyber and the other is in a sense the rise of non-state actors.

MIKE MORELL: I agree a hundred percent, agree a hundred percent. I`d still list, well, put it this way. I`d list terrorist attacks against the United States of America including the homeland as the number one threat, the non- state actor, right.

CHARLIE ROSE: And with that, the potential that they somehow might acquire or buy some weapon of mass destruction whatever it might be?

MIKE MORELL: Yes. That`s a serious issue, right. And then I think the second, the fastest growing threat, and number two on the list is cyber in all of its dimensions, from what nation states do, to criminal groups, to hacktivists, to all of this different people doing all these different things on cyber.

CHARLIE ROSE: And the political development that you`ve written about in which is apparent in much of this is not of that magnitude, is the rise of populism.

MIKE MORELL: And in the United States.

CHARLIE ROSE: In the United States.

MIKE MORELL: You know, I was asked — Charlie, I was asked by an Australian think tank — an Australian think tank came to me and they said, they said, you know you`ve analyzed the politics of other countries for 30 years. Would you analyze your own and write something for us. So I did, and in this piece I wrote, which was published a couple weeks ago, I said there are three big dynamics here in the United States. One is what I call income insecurity, right.

CHARLIE ROSE: Right.

MIKE MORELL: There`s been a whole bunch of people that have been left behind by globalization and technology.

CHARLIE ROSE: Conventional wisdom is that they are attracted to the candidacy of Donald Trump.

MIKE MORELL: They were attracted to the candidacy of Bernie Sanders who said I will fix this with income redistribution and they are attracted to the candidacy of Donald Trump who simply says I`ll fix it.

CHARLIE ROSE: All about trade.

MIKE MORELL: I`ll fix it by tearing up trade deals and making better deals. I`ll fix it by telling Ford Motor Company you cannot move to Mexico, right. How do you do that? So that`s one, right. Second, right, is the belief — that first one is not a small percentage of the population because real incomes for American households, for the majority of American households that have been going down for the last generation, right. So this is real.

I think it`s a failure of our education system not to keep up with changes in globalization and technology but that`s a whole different issue. The second is the belief among a lot of people, right, that establishment candidates, establishment politicians can`t get anything done. A lot of people believe that.

CHARLIE ROSE: Because of gridlock in Washington.

MIKE MORELL: Yeah, and so those people who believe that went to — went to non-establishment candidates on both sides, right. Sixty-five percent of the vote cast during the primaries was from non-establishment candidates. And then the third is, and this is sad for me as an American to say, as I believe that there is some number of uneducated white Americans who fear the browning of America, who fear the growth and the number…

CHARLIE ROSE: Change in the demographics.

MIKE MORELL: And the influence of minorities in America manifested by the election of Barack Obama to the presidency. And they are attracted to Donald Trump`s xenophobia. And I think those are the three dynamics that launched him, right. And you know, the first one — all three of them need to be addressed, right. All three of those things need to be addressed. I happen to believe that she will do a much better job addressing those issues than he will and that`s why I did what I did.

CHARLIE ROSE: Thank you for coming.

MIKE MORELL: Always great to be with you, Charlie.

CHARLIE ROSE: Thank you for joining us. See you next time.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Has the CIA’s Plot to « Covertly » Kill Russians in Syria Come to Pass?

US-backed militias fighting against the Syrian government of Bashar al Assad have broken through the Russian and Syrian government encirclement of their positions inside the war-ravaged northern Syrian city of Aleppo, according to Western media.

During fierce battles over the weekend, the US-backed, Islamist-led militia coalition known as Jaysh al Fateh overran military bases in southwest Aleppo and secured an access road connecting the city to the rest of the country. Russian war planes and Syrian and Iranian ground forces counterattacked Sunday, targeting the anti-Assad forces with aerial bombardments and artillery.

According to Syrian opposition leader Anas al-Abdah, the Islamist offensive has achieved “almost a miracle,” leaving the anti-Assad forces poised to “break the siege and move into a stage where we are talking seriously about liberating the city.” The offensive has carved out a slim corridor linking Aleppo to rebel-held areas, raising the possibility of resupply operations for the desperately besieged Western-backed forces.

The encirclement of Washington’s extremist groups inside Aleppo, who have been reduced to a diminishing pocket in the city’s north and western sectors in the face of a redoubled Syrian offensive backed by Russian air power and Iranian ground forces, came as a humiliating reversal for US imperialism. Washington has orchestrated a relentless civil war in Syria since 2011, killing hundreds of thousands of Syrians, without achieving its aim of toppling the Damascus regime and installing a neocolonial puppet government.

During the opening phases of the US-NATO orchestrated war, the anti-Assad militias seized control of large areas of the city, which they sought to utilize as a base of operations and object of plunder. Prior to the outbreak of the war, Aleppo’s population numbered between 1 and 2.5 million, according to varying estimates. Today, some 50,000 civilians are estimated to eke out an existence amid the rubble. The city as a whole has been without electricity and running water for more than a year, and entire neighborhoods are completely razed to the ground.

In recent weeks, with the Turkish government of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan withdrawing support for the rebels in retaliation for Washington’s involvement in the failed July military coup attempt, the American-backed militias have faced the imminent possibility of defeat.

It is not coincidental that the ferocious US-backed assault is unfolding on the eve of Turkish President Erdogan’s trip to St. Petersburg for talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin, on Tuesday. There are well-grounded fears in American ruling circles that Erdogan will reach a broad-based agreement with Putin, one that would close-off all remaining supply routes necessary for sustaining the war against Damascus.

The cause of the sudden reversal in the fortunes of the anti-government forces, who, if US media reports can be believed, have seized the initiative from the jaws of total defeat, was quietly acknowledged in reports published by the New York Times on Saturday and Monday, titled “Military Success in Syria Gives Putin Upper Hand in US Proxy War” and “Rebel Offensive in Syria Challenges Government Siege of Aleppo.”

As Saturday’s Times piece noted, the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has been supplying the Al Qaeda-linked militias with virtually unlimited supplies of sophisticated antitank missiles and other weaponry.

The US-backed rebel coalition, which has been dominated by the Al Nusra Front, “would receive new shipments of the antitank weapons as soon as the missiles were used,” according to comments from a rebel commander made in 2015, and quoted by the Times Saturday.

“We ask for ammunition and missiles, and we get more than we ask for,” the anti-Assad commander said.

The shipments of advanced Stinger missile systems, which are capable of destroying, among other things, commercial jetliners during takeoff and landing, as well as military-grade helicopters, have continued up to the present.

In contrast to the Obama administration’s assertions that the shipments were being curtailed and funneled exclusively to “moderate forces,” in reality the CIA has been surging support for the encircled anti-Assad militias in Aleppo, foremost among which are the Al Nusra fighters.

As the Times update on Monday forthrightly acknowledged: “A vital factor in the rebel advance over the weekend was cooperation between mainstream rebel groups, some of which have received covert arms support from the United States, and the jihadist organization formerly known as the Nusra Front, which was affiliated with Al Qaeda.”

The infinite mendacity and hypocrisy of both the Times and the American imperial policy it defends could hardly find sharper expression.

The newspaper presents the change in name and formal disaffiliation of Al Nusra from Al Qaeda as some distant memory, when it, in fact, was announced barely a week and a half earlier. It, like most of the Western media, now cheers on the supposed battlefield successes of the so-called “rebels,” who, until the end of July, swore allegiance to Al Qaeda, supposedly the main target of Washington’s 15-year-long “war on terrorism.”

Moreover, in recent weeks, as US intelligence outfitted the surrounded Al Qaeda “rebels” in preparation for a new bloody offensive, America’s top diplomat, Secretary of State John Kerry, has touted steps toward a US-Russian military cooperation pact in Syria, the centerpiece of which would supposedly have been joint strikes against Al Nusra. While Kerry was pledging military cooperation with Moscow, along with joint “counterterrorism” operations, the CIA was giving weapons hand over fist to the Al Qaeda-affiliated forces, dumping fuel on a simmering US-Russian proxy conflict with the potential to engulf broad areas of the Middle East and Europe in all-out war.

The downing of a Russian Mi-8 transport helicopter over Syria’s Idlib province Monday, which produced the largest single death toll for Russian forces operating in Syria since Moscow launched its intervention last year, grimly illustrated the lethal dynamics being unleashed by American imperialism’s ever more reckless pursuit of unchallenged hegemony over the strategic Levantine nation.

The US media celebrations of the “rebel” victory cannot be taken at face value, and must be weighed against reports from the Syrian government side, which have presented the scope of the rebel counteroffensive in more modest terms. Whatever the true extent of the rebel advances on the ground, it is already clear that the intensified fighting will serve as the political basis for a major military escalation by Washington.

In an interview with Fox News this weekend, Democratic presidential frontrunner, Hillary Clinton, issued bellicose threats against Russia, stating that “the facts raise serious issues about Russian interference in our elections, in our democracy.” Clinton has made clear her intention to pursue a massive escalation of the Syrian war and the broader US war drive against Russia if she wins the White House, saying during last year’s Democratic Party debate, “We have to stand up to his [Putin] bullying and specifically, in Syria.”

While the Obama White House prefers to delay a major escalation until after the elections, the weakness of the American position on the ground is forcing the administration to consider direct strikes against Damascus. Former Obama administration adviser, Dennis Ross, suggested last week that the White House should “begin speaking in a language that Mr. Assad and Mr. Putin can understand,” and employ direct cruise missile and drone strikes against Assad’s military infrastructure.

In the event that the government crushes the rebel attack, powerful factions within the US establishment can be counted on to press for the most aggressive measures against Assad, to be launched in the name of salvaging the American proxy forces, which have been built up at a cost of billions in CIA-supplied cash and weapons.

Even should the Al Qaeda-linked forces complete the breakout, and reassert control over Aleppo and the surrounding region, this will only set the stage for a massive government counterattack, and thus provide a suitable political pretext for further escalation by Washington. Beneath the fog of war in Syria, the only certainty is the constantly growing tendency toward a US-Russian clash that poses the gravest dangers for humanity.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Washington Escalates Covert Backing for Al Qaeda Militias in Aleppo

La société civile, depuis la Conférence sur l’Environnement et le Développement ou Sommet de la Terre qui s’est tenue à Rio de Janeiro, Brésil, en juin 1992, a convoqué une douzaine de rencontres internationales en vue de mobiliser les militants et de maintenir les liens qui unissent les organisations de défense des droits dans les différents domaines de l’activité humaine (figure 1). Nous avons eu le privilège de participer au Forum global qui s’est déroulé à Rio dont l’une des activités a été de bâtir des Traités alternatifs sur les grands enjeux entourant le devenir de l’humanité.

La société civile est composée d’une myriade d’organisations dites ONG. Rappelons-nous qu’une ONG « est essentiellement un organisme légalement constitué qui est dirigé par des personnes morales et ce indépendamment de toute législation gouvernementale. Dans les cas où les ONG sont financées partiellement ou totalement par les gouvernements, les ONG n’ont pas de représentant gouvernemental en leur sein afin de maintenir leur statut non-gouvernemental. Le terme employé pour celles qui ont une portée sociale plus large peut revêtir aussi une connotation politique. Cependant, toute ONG ne peut être une organisation uniquement politique. Le terme «organisation non gouvernementale» n’a pas de définition juridique et le terme d’« organisation de la société civile » convient dans de nombreuses juridictions » (http://www.ngo.in/).

On estime qu’environ 40 000 ONG opèrent au niveau international. Le processus de remodelage de l’État-providence a conduit au développement rapide des secteurs non-gouvernementaux en Occident. Avec le développement du processus de la mondialisation les ONG se sont multipliées. En fait, au 20e siècle, la mondialisation a rendu les gens conscients de l’importance des ONG (http://www.ngo.in/).

Il y a beaucoup de problèmes qui ne peuvent être résolus efficacement dans un pays. Les organismes internationaux au niveau mondial dont les organisations internationales comme l’Organisation mondiale du commerce ont été considérés comme trop centrées sur les intérêts des entreprises capitalistes. La croissance et l’essor des ONG sont perçus comme une tentative pour renverser cette tendance. Les ONG se préoccupent des questions fondamentales liées à des causes humaines comme le développement durable, l’aide au développement et d’autres questions humanitaires. Un exemple remarquable d’une organisation en faveur des personnes est le Forum social mondial. Cette organisation se veut présenter un discours opposé à celui du Forum économique mondial qui se tient à Davos à chaque année. Dans certains cas, il représente les mouvements populaires des pauvres ou bien peut être considéré comme une forme aristocratique de la politique » (http://www.ngo.in/).

Dans cet essai, nous présentons le Forum global de Rio 1992 et les Traités mondiaux alternatifs, les forums sociaux qui ont suivi et, en conclusion, la Charte des principes qui guident l’organisation et la tenue de ces grandes rencontres internationales.

Figure. Quelques rendez-vous de la société civile organisée 1996-2011

Source : http://ceriscope.sciences-po.fr/pauvrete/content/quelques-rendez-vous-de-la-societe-civile-organisee-1996-2011

I.               Le Forum global de Rio et les Traités mondiaux alternatifs

L’une des activités du Forum global a permis de bâtir plus d’une quarantaine de Traités alternatifs sur les grands enjeux entourant le devenir de l’humanité. Chaque traité a un préambule, la définition des principes et les actions à entreprendre ou à poursuivre. Nous nous sommes associés aux travaux d’élaboration et de négociation pour le traité no 45 concernant le militarisme, l’environnement et le développement. Ce traité, élaboré et revu, au préalable, par un grand nombre de délégués à travers le monde, a fait l’objet d’un dernier examen et son contenu a été discuté en assemblée générale lors du Forum.  Nous reproduisons in extenso son contenu à titre d’exemple. Le traité comporte neuf principes et 15 actions. Il s’avère une référence importante pour tous ceux qui s’opposent à la guerre et à sa préparation. Plus de 20 000 personnes ont participé au FG que l’on a qualifié de Forum des femmes en raison du fait qu’elles n’étaient pas, à toutes fins pratiques présentes à la Conférence des chefs d’État.

45 – Traité sur le militarisme, l’environnement et le développement

PRÉAMBULE

Reconnaissant la relation entre le militarisme, la dette, la dégradation environnementale et le faible développement et compte tenu du fait que le processus de la CNUED a, jusqu’ici, exclu ces questions nous exigeons que l’impact du militarisme sur la Terre, les peuples et l’économie mondiale soit inclus dans le programme de suivi de Rio.

PRINCIPES

1. Les activités militaires dans le monde entier détruisent la vie, exercent un grand impact sur  l’environnement et épuisent les ressources. Nous les peuples du monde exigeons une démilitarisation complète, globale et respectueuse de l’environnement, pour nous libérer de la guerre et des déchets nucléaires, des conflits régionaux et des dictatures militaires.

2. Alors que 20% de la population mondiale s’approprie 80% des ressources et de l’énergie dans le monde entier, on continue d’utiliser la force militaire pour maintenir cette situation injuste. La pauvreté et la faim génèrent des tensions et des pressions qui ne peuvent être endiguées par l’oppression militaire. La militarisation qui est générée par l’exploitation économique et par toutes les  formes de domination, y compris le système patriarcal, détruit la Terre et les différentes formes de la vie elle-même. Le militarisme a eu un impact extrêmement négatif sur l’environnement, pendant les périodes de paix et de guerre, en utilisant les ressources naturelles et humaines nécessaires au développement économique et social.

3. On éprouve un urgent besoin de la démilitarisation, de l’abolition de la guerre et ce pour un monde qui puisse accéder à une paix durable, un élément essentiel pour le bien-être des générations actuelles et futures et pour l’égalité sociale et économique.

4. Ne pas définir la sécurité en termes purement militaires, mais en termes généraux qui incluent la sécurité personnelle, sans aucune violence ou d’abus sexuels, la sécurité locale qui signifie la satisfaction de tous les besoins de base à l’échelle mondiale et la sécurité commune dans lequel les droits des peuples et d’autres espèces au sein d’un environnement sain sont respectés.

5. Ce type de sécurité ne peut pas être atteint sans la primauté de la justice sociale et sans que les systèmes économiques, politiques, juridiques et sociaux soient radicalement transformés. On doit stopper immédiatement les gigantesques dépenses militaires qui engagent les pays avec une dette extérieure et qui s’avèrent un gaspillage de ressources précieuses qui devraient être plutôt affectées aux besoins de la société.

6. Un nouvel ordre mondial exige qu’aucun pays ne se transforme en une police mondiale, qu’il intervienne militairement et qu’il agrandisse son espace vital avec des bases dans d’autres pays ou dans l’espace. Les forces militaires et les bases militaires doivent être retirées des territoires d’autres pays car elles violent les principes de l’autodétermination.

7. Nous rejetons toutes les formes de violence, y compris le viol, la torture, les exécutions sommaires, les disparitions et la perte de vies en raison des actions de guerre et de préparation à la guerre. Au contraire, les conflits doivent être résolus par des moyens non-violents, la négociation, la médiation et en ayant recours à des sanctions qui soient décidées d’un commun accord. En conséquence, les sanctions unilatérales devraient être rejetées.

8. La destruction de l’environnement et l’épuisement des ressources sont la cause et la conséquence des conflits armés. De plus, avec l’utilisation de l’espace à des fins militaires en met en danger la Biosphère.

ACTIONS

1. Nous exigeons que nos gouvernements négocient et ratifient un traité interdisant les essais nucléaires. Le principe n ° 26 de la Déclaration de Stockholm de 1972, qui fait appel à l’élimination des armes de destruction massive, doit être réaffirmé et élargi pour inclure toutes les armes.

2. Nous allons travailler contre les inégalités dans les relations de pouvoir qui se posent dans la couleur de la peau, la classe sociale, la culture ou le sexe des personnes. Nous cherchons à promouvoir une participation équilibrée dans tous les décideurs à tous les niveaux. Travailler pour mettre fin à l’exploitation des femmes, des enfants et autres groupes marginalisés par les systèmes militaires dominants.

3. Nous appuierons les personnes passibles de la répression militaire et de la police parce qu’ils sont opposés à la guerre ou à des projets avec des conséquences négatives pour l’environnement et le développement.

4. Nous tenons les gouvernements et le complexe militaro-industriel-universitaire des dommages directement ou indirectement, qui soit causé à l’environnement. Nous insistons pour que l’on consigne ou  inspecte mutuellement toutes les armes de destruction massive et qu’elles soient démantelées et non remplacées. Nous organiserons le boycott des entreprises qui fabriquent des produits qui endommagent l’environnement à des fins militaires.

5. Des campagnes seront menées pour la réduction simultanée des dépenses militaires dans tous les pays jusqu’à leur élimination complète et immédiate, afin que ces ressources humaines, financières et techniques répondent plutôt aux besoins sociaux et environnementaux, y compris le nettoyage la pollution causée par l’action militaire.

6. Nous allons promouvoir des solutions pacifiques à l’intérieur et entre les nations ou groupes ethniques et religieux qui sont en conflit.

7. Nous allons renforcer les relations entre les ONG du monde entier afin de solidifier les échanges d’information objective et impartiale et de bâtir la solidarité pour la compréhension des impacts environnementaux causés par le militarisme et de mieux comprendre les interconnexions entre le développement, l’environnement, la dette, la domination et le militarisme.

8. Nous déclarons que nos territoires et localités devraient être libres d’armes nucléaires, chimiques et biologiques, libres des systèmes d’armes et de l’énergie nucléaire et nous travaillerons pour l’élimination de leur développement, de leur production, de leur transport et leur stockage.

9. Nous allons rejoindre les peuples autochtones en nous opposant à l’utilisation de leurs terres ou de leurs territoires et de l’espace aérien à des fins militaires, y compris l’exploitation des mines d’uranium, de l’expérimentation des armements, de leurs dépôts, de leur stockage et de l’incinération des déchets dangereux et radioactifs..

10. Nous ferons campagne pour dénoncer le conditionnement de la société, en particulier les enfants, à travers les médias et les jeux et les jouets de guerre. Nous ferons la promotion de l’éducation pour la paix.

11. Compte tenu de la toxicité chimique et de la radioactivité de l’uranium (U238) rejeté, nous travaillerons pour l’interdiction immédiate de son utilisation et contre l’utilisation de matériaux similaires dans la production des équipements militaires et civils.

12. Nous condamnons l’utilisation sous n’importe quel prétexte, y compris le trafic de drogue, comme justificatif pour envahir, intervenir ou militariser les régions dévastées.

13. Nous nous opposons à l’utilisation des terres, des mers, de l’air et de l’espace pour des tests nucléaires, à l’élimination des déchets nucléaires et à d’autres actions militaires qui nuisent à l’environnement.

14. Nous réaffirmons que toutes les activités liées au militarisme doivent être régies par les procédures judiciaires, législatives et réglementaires de la société civile.

15. Nous allons appuyer la création d’un centre permanent de réponse aux crises de l’environnement dans le but de coordonner les secours nécessaires en cas de catastrophes écologiques, y compris la guerre

(http://www.eurosur.org/NGONET/tr9252.htm).

Les autres traités concernent l’éducation, les communications et la coopération (5-10), les questions économiques alternatives (11-16), la consommation, la pauvreté, l’alimentation et les moyens de subsistance (17-22), le climat, l’énergie, les déchets (23-26) la terre et les ressources naturelles (27-29), les questions relatives aux océans et aux mers (30-34), la biodiversité et les biotechnologies (35-38) et, enfin, des aspects qui sont en relation avec les autres catégories (39-46).

II. Les Forums sociaux mondiaux

Le Forum social mondial (ou FSM) est un forum international ayant pour but de faire se rencontrer des organisations citoyennes du monde entier sensibles à la cause altermondialiste (« Un autre monde est possible »). Traitant des principaux sujets de préoccupation de la société civile en rapport avec la mondialisation, cet événement se présente comme une alternative sociale au Forum économique mondial qui se déroule chaque année en janvier à Davos en Suisse.

La première édition du FSM s’est tenue en 2001 à Porto Alegre au Brésil. Depuis les réunions de 2002 et 2003, les forums sociaux à toutes les échelles sont régis par la Charte des principes du Forum social mondial, dont les principes les plus importants sont :

–                L’opposition à l’ordre « néo-libéral » caractérisant la mondialisation actuelle;

–                L’ouverture à tous les courants idéologiques pour les projets alternatifs;

–                L’absence des partis politiques en tant que tels (wikipedia.org).

À partir de 2001 un total de 11 forums globaux ont été tenus, d’abord à Porto Alegre pour les premiers, et puis ailleurs dans le monde, à Mumbai en 2004, à Nairobi en 2007, à Belém en 2009, à Dakar en 2011 et à Tunis en 2013 et 2015. La formule a été éprouvée à Porto Alegre qui s’est avéré le point d’ancrage de ces expériences de mobilisation collective en faveur d’un monde juste et solidaire, d’un autre monde possible.

Le forum de Porto Alegre en 2001

La première édition du FSM s’est tenue du 25 au 30 janvier 2001 à Porto Alegre, au Brésil. Il a réuni entre 5 000 et 20 000 participants. Ce premier forum, né d’une rencontre entre plusieurs associations altermondialistes séduites par l’idée de créer un forum parallèle au Forum économique mondial, a été organisé par huit associations brésiliennes: Attac, le Mouvement des sans-terre, ABONG (Association brésilienne d’organisations non gouvernementales), CIVES (Association brésilienne des hommes d’affaires pour la citoyenneté), CBJP (Commission brésilienne Justice et Paix), IBASE (Institut brésilien d’analyses socio-économiques), CUT (Centrale unique des travailleurs) ainsi que CJG (Centre de justice mondiale, justiça global).

En 2003, encore à Porto Alegre, du 23 au 28 janvier 2003, la 3e édition du forum réunit 100 000 à 120 000 participants, 4 750 associations ou mouvements, venant de 150 pays. Il s’est ouvert par une grande « marche contre le néolibéralisme », rassemblant entre 70 000 et 140 000 manifestants, et a consisté en 1760 ateliers, séminaires et conférences.

Le forum de Mumbai en 2004

En 2004, la 4e édition du FSM se tient du 16 au 21 janvier à Bombay, en Inde, avec environ 80 000 participants, de 132 pays différents et 2 660 associations ou mouvements.

Le forum polycentrique de 2006. Caracas. Bamako. Karâchi

La rencontre de 2006 s’est déroulée dans plusieurs pays à la fois, ce qui lui a valu l’appellation de « forum polycentrique » (ou « polycentré ») : du 24 au 29 janvier à Caracas (Venezuela), du 19 au 23 janvier à Bamako (Mali), et en mars à Karâchi (Pakistan). Les événements de Caracas ont rassemblés 100 000 personnes, tandis que ceux de Bamako ont inauguré la tenue d’un FSM en Afrique. Environ 5 000 personnes ont participé au FSM de Bamako, qui donné lieu à l’organisation à l’échelle continentale d’un Forum social africain. Parmi les nouveaux thèmes discutés figure la question des refoulés de l’émigration. Les questions agricoles et de l’eau prennent aussi une grande place.

Le forum de Nairobi en 2007

Le 7e Forum social mondial officiel s’est tenu du 20 au 25 janvier 2007 à Nairobi (Kenya), tandis qu’un important forum s’est également tenu aux États-Unis. L’année 2007 a marqué une étape dans l’internationalisation des forums sociaux, huit ans après les mobilisations de Seattle contre l’OMC et sept ans après la première rencontre de Porto Alegre. L’altermondialisme est dès lors jugé présent dans toutes les grandes régions du monde, après une expansion géographique remarquablement rapide, bien qu’il reste encore à intégrer à la dynamique internationale d’importants pays comme la Chine.

Le forum de Tunis en 2015

Le Forum social mondial 2015 a eu lieu à Tunis du 24 au 28 mars 2015 sur le campus de l’université de Tunis El Manar.

 III. Le Forum social de Montréal

Le 12e Forum social mondial se tiendra à Montréal en août 2016. C’est la première fois qu’une ville d’un pays du Nord recevra la visite du Forum. «Ce premier Forum social mondial au Nord sera l’occasion historique de renouveler les luttes sociales mondiales, le tout, porté par la fougue de la jeunesse québécoise», a souligné Chico Whitaker, membre fondateur du FSM. Plus de 50 000 personnes sont attendues au centre-ville de Montréal dans le cadre de la 12e édition de cet événement   (http://www.journaldemontreal.com/2015/03/30/le-12e-forum-social-mondial-se-tiendra-a-montreal-en-2016)

Conclusion

Nous terminons en présentant in extenso le texte de la Charte des Principes du Forum Social Mondial qui a été rédigé et accepté à São Paulo, Brésil, le 9 avril 2001.

Les Principes contenus dans la Charte, qui devra être respectée par tous ceux qui souhaitent participer à ce processus et organiser de nouvelles éditions du Forum Social Mondial, consolident les décisions qui ont présidé à la réalisation du Forum de Porto Alegre et fait son succès, et amplifient sa portée, en fixant les orientations qui découlent de la logique de ces décisions.

1. Le Forum Social Mondial est un espace de rencontre ouvert visant à approfondir la réflexion, le débat d’idées démocratique, la formulation de propositions, l’échange en toute liberté d’expériences, et l’articulation en vue d’actions efficaces, d’instances et de mouvements de la société civile qui s’opposent au néolibéralisme et à la domination du monde par le capital et toute forme d’impérialisme, et qui s’emploient à bâtir une société planétaire axée sur l’être humain.

2. Le Forum Social Mondial de Porto Alegre a été une manifestation située dans le temps et l’espace. Désormais, avec la certitude proclamée à Porto Alegre qu’un autre monde est possible », il devient un processus permanent de recherche et d’élaboration d’alternatives, qui ne se réduit pas aux manifestations sur lesquelles il s’appuie ».

3. Le Forum Social Mondial est un processus à caractère mondial. Toutes les rencontres qui feront partie de ce processus ont une dimension internationale.

4. Les alternatives proposées au Forum Social Mondial s’opposent à un processus de mondialisation capitaliste commandé par les grands entreprises multinationales et les gouvernements et institutions internationales au service de leurs intérêts. Elles visent à faire prévaloir, comme nouvelle étape de l’histoire du monde, une mondialisation solidaire qui respecte les droits universels de l’homme, ceux de tous les citoyens et citoyennes de toutes les nations, et l’environnement, étape soutenue par des systèmes et institutions internationaux démocratiques au service de la justice sociale, de l’égalité et de la souveraineté des peuples.

5. Le Forum Social Mondial ne réunit et n’articule que les instances et mouvements de la société civile de tous les pays du monde, mais il ne prétend pas être une instance représentative de la société civile mondiale.

6. Les rencontres du Forum Social Mondial n’ont pas un caractère délibératif en tant que Forum Social Mondial. Personne ne sera donc autorisé à exprimer au nom du Forum, dans quelque édition que ce soit, des prises de position prétendant être celles de tous les participants. Les participants ne doivent pas être appelés à prendre des décisions, par vote ou acclamation, en tant que rassemblement de ceux qui participent au Forum, sur des déclarations ou propositions d’action qui les engagent tous ou leur majorité et qui se voudraient être celles du Forum en tant que Forum. Il ne constitue donc pas d’instance de pouvoir que peuvent se disputer ceux qui participent à ces rencontres, ni ne prétend constituer l’unique alternative d’articulation et d’action des instances et mouvements qui en font partie.

7. Les instances – ou ensembles d’instances – qui prennent part aux rencontres du Forum doivent donc être assurés de pouvoir délibérer en toute liberté durant celles-ci sur des déclarations et des actions qu’elles ont décidé de mener, seules ou en coordination avec d’autres participants. Le Forum Social Mondial s’engage à diffuser largement ces décisions par les moyens étant à sa portée, sans imposer d’orientations, de hiérarchies, de censures et de restrictions, mais en tant que délibérations des instances – ou ensembles d’instances – qui les auront assumées.

8. Le Forum Social Mondial est un espace pluriel et diversifié, non confessionnel, non gouvernemental et non partisan, qui articule de façon décentralisée, en réseau, des instances et mouvements engagés dans des actions concrètes, au niveau local ou international, visant à bâtir un autre monde.

9. Le Forum Social Mondial sera toujours un espace ouvert au pluralisme et à la diversité des engagements et actions d’instances et de mouvements qui décident d’y prendre part, comme à la pluralité des sexes, ethnies, cultures, générations et capacités physiques, dans la mesure où ils respectent la Charte des Principes. Ne pourront participer au Forum en tant que tels les représentations de partis, ni les organisations militaires. Pourront être invités à y participer, à titre personnel, les gouvernants et parlementaires qui assument les engagements de la présente Charte.

10. Le Forum Social Mondial s’oppose à toute vision totalitaire et réductrice de l’économie, du développement et de l’histoire, et à l’usage de la violence comme moyen de contrôle social par l’État. Il y oppose le respect des Droits de l’Homme, la véritable pratique démocratique, participative, par des relations égalitaires, solidaires et pacifiques entre les personnes, les races, les sexes et les peuples, condamnant toutes les formes de domination comme l’assujettissement d’un être humain par un autre.

11. Le Forum Social Mondial, en tant qu’espace de débats, est un mouvement d’idées qui stimule la réflexion, et la diffusion transparente des fruits de cette réflexion, sur les mécanismes et instruments de la domination du capital, sur les moyens et actions de résistance et la façon de dépasser cette domination, sur les alternatives proposées pour résoudre les problèmes d’exclusion et d’inégalité sociale que le processus de mondialisation capitaliste, avec ses composantes racistes, sexistes et destructrices de l’environnement est en train de créer, au niveau international et dans chacun des pays.

12. Le Forum Social Mondial, comme espace d’échange d’expériences, stimule la connaissance et la reconnaissance mutuelles des instances et mouvements qui y participent, en valorisant leurs échanges, en particulier ce que la société est en train de bâtir pour axer l’activité économique et l’action politique en vue d’une prise en compte des besoins de l’être humain et dans le respect de la nature, aujourd’hui et pour les futures générations.

13. Le Forum Social Mondial, en tant qu’espace d’articulation, cherche à fortifier et à créer de nouvelles articulations nationales et internationales entre les instances et mouvements de la société civile qui augmentent, tant dans la sphère de la vie publique que de la vie privée, la capacité de résistance sociale non violente au processus de déshumanisation que le monde est en train de vivre et à la violence utilisée par l’État, et renforcent les initiatives d’humanisation en cours, par l’action de ces mouvements et instances.

14. Le Forum Social Mondial est un processus qui stimule les instances et mouvements qui y participent à situer, à niveau local ou national, leurs actions, comme les questions de citoyenneté planétaire, en cherchant à prendre une part active dans les instances internationales, introduisant dans l’agenda mondial les pratiques transformatrices qu’ils expérimentent dans la construction d’un monde nouveau.

Approuvée et signée à São Paulo, le 9 avril 2001, par les instances qui constituent le Comité d`Organisation du Forum Social Mondial, approuvée avec des modifications par le Conseil International du Forum Social Mondial le 10 juin 2001 (france.attac.org).

Jules Dufour

Pour le Centre de recherche sur la Mondialisation, Montréal.

Références

ASSOCIATION ADÉQUATION. 2008. L’action des organisations non gouvernementales. En ligne : http://www.adequations.org/spip.php?article419

DESROSIER, Éric. 2015. Porto Alegre, P.Q. Le Forum social mondial se tiendra pour la première fois dans une ville de l’hémisphère Nord en 2016, à Montréal. Journal Le Devoir, le 31 mars 2015, Cahier B, p. 1.

NGO. Definition and Number of NGOs in the World. En ligne : http://www.ngo.in/

PRESSE-TOI À GAUCHE !  2015. Déclaration de l’Assemblée des mouvements sociaux – Forum social mondial 2015. Le 31 mars 2015. En ligne : http://www.pressegauche.org/spip.php?article21518#.VRwIqZRCnT4.facebookW

The NGO Alternative Treaties. From the Global Forum at Rio de Janeiro. 1-15 juin 1992. En ligne : http://habitat.igc.org/treaties/index.html

WIKIPÉDIA. Forum social mondial. Dernière mise à jour : Le 13 mars 2015. En ligne : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_social_mondial

WIKIPÉDIA. Forum social québécois. Dernière mise à jour : Le 9 août 2014. En ligne : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_social_qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9cois

 

Jules Dufour, Ph.D., C.Q., géographe, professeur émérite, membre de la Commission mondiale des Aires protégées de  l’Union Internationale de la nature (UICN)

 

  • Posted in Francais @fr
  • Commentaires fermés sur La société civile en action. Plus de 40 000 ONG dans le monde

“Turkey is slowly leaving the Atlantic system. That is the reason behind this coup. That is the reason why NATO is panicking. This is much broader and much bigger than Erdogan. This is a tectonic movement. This will affect Turkish-Syrian relations, Turkish-Chinese relations, Turkish-Russian relations and Turkish-Iranian relations. This will change the world.” — Yunus Soner, Deputy Chairman Turkish Patriotic Party

“It is becoming clear that the attempted putsch was not just the work of a small clique of dissatisfied officers inside the armed forces; it was rather the product of a vast conspiracy to take over the Turkish state that was decades in the making and might well have succeeded.” — Patrick Cockburn, CounterPunch

On August 9,   Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan will meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Saint Petersburg  The two leaders will discuss political developments following the recent coup-attempt in Turkey, tourism, and the launching of Turkstream, the natural gas pipeline that will transform Turkey into southern Europe’s biggest energy hub..  They are also expected to explore options for ending the fighting in Syria. Putin will insist that Erdogan make a concerted effort to stop Islamic militants from crossing back-and-forth into Syria, while Erdogan will demand that Putin do everything in his power to prevent the emergence of an independent Kurdish state on Turkey’s southern border.  The meeting will end with the typical smiles and handshakes accompanied by a joint statement pledging to work together peacefully to resolve regional issues and to put an end to the proxy war that has left Syria in tatters.

All in all, the confab will seem like another public relations charade devoid of any larger meaning, but that’s certainly not the case. The fact is, the normalizing of relations between Russia and Turkey will  foreshadow a bigger geopolitical shift that will link Ankara to Tehran, Damascus and other Russian allies across Eurasia. The alliance will alter the global chessboard in a way that eviscerates the imperial plan to control the flow of energy from Qatar to Europe, redraw the map of the Middle East and pivot to Asia. That strategy will either be decimated or suffer a severe setback. The reasons for this should be fairly obvious to anyone who can read a map. Turkey’s location makes it the indispensable state, the landbridge that connects the wealth and modernity of the EU with the vast resources and growing population of Asia. That vital connecting piece of the geopolitical puzzle is gradually slipping out of Washington’s orbit and  into enemy territory. The July 15 coup is likely the final nail in the NWO coffin for reasons we will discuss later.  Here’s a clip from Eric Draitser’s insightful piece titled “Erdogan’s Checkmate: CIA-Backed Coup in Turkey Fails, Upsets Global Chessboard” that summarizes what’s going on:

“Ultimately, the failed 2016 coup in Turkey will have lasting ramifications that will impact the years and decades ahead.  With Turkey now clearly breaking with the US-NATO-EU axis, it is rather predictable that it will seek to not only mend fences with both Russia and China, but to place itself into the non-western camp typified by BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, China’s One Belt One Road strategy, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, etc.” (“Erdogan’s Checkmate: CIA-Backed Coup in Turkey Fails, Upsets Global Chessboard“, Global Research)

In an earlier part of the article, Draitser correctly identifies the  followers of Fethullah Gulen as the perpetrators of the coup. As he and others have pointed out, Gulen’s agents have penetrated all levels of the Turkish state and military acting as a shadow government (aka- “parallel state”) that poses a direct threat to Turkey’s national security..  Here’s journalist Patrick Cockburn making the same point in a recent article in CounterPunch:

“There is little question left that the followers of Fethullah Gulen were behind the coup attempt, despite his repeated denials. “I don’t have any doubt that the brain and backbone of the coup were the Gulenists,” says Kadri Gursel, usually a critic of the government. He adds that he is astonished by the degree to which the Gulenists were able to infiltrate and subvert the armed forces, judiciary and civil service. ….

…it is difficult to find anybody on the left or right who does not suspect that at some level the US was complicit in the coup attempt. Erdogan is probably convinced of this himself, despite US denials, and this will shape his foreign policy in future….

…if the coup had more successful, Turkey would have faced a full-blown military dictatorship or a civil war, or both. Erdogan said in an interview that foreign leaders who now counsel moderation would have danced for joy if he had been killed by the conspirators….” (“After the Coup, Turkey is Being Torn Apart“, Patrick Cockburn, CounterPunch)

If the coup had succeeded, then it is quite likely that Erdogan would have been savagely murdered like Gadhafi while the state was plunged into a long-term civil war. This is why Erdogan has removed tens of thousands of Gulen sympathizers or operatives from their positions in the state, the media, the military and the universities. These prisoners will now be charged with supporting the coup (treason?) and could face the death penalty. Critics in the Obama administration and western media have lambasted Erdogan for violating civil liberties in his effort to rid the country of fifth columnists and traitors, but the Turkish President will have none of it. He has angrily responded saying that Washington was “taking the side of the coup leaders.”

“Now I ask”, said Erdogan, “does the West give support to terror or not? Is the West on the side of democracy or on the side of coups and terror? Unfortunately, the West gives support to terror and stands on the side of coups….We have not received the support we were expecting from our friends, neither during nor after the coup attempt.”

Erdoğan lamented that no Western leader had come to Turkey to express condolences and show solidarity with the Turkish people.” (Hurriyet, Turkish Daily)

He has a point, doesn’t he? While I am no fan of the autocratic and narcissistic Erdogan, it’s very suspicious that Washington is so eager to criticize and so reluctant to help. After all, the two countries are allies, right?

And what does Erdogan want?

He wants the US to extradite Gulen (who currently lives in exile in Pennsylvania) so he can face charges of treason in Turkey.. According to Erdogan, “Documents have been sent to the U.S.” establishing Gulen’s guilt.  But the Obama administration remains unmoved, even though Turkey has handed over terrorists to the US in the past without evidence. Apparently, sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander.

It’s worth repeating what Cockburn said in the excerpt above. He said: “it is difficult to find anybody on the left or right who does not suspect that at some level the US was complicit in the coup attempt.”

Why is that? Why does everyone in Turkey –regardless of their politics or ethnicity–think the US had a hand in the coup?

Take a look at this clip from an article at the World Socialist Web Site which helps to explain:

“US claims that Washington had no advance warning of the coup are simply not credible. Turkey’s Incirlik Air Base, which hosts more than 5,000 American soldiers and is the main base for the US-led bombing campaign against Syria and Iraq, was the organizing center of the putsch. Pro-coup fighter jets flew in and out of Incirlik as the coup unfolded. Shortly after the coup failed, the base commander, General Bekir Ercan Van, was arrested along with other pro-coup soldiers at the base.

Given that Incirlik is the site of dozens of US nuclear weapons, no credibility can be given to claims that US intelligence was unaware that a coup against Erdogan was being organized from there. Were that truly the case, it would represent a CIA intelligence breakdown of stunning proportions….

A pro-coup officer captured by the Turkish government, Lieutenant Colonel Murat Bolat, told the conservative Yeni Savak newspaper that his unit was designated to detain and possibly murder Erdogan after receiving precise information on Erdogan’s location from US sources.

“A person in the meeting, whom I guess was an officer from the Special Forces, said, ‘Nobody will be allowed to rescue the president from our hands,’” he said, indicating that this meant Erdogan was to be shot after he was captured if the forces who had arrested him faced any counterattack.” (“Erdogan accuses US of supporting failed coup in Turkey“, World Socialist Web Site)

While the information is not conclusive, it is suspicious. At the very least, Washington knew a coup was being planned and looked the other way. This except from a post by Harvard professor, Dani Rodrik seems like a very plausible explanation of US involvement to me. Here’s a brief clip:

 “The U.S. government may not have had a direct hand in Gulen’s activities, but it is more difficult to dismiss the argument that it provided tacit support – or that some parts of the U.S. administration prevailed on other parts who were less keen on Gulen.

…As the Wikileaks cables I referred to above make clear, the State Department, at least, has been well aware of Gulenist infiltration of the Turkish military for quite some time. The Gulenists’s role in Sledgehammer, which led to the discharge of many of the most Kemalist/secularist officers in the military is equally clear. Beyond Sledgehammer, the Gulenists’ wide range of clandestine operations against opponents in Turkey must be well known to American intelligence…..

…the head of the Turkish military, who was held hostage by the putschists during the coup attempt, has said that one of his captors offered to put him in touch with Gulen directly. This, on its own, is prima facie evidence of Gulen’s involvement, and likely passes the “probable cause” test that is required for extradition. Incredibly, administration officials are still quoted as saying “there is no credible evidence of Mr. Gulen’s personal involvement.” In other words, these officials must think that the army chief of their NATO ally is lying.” (“Is the U.S. behind Fethullah Gulen?“, Dani Rodrik’s Blog)

The Obama administration’s support for the Kurds in Syria as well as its behavior following the coup of July 15,  has led to a dramatic deterioration in US-Turkey relations. This will undoubtedly effect Erdogan’s willingness to allow the US to use its airbases for conducting bombing raids in Syria in the future.  It’s also bound to accelerate the pace at which Turkey strengthens relations with Russia, Iran and others as it will need the protection of new allies to better defend itself against threats from the west.

The Obama administration is still uncertain of how to proceed mainly because no one had expected that Erdogan would break with Washington, purge his enemies, pursue rapprochement with Moscow, Tehran and Damascus, and throw a wrench in Uncle Sam’s plan for redrawing the map of the Middle East.  At present, the administration is trying to ease tensions  by dispatching one high-ranking official after the other to persuade Erdogan that the US was not involved in the coup. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph Dunford visited Ankara just this week while Secretary of State John Kerry and Vice President Joe Biden are scheduled for later in the month. Eventually, even Obama will be asked to make the trek.  No effort will be spared to bring Erdogan back into the fold.

If, however, the charm offensive fails, as I expect it will, Erdogan will be crucified in the western media (Hitler Erdogan) while covert operatives and NGOs try to foment political instability. At least, that’s the way things normally play out.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Washington Slapdown: Turkey Turns to Moscow for Help

The Donald Trump Threat?

août 9th, 2016 by Stephen Lendman

A new Clinton ad explains much about why America’s war party fears Trump.

He calls NATO “obsolete” and may try normalizing ties with Russia for the first time since an alliance of necessity against Nazi Germany during WW II – a disaster for US warmongers like Clinton, needing adversarial relations to further their global hegemonic objectives.

Her ad says “(w)e don’t know why Trump praises Putin.” He calls him “a very strong leader for Russia.” Earlier he said he’s “a very outstanding man, unquestionably talented.”

He favors a new role for NATO. He’s no peacenik, but unlikely to start WW III.

Compared to Clinton, he’s the lesser of two dark forces. Give him credit for wanting rapprochement, not confrontation with Russia, provided he’d follow through if elected president.

His potential geopolitical shift from longstanding US policy has opponents like former acting CIA director Michael Morell calling him an “unwitting agent of the Russian Federation,” posing a threat to national security, he claimed.

Neocons like Morell, Clinton and numerous others infesting Washington believe peace initiatives gaining traction represent America’s greatest geopolitical threat – especially ending longstanding adversarial relations with Russia.

A statement signed by Michael Chertoff (former DHS secretary), Michael Hayden (former CIA director), Robert Zoellick (former World Bank president, NED board member), John Negroponte (former National Intelligence director) and 46 other former Republican national security officials said “(n)one of us will vote for Donald Trump.”

“From a foreign policy perspective, (he’s) not qualified to be President and Commander-in-Chief. Indeed, we are convinced that he would be a dangerous President and would put at risk our country’s national security and well-being.”

« [He’d ]  weaken US moral authority as the leader of the free world…(H)e has little understanding of America’s national interests, its complex diplomatic challenges, its indispensable alliances, and the democratic values on which US foreign policy must be based. At the same time, he persistently compliments our adversaries and threatens our allies and friends.”

“…Donald Trump is not the answer to America’s daunting challenges and to this crucial election. We are convinced that in the Oval Office, he would be the most reckless President in American history.”

All this and more because he believes NATO is outdated and favors normalizing relations with Russia. Make no mistake. Trump is a deplorable choice for president – yet favoring two important steps in the right direction shows he’s not all bad.

Humanity’s top priority is avoiding another global war, likely with nuclear weapons if one erupts, threatening humanity’s survival.

Chances for the unthinkable are far too high to risk under Hillary if she succeeds Obama. Her deplorable record since the 1990s shows she’s a « war goddess », extremely hostile to Russia, China and all other independent sovereign states.

Her geopolitical strategy of choice is war. She supports use of nuclear weapons and US-led NATO aggression “to preserve our way of life.”

Trump responded to the letter’s signatories, saying they’re “the ones the American people should look to for answers on why the world is a mess, and we thank them for coming forward so everyone in the country knows who deserves the blame for making the world such a dangerous place.”

They’re “nothing more than the failed Washington elite looking to hold onto their power.” He’s right. Many are responsible for pre-and-post-9/11 wars of aggression – anti-peace extremists everyone should denounce.

Clinton is the establishment choice for president. She’ll likely succeed Obama by fair or foul means.

If Trump surprises and wins, he’ll likely not diverge much from longstanding US domestic and foreign policy. Candidates say anything to get elected. In office they continue dirty business as usual.

Yet unthinkable global war is much more likely under Clinton than him – why it’s crucial to oppose her candidacy for the nation’s highest office or any other public one.

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. » http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

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 The Donald Trump Threat?

« There are men who struggle for a day and they are good. There are men who struggle for a year and they are better. There are men who struggle many years, and they are better still. But there are those who struggle all their lives: These are the indispensable ones. » — Bertolt Brecht

« Fidel! Fidel! Que tiene Fidel que los americanos no pueden con él! » (Fidel! Fidel! What is it that he has that the U.S. imperialists can’t defeat him!) — Cuban Revolutionary chant

On August 13 Fidel Castro Ruz, the historic leader of the Cuban Revolution, turns 90. Progressive, anti-war and social justice forces across the world will join in the celebration of the life of one of the world’s most influential and significant leaders. It is especially worthwhile and necessary to mark and valorize the life and times of a man whose heart, without missing a beat, has withstood more than 600 assassination attempts by U.S imperialism.

Fidel’s life and legacy loom large in world history and development. Fidel is part and parcel of the wave of the anti-colonial, national liberation and social emancipation struggles that swept Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean in the second half of the 20th century. Fidel is integral to the Cuban-born and international revolutionary and anti-imperialist tradition, theory and practice, stretching through the Taino cacique, Hatuey, Toussaint L’Overture, Simon Bolivar, José Martí, Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, Mao Zedong and Ho Chi Minh, among others.

Fidel does not transcend Cuba and history, as some have opined, but, instead, is ineluctably and organically bound to the deepest aspirations of the Cuban people and the demands of the times. Fidel belongs to the world. He does not stand above or outside life. Flesh and blood, brain and bone, he exemplifies the finest traditions of humanity.

His life encapsulates the struggle of the exploited and oppressed, epitomizing, as articulated by U.S. political prisoner Mumia Abu Jamal, « their historic power to transform our dull realities. »

The significance of Fidel extends beyond the geographical boundaries of Cuba. Since its inception, the Cuban Revolution has made an invaluable contribution to the global struggle for justice, social development and human dignity. Under Fidel’s leadership Cuba has established an unparalleled legacy of internationalism and humanitarianism, embodying the immortal words of José Martí: « Homeland is Humanity. Humanity is Homeland. » In southern Africa, for example, more than 2,000 Cubans gave their lives to defeat the racist apartheid regime in South Africa. Mandela never forgot. After he was released from prison, one of the first countries outside of Africa and the first country in Latin America that he chose to visit was Cuba.

Today this commitment to humanity is mirrored in the tens of thousands of Cuban medical personnel and educators who have served and continue to serve around the world. This service sees them battling in the trenches against disease and illiteracy, running the gamut from combating the Ebola outbreaks in west Africa to beating back other challenges to public health in southern Africa. No less important is the training inside Cuba of medical cadres from Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean as well as North America (including African-American communities from the largest U.S. cities).

Fidel was only 26 when on July 26, 1953 he led a group of courageous young men and women in the attack on the Moncada Barracks in the city of Santiago de Cuba, and the Carlos Manuel de Cespedes Barracks in Bayamo, an unsuccessful but valiant effort to overthrow the U.S.-supported puppet dictator Fulgencio Batista. Moncada was a catalyst for the revolutionary struggle to free Cuba from U.S. tutelage and establish authentic independence. Fidel has epitomized the unbending commitment to justice, dignity and independence that has characterized Cuba since the triumph of the Cuban Revolution on January 1, 1959, leading Cuban resistance against the unjust and genocidal economic, commercial and financial blockade imposed on the island by Washington.

No words can adequately convey the singular meaning of Fidel. By holding aloft the banners of Socialism, Justice, Peace, Internationalism and Human Dignity, the Cuban Revolution, led by Fidel, demonstrates that a better world is possible. On October 16, 1953 at his trial following the Moncada attack, Fidel laid out his vision of national independence and social justice, declaring, « Condemn me, it does not matter, history will absolve me. » Since those historic words and the subsequent unfolding of events, in a world fraught with intense challenges and dangers, history has not only absolved Fidel but also vindicated the meaning and legacy of his life.

¡Viva Fidel!
¡Fidel 90 y más!

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur ¡Fidel 90 y más! Fidel Castro: A Revolutionary Legacy

Site C Dam is a proposed 60-metre high, 1,050m length dam on the Peace River on Treaty 8 territory in northeastern British Columbia (see image below), a project that if built, would create an 83km reservoir submerging 78 First Nations heritage sites in violation of the Constitution Act, but how does it connect to continental water diversion?

To date, much has been said in the media regarding the issue of Site C Dam, but very little has touched on the matter of NAFTA and water.

Peace River BC

The spin behind the necessity of the project has largely concentrated on exaggerated claims of the energy needs of Vancouver, to the BC Liberals’ power requirements for the LNG and Fracking industry, to providing below-market value energy to Alberta in exchange for agreeing to their pipelines. Recently, the Justin Trudeau Government approved two additional permits for Site C Dam despite recommendations against the project by the Royal Society of Canada and 250 of Canada’s top scientists on the basis that Site C Dam is an ecological catastrophe and gross violation of rights under the United Nations Declaration of Indigenous Rights and violates our own Constitution.

Little, however, has been noted by the media about the NAWAPA (North America Water Power Alliance) connection to Site C Dam, and that is something all Canadians should be seriously concerned about.

NAWAPA is a continental water diversion plan drafted by the US Army Corps of Engineers during the 1950s -1960s. Essentially the plan involved diverting (stealing) water from Canada via the Rocky Mountain Trench to Southern California. The rivers of Canada in British Columbia and the Yukon were an integral part of this plan.

In 1964 Parsons Company published a paper called NAWAPA: “North American Water and Power Alliance,” by Roland P. Kelly, Technical Program manager of  “The Ralph M. Parsons Company”.  Essentially the paper estimates that NAWAPA could provide water supply to the continent (i.e) The United States for 100 years. In the proposal, the project would divert approximately 69,000,000 acre-ft to the United States Annually. In Water and Free Trade: The Mulroney Government’s Agenda for Canada’s Most Precious Resource, agrologist Wendy Holm discusses the core aspects:

“ The NAWAPA plan proposed by Ralph Parsons Co. of Los  Angeles envisaged building a large number of the worlds biggest dams to trap the Yukon, Peace and Liard Rivers into a reservoir that would flood one-tenth of British Columbia to create a canal from Alaska to Washington State that would supply water through existing canals and pipelines to most areas of the continent..”(31)

Roland P. Kelly argues

“Since the water resources of the continent were placed by nature without regard to political boundaries, it seems logical…to figure out a distribution system maximizing these resources without regard to these boundaries”(31).

Obviously, the implications of this project would have devastating environmental and human impacts, in addition the destruction of eco-systems and diversion of water would serve as an accelerant to climate change.

With regard to the Site C Dam, it is worth noting that the proposed dam site falls directly on the lines drawn in the original NAWAPA plans. Site C and the Columbia River Project are integral to the implementation of NAWAPA, thus calling into question the nature of the project in relationship to continental water diversion plans.

It is of the upmost importance to note that, once impounded behind the dam, the Peace River is subject to NAFTA as a water commodity, thus putting the people of Canada at risk of loosing water rights if privatization of BC Hydro occurs. One might reasonably question BC Hydro’s managed fiscal state of ‘$18.1 billion in approximate debt’ as being a primer for manufactured privatization to occur. The only potentially saving factor in the political manoeuvring behind Site C and Continental Water Sharing is the fact that the Province of British Columbia is located on un-ceded territory. The Governments’ title to water is, therefore, invalid and any quiet agreements made by our politicians with regard to NAWAPA would not be recognized under International Law despite corporate interests involved.

The law must be the personal concern of every citizen, to uphold for our neighbours as well as for ourselves. What does it say if the Government of Canada is found in violation of section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People and recently the violation of the Wildlife Act? It is time for people to start asking questions, who is benefitting from this project and what is going on behind the scenes?

http://www.wrri.nmsu.edu/publi sh/watcon/proc11/Kelly.pdf

Jennifer O’KeeffeFormer COPE Council Candidate 2014
Vancouver B.C.

 

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Turning off the Tap: Site C and Water Privatization in Canada

Understanding Transversality: Spain’s Podemos

août 9th, 2016 by Juan Antonio Gil de los Santos

When the 15-M movement broke out onto the streets across Spain in 2011, it didn’t coalesce into a series of political parties on either end of the political spectrum. In fact, there was a common declaration that stood out among all of the indignados: “They don’t represent us”. This referred to the “Regime of ‘78”  and the dominant political actors that have been ruling Spain since the death of Franco, and have made the rupturing of the social contract possible over the last 30 years.

Juan Antonio Gil de los Santos, Podemos MP

The 15-M movement saw people come together from diverse places, not just ideologically, but in terms of their perspectives and their understanding of reality. Yet if there was something that truly united them it was their common diagnosis of the current situation, namely an unsustainable disequilibrium between the establishment (an elite armed with political and economic power, ready to do anything to keep their position), and the outsiders (ordinary people that don’t participate in the decision making process), the widening gap between these two groups, and the forcing of the latter into an increasingly precarious position.

The establishment makes use of its power and its vast resources, they have ossified the institutions that were supposed to protect the rights of the outsiders, they have become increasingly out of touch with reality, and over time have completely broken the fragile balance created by the Constitution of ‘78, which brought democracy and social rights to the Spanish people after 40 years of dictatorship. The 1978 Constitution guaranteed – among other things – the right to decent housing, the right to healthcare, and the right to work. These promises have been greatly compromised by austerity, with major cuts to education and healthcare, labor reforms that increase the precariousness of the workers, and foreclosures that have left families homeless across the country.

Pushed to the limit, and having discovered the establishment’s deception, popular movements took to the streets to get rid of those who put their own interests above the social majority.

They did this in an organized manner, without partisan support, going beyond the outdated left-right axis. The indignados, as opposed to those unaffected elites who refused to resign, stood for social justice, freedom, democracy and the common good, and demanded greater democracy in the economy. They demanded that the political class be empathetic to this view and to stop being the institutional continuation of the IBEX35 (the 35 most powerful businesses in Spain).

Time passed, general elections were held, the Troika and austerity continued, misery grew and spread, but the 15-M movement never disappeared. It matured, incubating within it a solution which it wasn’t going to find outside.

“Start a party and run in the elections”, someone said to those people in the streets with their assemblies and proposals, shared by an immense majority of society. Soon he would wish he had bitten his tongue.

This is how Podemos began, as the inheritor of the 15-M movement. Though it would be unjust not to mention the many years of struggle for common welfare and for more just social models, in the form of organizations or activists from parties that share our goals. In the first stage, many people came together in the same space – both veteran activists as well as those who hadn’t engaged in politics until then – some already organized and some yet to organize.

The double challenge then began: that of channeling popular power into a shared line of action and that of organizing a party as a sum of parts, but harmonized by diverse collectives. Podemos has transitioned from movement to party, with the objective of entering institutions, to transform them, to put them on the side of the people.

After the success in the 2014 EU Parliamentary elections, where Podemos won five seats, the party-movement attracted more people, who began to identify for the first time with a project that aimed at bringing down the barriers of outmoded politics, and recovering the hope of achieving its desired aims. Many people who abstained from voting in past elections became activists in the 15-M movement. The moment arrived when political organization opened the door to a series of electoral opportunities, which will prove to be crucial for the future of Spain.

Through assembly debates in local “circles” they discussed the political and organizational models with which they would face these different elections. In October 2014 the proposals with the most votes were discussed in the founding congress of Podemos in Vistalegre. Podemos was founded upon a transversal political model – meaning that it is committed to building a broad consensus among diverse groups of people for things like the defense of free, public and universal healthcare, the social right to housing, and regaining lost labour rights.

But what exactly do we mean by “a transversal political model”? Transversality can be understood as the act of building majorities. Not electoral majorities per se, but social majorities made up of identities based on common goals; building inclusive identities adapted to today’s society. An example is that of the identity of “working class”, which was a necessary identity when they were organizing to overcome their class conditions 50 years ago, but which is not appropriate to the modern world.

It is in this transversality that there is a clear reflection of citizens that came together in the streets in 15-M. It is this important subject which I would like to focus upon in this article. Because it is thanks to this transversality – this broad appeal – that we have been successful. It has resulted in  governments having changed in cities such as Cadiz, Madrid, Barcelona and Valencia. Transversality has made it possible to take projects anchored in minority objectives and integrate them into major projects with real possibilities of reaching the government, and transforming institutions from within, the essential element to successfully carry out the projects.

Of course  commonly identified goals and lines of action by the social majority is not sufficient. They must be ready to take institutions back from the privileged elite. It is their duty to join forces and provide tools of participation and action so that the social majority feel not only represented but have real resources to be heard. This is reflected in Podemos’ current organizational model which provides various channels for participation.

We must not forget that within the organization there may be many different levels of participation. On the one hand there is the core or “nucleus”, the people who are the most heavily involved, and on the other there are supporters that participate to varying degrees. The lines of action must be oriented towards the social majority to which it aspires, not the nucleus. Towards supporting communities in their struggles – whether or not they support Podemos – in an effort to construct a major identity that is conscious of the importance of change and that (contrary to what boredom and the media blitz has produced in them) it is in their hands to carry out. And so groups like public servants, healthcare professionals, teachers, the unemployed, regardless of ideology based on outdated left-right divides, are gradually adding to the construction of large consensuses such as the defense of free, universal public health, the social right to housing, the recovery of lost labour rights, the fight against corruption, etc.

It is true that many of us come from very progressive environments, some of us will cringe to recall the legend of the POUM, or are avowed Republicans, others feel a sense of pride when the Internationale is sung, others are anarchists, some consider themselves eco-socialists or feminists, others come from being active in big parties. Some are newcomers to politics, but are as concerned as those who have been in activism since they were born.

Therefore with this in mind it is essential that we always remember that activist spaces are a means and not an end in themselves, to reach the broad social majority that needs us. We must be prudent not to assimilate activist spaces one hundred percent with that hegemonic project that is being constructed around us everywhere, and we must escape the perverse dynamics of the old politics that lead nowhere. Our goal is not to proselytize the extreme left, but we need to look beyond our activist navel, to regain the hope of people who feel identified with, and involved in, the project, and to recover the momentum that occurred early in the movement.

Juan Antonio Gil de los Santos
@juangilpodemos
MP in Andalusia for Podemos

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Understanding Transversality: Spain’s Podemos

The Balfour Declaration is a letter from then British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour to Walter Rothschild, for transmission to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland. The critical part of this short letter said:

“His Majesty’s government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”

This was a prime example of colonial arrogance by which Britain, which was not then in occupation of Palestine, promised the Zionist Federation, which did not represent all Jews, without the consent of the indigenous inhabitants of Palestine, the Palestinians, to facilitate the creation of a homeland for Jews in Palestine. The letter was dated 2 November 1917.

Thus, November 2017 will mark the centenary of Balfour and rumours abound that the British government plans to mark it in some form. Israel’s recently arrived Ambassador Mark Regevclaimed: “It’s being taken very seriously at the highest levels. We’re hoping to do a public celebration together with the British government.” The former spokesman for Israel’s prime minister talked up the possible events, saying that “senior leadership from both sides [will be] uniting to celebrate Balfour.”

Former British Prime Minster David Cameron told leaders of the Jewish community, “I want to make sure we mark it together in the most appropriate way.” He said this without any consultation with British Palestinians about whether, and how, they would wish to see the Balfour centenary commemorated. This seems to be at best misguided and, at worst, a demonstration of Britain’s double standards when it comes to the Palestine-Israel issue. Israel was not established on empty land; it has been built on the homeland of the Palestinian people. How then can it be logical for the British government not to consult the Palestinians, either in Palestine or in the UK, about the Balfour centenary?

The notion that Britain should “celebrate” the Balfour Declaration is extremely offensive to every British Palestinian I have talked to and to the Palestinian leadership. Balfour gave the green light to the Zionist movement, which perpetuated the lie that Palestine was “a land without a people for a people without a land”. The truth is that Jews, like Muslims and Christians, were citizens of many countries, including Syria and Iraq, and Palestine was inhabited by a people, the mainly Muslim but also Christian and Jewish, Palestinians. Had Israel not been created in Palestine, it is quite logical to assume that Palestine would have eventually gained independence and that Arab Jews, just like their Christian and Muslim brethren, would have continued to live in all the Arab countries in which they had thrived for centuries.

The Balfour Declaration and Britain’s League of Nations Mandate rule in Palestine were key reasons for the growth of Jewish migration to Palestine, which accelerated following the Second World War and the Holocaust. The creation of Israel as Britain rushed to abandon Palestine left the Palestinians at the mercy of murderous Zionist terror groups hell-bent on expelling as many if not all of them from their homeland. The injustice felt in the Middle East at the creation of Israel also contributed to the tensions that led to Arab Jews leaving their home countries for the nascent Zionist state.

The injustice of the lack of a viable Palestinian state and the continuing refugee catastrophe continues to this day. How can Britain celebrate this? Even if Britain claims that it is not “celebrating” Balfour, but simply “marking” the document’s centenary, that will also offend Palestinians living under Israel’s military occupation in Palestine, and in the refugee camps of Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, as well as the diaspora.

If fair minded people read the text of the Balfour Declaration and then look at what happened subsequently, they will surely find it difficult to accept that the conditions implicit in the British government’s “favour” have been fulfilled. Israel brazenly flouts the “civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine” on a daily basis, and has done since its creation in 1948. Its illegal occupation continues to oppress, humiliate and generate hatred. Israel’s siege on the Gaza Strip — described by David Cameron as “a prison” — continues unabated. House demolitions in the first half of 2016 are already markedly up on 2015. Settler violence has escalated and Jewish terror has taken the lives of Palestinians in the West Bank and Jerusalem.

The fact is that Britain has not even recognised Palestine as a state following the October 2014 Parliamentary vote requesting the government to do so. Add to this that 2017 also marks the 50th anniversary of the occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Gaza and other Arab land and Israel’s refusal to end this, and it is obvious that any reasonable person would say that a “celebration” of the Balfour Declaration would be completely inappropriate. If you do something shameful, as Britain did, from a Palestinian perspective, then you would do far better to apologise for it than to mark or celebrate it.

The argument for a celebration of Balfour is that the Jewish community in Britain see the creation of Israel as a major achievement in which the declaration played a major part. However, not all British Jews share this view. Has the government consulted widely even within the Jewish community about possible Balfour events? There is no evidence that it has. If it does mark the centenary in some way then it should know that there will be many Jews in Britain siding with the oppressed Palestinians to mark the Catastrophe (Nakba) that the creation of the state of Israel represents to them. Discussions among Palestinian groups in Britain and supporters of justice for Palestine are ongoing in order to formulate a suitable response to the governments’ intentions.

Meanwhile, the Palestinian leadership has finally stirred itself and threatened to sue Britain for the Balfour Declaration. What that really means and to which court the Palestinians would make a case remains unknown. It may be yet prove to be another example of the Palestinian leadership making grandiose claims which lead to nothing and are then retracted. This, though, remains to be seen.

As we approach 2017 with Israel entrenching its military occupation of Palestine and senior politicians articulating their rejection of a Palestinian state, Britain should avoid inflaming the situation by marking Balfour in any way. A more helpful act would be to establish an inquiry into Britain’s role in the creation of Israel and dispossession of the Palestinian people. Its role would be to establish the facts and to assess how justice can be brought to the Holy Land as the Balfour centenary approaches. This would be far better than “celebrating” what is indeed a dark chapter of Britain’s colonial history.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Palestine: Britain Should Apologise for the Balfour Declaration, Not ‘Celebrate’ It

Author’s Introduction

This article was first published in 2013 focussing on the May 2013 Tunis World Social Forum.

This year the World Social Forum is being held in Montreal, regrouping committed social activists, anti-war collectives and  prominent intellectuals. 

Most of the participants are unaware that the WSF is funded by corporate foundations including Ford, Rockefeller, et al.  Much of this funding is channelled to the WSF organizers under the helm of the WSF International Council. 

This is an issue I have raised on numerous occasions with progressive organizations and WSF activists: you cannot effectively confront neoliberalism and the New World Order elites  and expect them to finance your activities. The corporations are funding dissent with a view to controlling dissent. 

The Ford Foundation (which has links to the CIA) provided funding under its « Strengthening Global Civil Society » program during the first three years of the WSF.

When the WSF was held in Mumbai in 2004, the Indian WSF host committee declined support from the Ford Foundation. This in itself did not modify the WSF’s relationship to the donors. While the Ford foundation formally withdrew, other foundations positioned themselves.

More recently, the WSF has been funded by a consortium of corporate foundations under the advisory umbrella of Engaged Donors for Global Equity (EDGE).

This organization, which previously went under the name of The Funders Network on Trade and Globalization (FTNG), has played a central role in the funding of successive WSF venues. From the outset in 2001 it had an observer status on the WSF International Council. 

A member of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund is on EDGE’s board of directors. A representative of the Ford Foundation sits on its Conference Program Committee, which defines funding orientations. The Wallace Global Fund which has a working relationship to EDGE, is specialized in providing support to « mainstream » NGOs and « alternative media », including Amnesty International, Democracy Now (which supports Hillary Clinton’s candidacy for president of the US).

The following is the EDGe Communique. The donors not only fund the activities, they also determine the structure of the WSF venue. The decentralized and dispersed mosaic of do it yourself workshops.

 

 

We call upon participants of the Montreal WSF to raise these issues: the campaign against neoliberalism is financed by an alliance of donors which includes corporate foundations firmly committed not only to neoliberalism but also to the US-NATO led military agenda.

Why would they fund organizations which are actively campaigning against neoliberalism?  The answer is obvious.

 Michel Chossudovsky, August 9, 2016

 *        *       *

The Anti-Globalization Movement and the World Social Forum. Is « Another World » Possible?

by Michel Chossudovsky

May 15, 20013

The World Social Forum operating under the banner of  « Another World is Possible » was founded in 2001 at its inaugural venue of Porto Alegre. Brazil.

From the outset in 2001, the WSF has been upheld as an international umbrella representing grassroots people’s organizations, committed to reversing the tide of globalization. Its stated intent is to challenge corporate capitalism and its dominant neoliberal economic agenda.

The World Social Forum at its inaugural meeting defined itself as a counter-offensive to the World Economic Forum (WEF) of business leaders and politicians which meets annually in Davos, Switzerland. The 2001 Porto Alegre WSF was held simultaneously with that of the WEF in Davos.

Yet upon careful review, the WSF  –rather than effectively confronting the economic and financial elites– actually serves their interests. 

From the outset in 2001, the World Social Forum was funded by governments and corporate foundations, including the Ford Foundation which has ties to US intelligence.

The anti-globalization movement is opposed to Wall Street and the Texas oil giants controlled by Rockefeller, et al. Yet the foundations and charities of Ford, Rockefeller et al will generously fund progressive anti-capitalist networks as well as environmentalists (opposed to Wall Street and Big Oil) with a view to ultimately overseeing and shaping their various activities.

The mechanisms of “manufacturing dissent” require a manipulative environment, a process of arm-twisting and subtle co-optation of  a small number of key individuals within « progressive organizations », including anti-war coalitions, environmentalists and the anti-globalization movement. Many leaders of these organizations have in a sense betrayed their grassroots.

The Tunis 2013 World Social Forum  

The World Social Forum gathered this year [2013] in Tunis. The March 26-30, 2013 venue included more than 50,000 participants from NGOs and people’s organizations from around the World.  More than 4000 organizations from 127 countries were represented.

 Members of the WSF International  Council meets Tunisia’s interim Prime Minister Ali Larayedh

The International Council of the World Social Forum meets in downtown Tunis. (WNV/Marisa Holmes)

The International Council of the World Social Forum meets in downtown Tunis. (WNV/Marisa Holmes)

Many important issues were debated and discussed in separate workshops. The structure of the program –which included more than 1000 separate sessions– was that of a mosaic of different and separate initiatives. http://www.fsm2013.org/programme/27/1

impacts of austerity measures in the EU, environment, social justice, women’s rights, global warming, sustainable development, Palestine, the Arab Spring, among other themes

While the thrust invariably consisted in a critique of global capitalism and imperialism, the issue of US-led militarization was not addressed in a meaningful way. An aura of divisiveness prevailed, which was in part the result of the way the program was organized in a multitude of « do it yourself » workshops.

There was no united WSF position against US-NATO led wars, let alone Western intervention with a view to destabilizing sovereign countries. In fact quite the opposite:  a session was held on how to overthrow the Syrian government, involving the participation of so-called Leftists:

…[W]hile four Syrian communist and two Kurd organizations discussed future action against the regime, supporters of al-Assad held a rally in the central square. The two groups did not cross paths, so no confrontation took place, but the tension was palpable.

Participants in the debate held by the Syrian communists and Kurds told IPS that they had agreed on a document recognizing the importance of the individual and collective rights of all ethnic groups in Syria, which is especially significant for the Kurds, the largest minority.

They also agreed to hold a day of solidarity with the Syrian uprising, in the first week of May. (See Common Dreams, March 30, 2013)

How US-NATO with the support of Israel, Qatar and Saudi Arabia was waging an undeclared war on Syria was not the object of a cohesive debate. Nor was the issue of Al Qaeda mercenaries funded covertly by Washington and Brussels.

While the « Arab Spring » was put forth as a revolutionary landmark, the US-NATO sponsored armed insurrections in Libya (2011) and Syria (2011-2013) were considered to be part of the « Arab Spring »:

« Now, we are at a crossroads where retrograde and conservative forces want to stop the processes initiated two years ago with the [Arab Spring] uprisings in the Maghreb-Mashreq region that helped to bring down dictatorships and to challenge the neoliberal system imposed on the peoples. These uprisings have spread to all continents of the world inspiring indignation and occupation of public places. (Declaration of the Social Movements Assembly, see full text below)

The uprisings in the « Mashreq » and « Maghreb » referred to in the Final Declaration essentially pertain to Syria, Egypt, Libya and Tunisia. The text of declaration is vague. It does not take a position with regard to US-NATO intervention in Libya and Syria.

What the WSF document intimates (by default) is that the US sponsored « Syrian opposition »  is  « also » a genuine grassroots pro-democracy movement, comparable to that of Egypt. Similarly the Al Qaeda affiliated Libya Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) which led the « Arab Spring » against the government of Muammar Gaddafi is also considered to be a revolutionary force. It should be noted that Libya under Gadaffi was the only country in Africa which rejected the neoliberal economic agenda implemented under the helm of the IMF.

Several workshops on  Libya tacitly applauded Western military intervention. A session entitled « Libya’s transition to democracy » focused on « whether Libya was better off without Muammar Gaddafi. » Several « progressive » NGOs and « alternative media » which had supported NATO’s humanitarian bombings against Libya were present in Tunis. No statement as to the criminal nature of NATO’s humanitarian bombing campaign against Libya was made by the WSF.

The Libyan NGOs in attendance were funded by their government and by Western foundations, with the approval of the Libyan Ministry of Culture and Civil Society established in 2011 in the wake of the NATO led military intervention.

Sessions were also held on « political Islam » as part of an anti-imperialist front  without addressing the broader issue as to how « Political Islam » was used in the course of The Arab Spring to further the goals of the Imperialist powers. The result was the installation of Islamic governments in Egypt and Tunisia and the reinforcement rather than the repeal of the neoliberal economic policy agenda.

The legitimacy of the US « Global War on Terrorism » is not an object of debate under the auspices of the WSF. Nor is the fact that Washington covertly supported key leaders of the Arab Spring movement, as well as several civil society organizations. The April 6 Movement in Egypt had the support of the US embassy, Kefaya (Enough) was funded by US foundations. Both of these organizations were present at the WSF sessions in Tunis.

Aminata Traoré, the former minister of Culture of the deposed government of Mali, speaking at the World Social Forum in Tunis underscored how military intervention was used to enforce neoliberal economic policy.

Traore stated that: « The war that was imposed today in Mali is not a war of liberation of the Malian people, but a war of plunder of resources. » While addressing the WSF, she deplored that many WSF activists were supportive of France’s intervention.

Generally speaking, an understanding of imperialist wars in support of a neoliberal agenda has over the years not been a central component of the WSF debate. Moreover, many of the participant NGOs are in fact supportive of NATO’s « Responsibility to Protect » Mandate.

The Funding of the World Social Forum

The WSF is funded by governments and foundations. The Ford Foundation under its « Strengthening Global Civil Society » program provided funding during the first three years of the WSF.

When the WSF was held in Mumbai in 2004, the Indian WSF host committee declined support from the Ford Foundation. This in itself did not modify the WSF’s relationship to the donors. While the Ford foundation formally withdrew, other foundations positioned themselves.

In addition to government support, the WSF has been funded by a consortium of corporate foundations under the advisory umbrella of Engaged Donors for Global Equity (EDGE). This organization, which previously went under the name of The Funders Network on Trade and Globalization (FTNG), has played a central role in the funding of successive WSF venues. From the outset in 2001 it has an observer status on the WSF International Council.

While channeling financial support to the WSF, it acts as a clearing house for major foundations. EDGE describes itself  as « a unique and diverse community of donors, foundation officers and advisors across the international philanthropic landscape … with shared commitment to global social change. »

Shortly before the WSF venue in Tunis, EDGE Funders –together with the Fondation Charles Léopold Mayer pour le Progrès de l’Homme (FPH)– convened in Paris a consortium of some two dozen WSF grantmakers. EDGE is also facilitating the presence of these grantmakers at the Tunis venue. (See  http://www.edgefunders.org/events/)

In one of its key documents, entitled A Funders Network Alliance In Support of Grassroots Organizing and Movement-Building  EDGE acknowledges its support of social movements which challenge « neoliberal market fundamentalism. » including the World Social Forum, established in 2001:

« From the Zapatista uprising in Chiapas (1994) to the Battle in Seattle (1999) to the creation of the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre (2001), the TINA years of Reagan and Thatcher (There Is No Alternative) have been replaced with the growing conviction that “another world is possible.” Counter-summits, global campaigns and social forums have been crucial spaces to articulate local struggles, share experiences and analyses, develop expertise, and build concrete forms of international solidarity among progressive movements for social, economic and ecological justice. »

But at the same time, there is an obvious contradiction: the campaign against neoliberalism is financed by an alliance of donors which includes corporate foundations, firmly committed to the free-market and neoliberal economic policy under the helm of the IMF.  

A member of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund is on EDGE’s board of directors. A representative of the Ford Foundation sits on its Conference Program Committee, which defines funding orientations. The Wallace Global Fund which has a working relationship to EDGE, is specialized in providing support to « mainstream » NGOs and « alternative media », including Amnesty International, Democracy Now.

The Rockefeller Brothers representative –who co-chairs EDGE’s program committee– is Tom Kruse. At the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Kruse is responsible for « Global Governance » under the « Democratic Practice » program. Prior to joining the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Kruse served as an adviser to the Bolivian government of Evo Morales on trade and investment policy, debt relief and macroeconomic reform. Rockefeller Brothers grants to NGOs are approved under the « Strengthening Democracy in Global Governance » program, which is broadly similar to that put forth by the US State Department.

From the standpoint of corporate donors including the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, « investing in the WSF » constitutes a profitable undertaking. It ensures that activism remains within the confines of  constructive dialogue and critique rather than confrontation. Any deviation immediately results in the curtailment of donor funding:

“Everything the [Ford] Foundation did could be regarded as “making the World safe for capitalism”, reducing social tensions by helping to comfort the afflicted, provide safety valves for the angry, and improve the functioning of government (McGeorge Bundy, National Security Advisor to Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson (1961-1966), President of the Ford Foundation, (1966-1979))

The limits of social dissent are thereby determined by the « governance structure » of  the WSF, which was tacitly agreed upon with the funding agencies at the outset in 2001.

« No Leaders »

The WSF has no leaders. All the events are « self-organized ». The structure of debate and activism is part of an an « open space » (See y Francine Mestrum, The World Social Forum and its governance: a multi-headed monster, CADTM, 27 April 2013, http://cadtm.org/The-World-Social-Forum-and-its ).

This compartmentalized structure is an obstacle to the development of a meaningful and articulate mass movement. It indelibly serves the interests of  those who fund the WSF including the tax free foundations and the governments.

How best to control grassroots dissent against global capitalism?

Make sure that their leaders can be easily co-opted and that the rank and file will not develop « forms of international solidarity among progressive movements » (to use EDGE’s own words), which in any meaningful way might undermine the interests of corporate capital. 

The mosaic of separate workshops, the relative absence of plenary sessions, the creation of divisions within and between social movements, not to mention the absence of a cohesive platform against US-NATO humanitarian interventions, in Syria, Libya and Mali: all of these are part of a strategy to « manufacture dissent »

« The limits of dissent » are established by the foundations and governments which ultimately finance this multimillion dollar venue. The financing is twofold: 

1. Core financing of the WSF Secretariat and the Costs of the WSF venue.

2. Many of the constituent NGOs which participate in the venue are recipients of donor and/or government support.   

What ultimately prevails is a ritual of dissent which does not threaten the New World Order. Those who attend the WSF from the grassroots are often misled by their leaders. Activists who do not share the WSF consensus will ultimately be excluded:

“By providing the funding and the policy framework to many concerned and dedicated people working within the non-profit sector, the ruling class is able to co-opt leadership from grassroots communities, … and is able to make the funding, accounting, and evaluation components of the work so time consuming and onerous that social justice work is virtually impossible under these conditions” (Paul Kivel, You Call this Democracy, Who Benefits, Who Pays and Who Really Decides, 2004, p. 122 )

« Another World is Possible » is nonetheless an important concept, which characterizes the struggle of the peoples movements against global capitalism as well as the commitment of thousands of activists who participated in the WSF.

It cannot, however, be achieved under the auspices of the WSF which from the outset was funded by global capitalism and organized in close liaison with its corporate and government donors.

The important question for activists:

Is it possible to build « an Alternative » to global capitalism, which challenges the hegemony of the Rockefellers et al and then ask the Rockefellers et al to foot the bill?



Appendix

Declaration of the Social Movements Assembly – World Social Forum 2013, 29 March 2013, Tunisia

As the Social Movements Assembly of the World Social Forum of Tunisia, 2013, we are
gathered here to affirm the fundamental contribution of peoples of Maghreb-Mashrek (from
North Africa to the Middle East), in the construction of human civilization. We affirm that
decolonization for oppressed peoples remains for us, the social movements of the world, a
challenge of the greatest importance.

Through the WSF process, the Social Movements Assembly is the place where we come
together through our diversity, in order to forge common struggles and a collective agenda to
fight against capitalism, patriarchy, racism and all forms of discrimination and oppression. We
have built a common history of work which led to some progress, particularly in Latin America,
where we have been able to intervene in neoliberal alliances and to create several alternatives
for just development that truly honors nature.

Together, the peoples of all the continents are fighting to oppose the domination of capital,
hidden behind illusory promises of economic progress and the illusion of political stability.
Now, we are at a crossroads where retrograde and conservative forces want to stop the
processes initiated two years ago with the uprisings in the Maghreb-Mashreq region that
helped to bring down dictatorships and to challenge the neoliberal system imposed on the
peoples. These uprisings have spread to all continents of the world inspiring indignation and
occupation of public places.

People all over the world are suffering the effects of the aggravation of a profound crisis of
capitalism, in which its agents (banks, transnational corporations, media conglomerates,
international institutions, and governments complicit with neoliberalism) aim at increasing
their profits by applying interventionist and neocolonial policies.

War, military occupations, free-trade neoliberal treaties and “austerity measures” are
expressed in economic packages that privatize the common good, and public services, cut
wages and rights, increase unemployment, overload women´s care work and destroys nature.
Such policies strike the richer countries of the North harder and are increasing migration,
forced displacement, evictions, debt, and social inequalities such as in Greece, Cyprus,
Portugal, Italy, Ireland and the Spanish State.

They re-enforce conservatism and the control over women´s bodies and lives. In addition,
they seek to impose « green economy » as a solution to the environmental and food crisis, which
not only exacerbates the problem, but leads to commodification, privatization and
financialization of life and nature.

We denounce the intensification of repression to people´s rebellions, the assassination of the
leadership of social movements, the criminalization of our struggles and our proposals.

We assert that people must not continue to pay for this systemic crisis and that there is no
solution inside the capitalist system! Here, in Tunes, we reaffirm our committment to come
together to forge a common strategy to guide our struggles against capitalism. This is why we,
social movements, struggle:

*Against transnational corporations and the financial system (IMF, WB and WTO),
who are the main agents of the capitalist system, privatizing life, public services and common
goods such as water, air, land, seeds and mineral resources, promoting wars and violations of
human rights. Transnational corporations reproduce extractionist practices endangering life
and nature, grabbing our lands and developing genetically modified seeds and food, taking
away the peoples’ right to food and destroying biodiversity.

We fight for the cancellation of illegitimate and odious debt which today is a global instrument
of domination, repression and economic and financial strangulation of people. We reject free
trade agreements that are imposed by States and transnational corporations and we affirm
that it is possible to build another kind of globalization, made from and by the people, based
on solidarity and on freedom of movement for all the human beings.

[We struggle] for climate justice and food sovereignty, because we know that global climate change is a
product of the capitalist system of production, distribution and consumption. Transnational
corporations, international financial institutions and governments serving them do not want to
reduce greenhouse gases. We denounce “green economy” and refuse false solutions to the
climate crisis such as biofuels, genetically modified organisms and mechanisms of the carbon
market like REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation), which
ensnare impoverished peoples with false promises of progress while privatizing and
commodifying the forests and territories where these peoples have been living for thousands of
years.

We defend the food sovereignty and support sustainable peasant agriculture which is the true
solution to the food and climate crises and includes access to land for all who work on it.
Because of this, we call for a mass mobilisation to stop the landgrab and support local
peasants struggles.

[We struggle] Against violence against women, often conducted in militarily occupied territories, but
also violence affecting women who are criminalized for taking part in social struggles. We fight
against domestic and sexual violence perpetrated on women because they are considered
objects or goods, because the sovereignty of their bodies and minds is not acknowledged. We
fight against the traffic of women, girls and boys.

We defend sexual diversity, the right to gender self-determination and we oppose all
homophobia and sexist violence.

[We fight] For peace and against war, colonialism, occupations and the militarization of our
lands.

We denounce the false discourse of human rights defense and fight against fundamentalism,
that often justify these military occupations such as in Haiti, Libya, Mali and Syria. We defend
the right to people’s sovereignty and self-determination such as in Palestine, Western Sahara
and Kurdistan.

We denounce the installation of foreign military bases to instigate conflicts, to control and
ransack natural resources, and to foster dictatorships in several countries.

We struggle for the freedom of organization in trade unions, social movements, associations
and other forms of peaceful resistance. Let’s strengthen our tools of solidarity among peoples
such as boycott, disinvestment and sanctions against Israel and the struggle against NATO and
to ban all nuclear weapons.

*[We struggle] For democratization of mass media and building alternative media, that are
fundamental to overthrow the capitalist logics.

Inspired by the history of our struggles and by the strength of people on the streets, the Social
Movements Assembly call upon all people to mobilize and develop actions – coordinated at
world level – in a global Day of mobilization on the XXXX (day to decide)

Social movements of the world, let us advance towards a global unity to shatter the capitalist
system!

No more exploitation, no more patriarchy, racism and colonialism! Viva la revolution! Long live
the people’s struggle.  

*        *        *

Michel Chossudovsky’s International Best Seller. Order directly from Global Research Publishers

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur The Anti-Globalization Movement and the World Social Forum. Is « Another World » Possible?

Hillary Clinton and the Big (Neoliberal) Lie

août 9th, 2016 by Eric Draitser

This election season has brought to the surface an issue that, until recently, seemed to have become a neoliberal sacred cow, the holy writ of the lords of capital: free trade. And while this cornerstone of US economic hegemony has come under fire from a deeply reactionary, and to varying degrees racist and xenophobic, perspective, as expressed by Donald Trump, it has nevertheless sparked a much needed conversation about free trade and its destructive impact on both the American working class, and the Global South as well.

But free trade having become a campaign issue has also spotlighted for the umpteenth time the breathtaking hypocrisy of Hillary Clinton who I have previously referred to as the high priestess of the Church of Free Trade and Neoliberalism. For it is, in fact, Hillary Clinton who has for more than two decades been one of the loudest and most resolute voices championing neoliberalism and free trade. And still, despite her record, Clinton today presents herself as a friend of the working class. The same working class that has been all but eviscerated by the policies she herself has supported.

This is, of course, not to say that Trump is somehow the great defender of workers and the poor – his long track record as a predatory, racist real estate developer illustrates his complete lack of concern for oppressed communities and workers. Still, like a sadistic dentist, Trump has deliberately struck a nerve in the body politic of the US. For Trump has managed to eschew the typical right wing cultural wedge issues of gay marriage, abortion, and the like in favor of the core economic concerns of the working class.

hillary-clinton

Whatever one’s opinion of Trump, one can say with certainty that his reintroduction of the free trade into the national conversation has forced Hillary Clinton onto the back foot.

Hillary Clinton, NAFTA, and the Attack on American Workers

“I think that everybody is in favor of free and fair trade, and I think that NAFTA is proving its worth.” Or so Hillary Clinton said in 1996, more than two years after the North American Free Trade Agreement was enacted under her husband’s administration. At the time one could still labor under the illusion – or perhaps it was delusion? – that NAFTA was going to benefit workers in the US, Canada, and Mexico by allowing for the free flow of goods (and capital) leading to decreased prices for many consumer goods. Indeed, that was precisely the mythology that was peddled at the time.

While it’s true that many experts and workers alike, especially those on the Left, were deeply suspicious about the inflated claims of the glorious benefits of the NAFTA utopia of the future, the concept was made into policy, and the policy translated into a grim reality for US workers. As the Economic Policy Institute noted in 2013:

By establishing the principle that U.S. corporations could relocate production elsewhere and sell back into the United States, NAFTA undercut the bargaining power of American workers, which had driven the expansion of the middle class since the end of World War II. The result has been 20 years of stagnant wages and the upward redistribution of income, wealth and political power.

Without question, NAFTA was a direct assault on the US working class. Its repercussions are still being felt today. As the Economic Policy Institute further explained, NAFTA had four major negative impacts:

  1. The loss of at least 700,000 jobs due to production moving to Mexico. Some of the heaviest losses were felt in California, Texas, Michigan and other manufacturing-dependent states, particularly those in the Rust Belt.
  2. Allowed employers to drive down wages, slash benefits, and undermine and destroy unions. Because capital could always threaten to simply close up shop and move to Mexico, workers had little recourse but to accept the assault on their standards of living.
  3. It devastated the Mexican agricultural and small business sectors which led to the dislocation of millions of Mexican workers and small farmers, many of whom were forced to migrate to the US in search of work, thereby creating the immigration “problem” that Trump and his reactionary base have seized upon.
  4. It was the model free trade agreement, the blueprint upon which others were based. It laid the foundation for the neoliberal trade model wherein capital reaps the benefits while labor shoulders the costs.

Obviously, one could point out myriad other negative effects of NAFTA. But perhaps even better than that, one could simply take a drive down Interstates 80 and 90 – crossing through New Jersey, upstate New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, etc. – and get off almost anywhere and see the impacts for one’s self. Countless shuttered factories, depressed and often nearly abandoned towns and cities, and populations blighted by unemployment and the social breakdown that goes with it. The bleakness of the post-NAFTA industrial landscape is difficult to articulate, and is often completely hidden from view, especially for many working people in the population centers on the East and West coasts.

And this depression, both economic and psychological, is what Donald Trump has rather cynically exploited. The scapegoating of Mexican immigrants as economic parasites feasting on the blood of the American worker is a fairly predictable, though highly effective, means of marshaling support from the working class, in particular the white working class.

However, the political opportunism notwithstanding, it was not Donald Trump, but rather Hillary Clinton, who consistently was the unyielding supporter of NAFTA. As White House documents from the Clinton administration revealed, Hillary was one of the principal salespeople for NAFTA, going so far as to speak at a confidential White House briefing on NAFTA in November 1993, just a few days before it was approved by Congress. The documents also prove the fact that Hillary was, as John Nichols wrote in The Nation in 2008, “the featured speaker at a closed-door session where 120 women opinion leaders were hectored to pressure their congressional representatives to approve NAFTA.”

Clinton lobbied for NAFTA all throughout the halls of power in Washington, but also before the American people on television and in the major media. In short, NAFTA can be seen as one of Hillary’s crowning achievements; heavy is the head that wears such a crown.

Hillary the Hypocrite

Today Hillary Clinton shamelessly presents herself as a friend of working people. She trots out the elites of organized labor, concerned primarily with their own positions atop demoralized and fragmented unions, and trumpets their endorsements of her. And even these working class backstabbers have to grit their teeth and smile as they kneel before the high priestess herself in hopes of eight more years of privileged relations and fine dining.

But behind closed doors, everyone in America who even casually follows politics knows the truth: Hillary Clinton is a crusader for free trade and neoliberalism.

And that’s precisely why Hillary’s anti-free trade posture at election time is so deeply cynical, to say nothing of the insult to working people. In 2007-2008, in the midst of a hotly contested primary campaign against then Senator Barack Obama, Clinton repeatedly claimed that she was anti-free trade, and critical of NAFTA. In a debate in late 2007, Clinton admitted that NAFTA had been a mistake “to the extent that it did not deliver on what we had hoped it would.”

Of course, these were just the populist sentiments that Clinton knew she needed to utilize in order to deceive organized labor, and the working class in general, that she was an ally, rather than a devout worshiper at the altar of the god of neoliberalism.

After Obama became president and appointed Clinton Secretary of State she immediately reverted to being the great champion of free trade. Indeed, in her position as America’s top diplomat Clinton traveled the world preaching the gospel of free trade. And by this point she had a new holy scripture to tout: the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

Clinton unabashedly lied during Democratic national debates on the issue of the TPP, saying that she now opposes it, despite having been in favor of it as late as 2012 when she said the TPP “sets the gold standard in trade agreements.” While she now masquerades as a protectionist opposing a deal that would be bad for working people, she has demonstrated her unflagging support for this type of so called free trade in the past.

To get a sense of just how insidious the TPP is for American workers, and in fact citizens of every country involved in the deal, consider the words of the Grand Poobah of the American Left, Noam Chomsky, who correctly explained that the TPP is “designed to carry forward the neoliberal project to maximize profit and domination, and to set the working people in the world in competition with one another so as to lower wages to increase insecurity.” In his characteristically soft-spoken manner, Chomsky manages to encapsulate the overarching danger that the TPP represents. And in so doing, he further implies that Hillary Clinton represents a serious threat to American workers.

Similarly, as Secretary of State, Clinton vocally backed the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), hailing it as an “economic NATO”. Leaving aside the terrifyingly ironic turn of phrase, Hillary’s support of TTIP represents support for yet another massive free trade deal that would have serious negative effects on workers, and indeed the majority of citizens, in the US and Europe. As Politico noted, “TTIP covers around a third of global trade. It would create an open market of 829 million consumers and expand a trade relationship that’s already worth €2 billion every day.”

And, just as with the TPP, TTIP is as much a political and geopolitical weapon as it is an economic arrangement. While TPP is aimed at economically isolating China (despite the raving lunacy of Donald Trump who argues just the opposite, that TPP will unfairly benefit China), TTIP is directed against Russia in hopes of depriving Moscow the chance at deepening economic ties with Europe.

And this is precisely why Clinton is the darling of both Wall Street and the neoconservative establishment. From the right wing financier Koch Brothers’ admission of support for Hillary, to the obvious backing of George Soros,Warren Buffett, and countless other liberal (and some conservative) Wall Street ghouls, Clinton has the near unanimous endorsements of the One Percent. It should be added that she is also being supported by arch-neocons such as Max Boot, who described Clinton as “vastly preferable,” Robert Kagan who sees Hillary as “saving the country,” and Eliot Cohen who described Clinton as “the lesser evil by a large margin.”

The reason for the near unanimous support is simple: Clinton will deliver all the economic policies, including TPP and free trade, that the Masters of Wall Street demand. And she’ll do it all while coldly smiling at every worker she meets on the campaign trail. She will also pursue just the sort of aggressive and belligerent foreign policy that makes neocons salivate at the prospect of more and bigger wars.

Ultimately, Clinton represents the very worst of the American political class – a cynical manipulator whose thirst for blood and war is matched only by her thirst for power. Lies flow from her mouth into the US political scene like water into a vast ocean. And, like water, she erodes the once sturdy rock of the working class in the United States.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Hillary Clinton and the Big (Neoliberal) Lie

African National Congress remains dominate party over two decades after democratic transformation

Perhaps the most observed local elections in decades were held in the Republic of South Africa on August 3.

In final results of this poll the ruling African National Congress (ANC) gained 54 percent of the vote to the opposition party the Democratic Alliance (DA) 26 percent. In actual percentages the ANC won twice as many votes as the DA and many more times as the putative ultra-left Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), which garnered approximately eight percent.

With 100% of results transmitted, the official breakdown from the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) is follows:

Africa National Congress (ANC)

Councils won = 175

Seats = 5,124

Votes = over 16 million (53.91% support)

Democratic Alliance (DA)

Councils won = 23

Seats = 1,729

Votes = over 8 million (26.89% support)

Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF)

Councils won = 0

Seats = 731

Votes = over 2.4 million (8.2% support)

In a statement issued on August 5 with 94 percent of the vote already tallied, the ANC said “As results from municipal elections continue to come in to the IEC National Results Center in Pretoria, an unprecedented 14 million South Africans have cast their ballots in favor of the African National Congress (ANC) in this election. This translates to 54% of the national vote, and dramatically exceeds numbers recorded in the previous municipal election. In 2011, the ANC secured 8.1 million votes. Whilst we have received overwhelming support from our people, we will reflect and introspect where our support has dropped.”

The same statement goes on emphasizing “As results continue to come in, ANC votes are expected to increase even further. They are a ringing endorsement of the ANC’s service delivery program by the citizens of South Africa. These figures come at a time of intense speculation around voter apathy and citizen’s alleged lack of interest in political processes.”

Jackson Mthembu, the ANC Chief Whip in Parliament noted: “We are quite humbled and very happy that people of South Africa still trust the African National Congress. Of course we have had setbacks in areas like the Nelson Mandela Bay but we are magnanimous in victory and also magnanimous in defeat because we are democrats. At the national level, the people of South Africa have — in their majority — still voted for the African National Congress. As you can see, we are standing at over 50 percent. We are now at over 54 percent nationally and that amounts to over 13 million votes that people of South Africa have given to the ANC – out of the 26 million voters we have in the country.” (Aug. 5)

The Role of the Corporate and Bourgeois Governmental Media

Much speculation about the outcome was the pre-occupation of many corporate and governmental media outlets from South Africa itself to Europe and North America. Predictions that the African National Congress (ANC) would suffer catastrophic losses in its governing status in municipalities, townships and rural areas was much anticipated by opposition parties inside the country as well as others who have for years predicted that the non-racial democratic political system was unsustainable.

This same outlook has guided the reporting of the results and their significance for one of the world’s youngest nations which has been subjected to white minority-rule for centuries where during 1652 to 1994, the European population and ruling class sought to eradicate all forms of resistance by the African people. These elections in South Africa took place within the broader regional and international context of intensified warfare and destabilization campaigns against all states and parties which are considered part of the so-called “emerging economies.”

South Africa along with the entire sub-continent has been suffering from an economic downturn due to several factors including a drought, the sharp decline in commodity prices, and its concomitant impact on the generation of foreign exchange needed to purchase industrial goods and services. The value of the South African national currency, the rand, has declined to nearly 15-1 against the U.S. dollar.

Since the ascendancy of the ANC government in 1994 there has been a systematic disinvestment of private capital from the nation with other countries such as Mexico and Ghana now ahead of South Africa in gold production. Even the price of the much-needed platinum resources has declined in the aftermath of the international slump in commodity values. The mine owners have steadfastly resisted the demands of labor unions both those allied with the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) and others such as AMCU which has challenged COSATU, a close ally of the ANC, for the membership of the workers.

Nonetheless, these issues are usually not taken into consideration by media agencies and commentators many of whom have never been favorable to the ANC. Since 2015, the ANC-dominated government has been at loggerheads with the United States administration of President Barack Obama over South African participation in the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) as well as charges by the ANC Secretary General Gwede Mantashe who has accused the U.S. embassy of fostering a regime-change strategy inside the country.

Privately-owned media firms which constitute the overwhelming number of news outlets inside South Africa failed to account for the general trends prevailing internationally. The losses of the ANC in Nelson Mandela Bay around Port Elizabeth and in the Municipality of Tshwane, encompassing the capital of Pretoria, were never attributed to the decline in foreign exchange revenues and the large-scale unemployment stemming from the downsizing in industrial employment and its peripheral effects in the commercial and service sectors.

Imperialism Seeks to Destabilize Independent and Anti-Imperialist States

South Africa and the Southern Africa region are not standing alone in the current international crisis of economic underdevelopment. Since the decline in oil and other commodities prices over the last two years, states such as Russia, China, Venezuela, Brazil, Zimbabwe, the Federal Republic of Nigeria, among others, have seen a precipitous drop in economic performance.

With specific reference to states such as South Africa which are governed by former national liberation movements turned political parties, the traditional opposition to such organizations have never ceased. This must be taken into consideration in light of the actual program of the Democratic Alliance in South Africa which encompasses a heavier reliance on international finance capital as part of its platform to ostensibly improve the economy.

The EFF says that it supports the nationalization of mining and land to the benefit of the African majority inside the country. Nevertheless, the strongest political rhetoric relayed by the EFF inside and outside of parliament where it holds over twenty seats in Cape Town, is directed not against the still white-dominated ruling class interests but the ANC. The EFF blocked with the DA in a failed impeachment resolution submitted to parliament earlier in the year saying the President Jacob Zuma had violated the constitution.

This is the same constitution that ANC and other revolutionary organizations and trade unions fought for over a period of decades. These struggles between the ANC, COSATU and the South African Communist Party (SACP) and the western-backed opposition groups will continue over the next three years when national elections are to be held for the presidency and the legislative structures.

 

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Global Implications of the Local Governmental Elections in South Africa

LETTRE OUVERTE à Madame Carla Del Ponte, procureur au TPIY, et aux médecins désignés par le tribunal, sur l’assassinat de Slobodan Milosevic (initialement publiée le 5 octobre 2006 par l’ex-revue dirigé par le défunt Louis Dalmas)

Les médecins possèdent l’art de soigner et d’atténuer les souffrances de leurs patients au moyen de médicaments donc l’efficacité ne cesse de croître. Malheureusement ce pouvoir thérapeutique est parfois utilisé pour réduire au silence des prisonniers irréductibles.

Le cas du prisonnier IT.02.54.T Slobodan Milosevic souffrait d’une hypertension artérielle sévère et mal équilibrée (pression artérielle systolique atteignant fréquemment 220 à 230 mmHg), aggravée par ses conditions de détention. Cette hypertension artérielle avait des répercussions cardiaques et cérébrales : hypertrophie ventriculaire gauche, troubles de la repolarisation dans les dérivations précordiales de l’électrocardiogramme pouvant faire évoquer une ischémie, athérosclérose des vaisseaux du cou (en particulier de la carotide droite) et des vaisseaux intracrâniens. Cette hypertension sévère justifiait un traitement lourd associant : un béta-bloqueur (metoprolol : 200 mg), un inhibiteur calcique (amlodipine : 20 mg), un inhibiteur de l’enzyme de conversion (enalapril : 40 mg) et un diurétique (hydrochlorothiazide : 50 mg). Au cours du deuxième semestre de l’année 2005, Slobodan Milosevic présenta également des signes de souffrance cochléo-vestibulaires, en particulier des signes auditifs, devenant progressivement invalidants : bourdonnements d’oreilles (acouphènes), diminution de l’acuité auditive de type surdité de perception prédominant à droite, douleurs auriculaires droites aggravées par le port des écouteurs, vertiges. Il s’agissait selon toute vraisemblance d’une atteinte de l’oreille interne d’origine vasculaire.

Une pathologie vasculaire aggravée par le stress

Les conditions de la détention de Slobodan Milosevic ont joué un rôle dans l’aggravation de sa pathologie vasculaire, en particulier le stress lié à l’isolement familial. Depuis son enlèvement et son incarcération à La Haye, soit depuis près de 5 ans, Slobodan Milosevic n’avait pas été autorisé à recevoir la visite des membres de sa famille. Il y a quelques mois, Slobodan Milosevic écrivait en français à monsieur Javier Solana, secrétaire général du Conseil de l’Union Européenne (UE) et Haut Représentant de l’UE pour la politique étrangère et de sécurité commune (PESC), la lettre suivante : « Monsieur Solana. Vous savez bien que je dirigeais mon pays et ses forces armées au moment où vous avez déclenché les frappes contre la Yougoslavie et vous n’ignorez pas qu’à présent je me trouve dans votre prison de Scheveningen. La différence fondamentale entre ma personne et les autres détenus qui m’entourent ne réside pas seulement dans le fait que je suis le seul chef d’Etat emprisonné ici mais également dans le fait que je suis la seule personne qui se voit privée de la possibilité de voir sa famille. Je vous décris ma situation car je ne suis pas sûr que vous soyez informé des conditions de ma détention et je ne peux imaginer qu’un homme digne de respect puisse se rendre responsable d’une telle vilenie. Les mesures de rétorsion à l’encontre de l’épouse et des enfants d’un adversaire sont indignes d’un homme d’honneur. Au regard des hautes fonctions qui furent les vôtres et qui sont également les vôtres aujourd’hui, je ne peux douter que vous prendrez les mesures nécessaires afin que les membres de ma famille puissent se rendre et séjourner librement aux Pays-Bas pour me rendre visite. Slobodan Milosevic. » A l’évidence ces mesures nécessaires n’ont jamais été prises. Le stress lié à l’organisation de sa défense a également joué un rôle délétère de l’avis même du cardiologue hollandais nommé par le TPIY, peu suspect, nous le verrons, de compassion à l’égard de son « accusé ». Dans une lettre datée du 23 novembre 2005, le Dr. P. Van Dijkman (service de cardiologie de l’hôpital Bronovo) écrit au Dr. P. Falke (médecin du Centre de détention) : « Au regard du programme de travail, il est normal que le patient se sente fatigué. Il participe à trois sessions par semaine et passe le reste du temps à les préparer, en interrogeant, entre autres, ses témoins. Cela ne laisse pas beaucoup de temps pour se reposer. Il est probable que la pression artérielle va augmenter à nouveau au cours de sessions génératrices de stress ». (1)

L’expertise médicale du 4 novembre 2005

Trois médecins spécialistes indépendants ont examiné, à sa demande, Slobodan Milosevic le 4 novembre 2005 : le Dr. M. Shumilina, angéiologue, spécialiste de la circulation veineuse cérébrale à l’Institut de chirurgie cardio-vasculaire Bakoulev de Moscou ; le Pr. V. Andric, oto-rhino-laryngologiste (service d’ORL, hôpital VMA de Belgrade) et le Pr. F. Leclercq, chef de service de cardiologie à l’hôpital Arnaud de Villeneuve (CHU de Montpellier). Le Pr. F. Leclercq confirmait la présence de signes électrocardiographiques suspects et prescrivait des examens complémentaires (scanner coronaire, scintigraphie myocardique) afin de mieux évaluer la circulation coronaire (2). Peu après l’annonce du décès de Slobodan Milosevic, le Pr. F. Leclercq nous a adressé un message précisant : « Je suis triste que les examens que nous avions demandés n’aient pas été réalisés. » En outre, le Pr. F. Leclercq insistait sur la nécessité d’une période de repos efficace: « Il est incontestable que le stress participe aux irrégularités de la pression artérielle et qu’une période de repos doit être prescrite. » Le Dr. M. Shumilina et le Pr. V. Andric confirmaient l’origine vasculaire des signes cochléovestibulaires invalidants (3, 4). Au vu des examens réalisés, en particulier l’imagerie par résonance magnétique (IRM), le Dr. M. Shumilina mettait en évidence des anomalies vasculaires à plusieurs niveaux : tronc brachiocéphalique, artère carotide interne droite, artère vertébrale droite, artères coronaires. Il existait en outre, selon elle, des anomalies de la circulation veineuse cérébrale liées à un traitement inadéquat de la pathologie vasculaire dont souffrait Slobodan Milosevic. Le Dr. M. Shumilina et le Pr. V. Andric prescrirent également des examens complémentaires (doppler des vaisseaux du cou, artériographie cérébrale). Le point crucial de cette expertise indépendante est que les trois spécialistes établissaient un lien entre les signes cochléovestibulaires (en particulier la surdité de perception) et l’hypertension artérielle. Or ce lien a été vigoureusement nié par les médecins hollandais désignés par le TPIY, à l’exception du Dr. J. De Laat (Leiden University Medical Centre) qui écrivit le 28 novembre 2005 au Dr. P. Falke : « Il est probable que l’état cardiovasculaire du patient joue un rôle dans cette atteinte auditive. » (5). Mais son avis fut ignoré. La conclusion du rapport des médecins indépendants était sans ambiguïté : « Compte tenu des résultats des examens médicaux consultés dans le dossier et réalisés lors de la visite du 4 novembre 2005, nous pouvons conclure que l’état de santé du patient n’est pas stabilisé et que des complications sont possibles. Son état nécessite la poursuite des explorations avec pour objectif de préciser l’origine des troubles présentés. Il est nécessaire de proposer au patient une période de repos, c’est-à-dire la cessation de toutes les activités physiques et de tous les efforts intellectuels pendant au moins 6 semaines ». (6) Le rapport du groupe d’experts soulevait donc des problèmes non résolus, à la fois d’ordre diagnostique et thérapeutique. Il soulignait également la gravité et l’urgence de la situation. Il fut cité à l’appui d’une demande de mise en liberté provisoire en vue d’une hospitalisation à l’Institut Bakoulev de Moscou, la Russie offrant toutes les garanties de sécurité pour le retour de Slobodan Milosevic à La Haye, une fois le traitement effectué. L’Institut Bakoulev possède un plateau technique offrant à la fois les possibilités diagnostiques (coronarographie, artériographie cérébrale) et thérapeutiques (dilatation coronaire, encarté-riectomie carotidienne) requises, ainsi que des spécialistes du plus haut niveau sous la direction du Pr. L. Bockeria. Le Pr. L. Bockeria qualifiait l’état de Slobodan Milosevic de « critique » et prédisait une « catastrophe cardio-vasculaire ». (7)

Désaccords et controverses

Les conclusions du groupe d’experts indépendants furent contestées par les médecins hollandais assignés par l’autorité pénitentiaire et firent l’objet d’une double controverse. D’abord une controverse opposant le Pr. F. Leclercq au Dr. P. Van Dijkman. Dans un rapport adressé à H. Holthuis, greffier du TPIY, daté du 14 novembre 2005, le Dr. P. Falke déclare : « Contrairement à la conclusion commune des médecins examinateurs (V. Andric, F. Leclercq et M. Shumilina), le spécialiste traitant (P. Van Dijkman) conclut qu’il est peu probable que les anomalies vasculaires aient un lien direct avec les symptômes présentés. Le spécialiste traitant estime qu’une période de repos n’aura pas d’influence positive sur ces symptômes ». (8, 9) Cet avis est confirmé quelques jours plus tard par une lettre du Dr. P. Van Dijkman, datée du 18 novembre 2005 et adressée au Dr. P. Falke. Voici ce que déclare dans cette lettre le Dr. P. Van Dijkman à propos des prescriptions du Pr. F. Leclercq (examens complémentaires et repos) : « Ce dernier point me semble quelque peu excessif au vu des examens déjà réalisés (…). À ce jour, je ne vois aucun argument pour modifier la procédure et, de mon point de vue, il n’y a pas d’élément d’ordre cardiologique pour modifier le déroulement actuel du procès ». (10) Position réaffirmée quelques jours plus tard dans une lettre datée du 1er décembre 2005, adressée à nouveau par le Dr. P. Van Dijkman au Dr. P. Falke : « Dans mon courrier du 18 novembre 2005, je signalais que je ne voyais pas de raison de modifier la prise en charge et que, d’un point de vue cardiologique, il n’y avait pas de raison non plus de modifier le déroulement du procès (…). Les trois médecins étrangers qui ont examiné Mr. Milosevic recommandent qu’une période de repos de 6 semaines lui soit accordée immédiatement. Il s’agit d’une durée déterminée de façon arbitraire et à l’appui de laquelle, à mon avis, aucun argument solide n’est apporté ». (11) Le Dr. P. Van Dijkman, nous le voyons, conteste de façon péremptoire l’avis d’un professeur de cardiologie. Il conteste à la fois la prescription d’examens complémentaires chargés de préciser le diagnostic et l’octroi d’une période de repos nécessaire au plan thérapeutique. Il se déclare néanmoins incompétent sur la pathologie cochléo-vestibulaire et il ne se prononce pas sur l’avis du Dr. M. Shumilina concernant les troubles vasculaires. Il aurait dû prendre en compte les avis de ses confrères ou demander l’avis d’un interniste. Trop sûr de lui, il semble plus à l’aise pour réduire le temps de repos d’un homme malade que pour établir un bon diagnostic. Il est important de préciser que, de l’avis même du Pr. J.H. Kingma (ancien Inspecteur-général de la Santé des Pays-Bas), le Dr. P. Van Dijkman aurait dû prendre l’avis d’un autre spécialiste : « Le Pr. Kingma estime qu’un avis spécialisé supplémentaire devrait être requis pour conseiller le Dr. P. Van Dijkman dans le traitement de l’Accusé. Un spécialiste en médecine interne serait probablement de bon conseil à ce stade parce que l’Accusé souffre d’hypertension artérielle, affection qui touche tous les organes et pas seulement le cœur. Le Pr. Kingma propose de parler au Dr. P. Van Dijkman de la possibilité de demander un avis supplémentaire ». (12, 13) La deuxième controverse opposait le Dr. M. Shumilina au Dr. N. Aarts (neuroradiologue hollandais) sur le lien entre les symptômes cochléo-vestibulaires observés et l’hypertension artérielle mal traitée. Pour le Dr. M. Shumilina et le Pr. V. Andric, l’origine vasculaire des troubles sensoriels auditifs ne faisait pas de doute et ils contestaient l’interprétation du médecin hollandais (14). Un document du TPIY daté du 14 décembre 2006 précise sans la moindre ambiguïté : « Le Dr. N. Aarts, spécialiste agréé par le tribunal, estime que Mr. Milosevic ne présente aucune pathologie nécessitant un traitement ». (15) Seul le Dr. J. De Laat, nous l’avons dit, a confirmé le lien entre la pathologie vasculaire et les signes cochléo-vestibulaires, mais son avis n’a pas été pris en considération. L’assurance, l’arrogance dirons-nous, avec laquelle le Dr. P. Van Dijkman a contesté l’avis du Pr. F. Leclercq et l’arrogance avec laquelle le Dr. N. Aarts a contesté l’avis du Dr. M. Shumilina et du Pr. V. Andric sont suspectes. Ces « experts agréés par le TPIY » n’ont pas accordé la moindre place au doute diagnostique ni aux règles de déontologie, que ce soit à l’égard d’un homme malade, dont ils avaient en charge la santé, ou à l’égard de confrères, dont l’avis aurait dû être pris en compte au vu de leur expérience et de leur compétence. En réalité ces médecins ont été beaucoup plus influencés par les arguments du procureur que par ceux de leurs confrères. Notons à nouveau que la seule fois où un médecin désigné par le tribunal s’est déclaré incompétent et a confié le dossier à un autre collègue, ce dernier est allé dans le sens des experts indépendants. L’avis du Dr. J. De Laat avait été sollicité par le Dr. H. Spoelstra (service ORL de l’hôpital Bronovo) dans une lettre datée du 21 novembre 2005 car ce dernier, mandaté par le TPIY, estimait que certains troubles présentés par Slobodan Milosevic sortaient de son champ de compétence et il souhaitait l’avis d’une tierce personne (16).

Des accusations non fondées concernant la non-observance du traitement

Au mois de juillet et au mois d’août 2004, le Dr. P. Van Dijkman et le Pr. R. Tavernier ont adressé des rapports au TPIY exprimant des doutes sur le fait que l' »accusé » prenait bien son traitement (17). Il est important de noter qu’à la suite de cette accusation médicale, plusieurs mémorandums confidentiels ont été rédigés par les autorités du centre de détention : mémorandum du 31 août 2004 signé T. McFadden, directeur du Centre de détention, mémorandum du 14 octobre 2004 signé T. McFadden, mémorandum du 26 octobre 2004 signé J. Hocking, greffier-adjoint du TPIY (18, 19, 20). Ces mémorandums accréditaient la thèse des médecins et proposaient des mesures de rétorsion visant à empêcher Slobodan Milosevic d’assurer seul sa défense (21) et à supprimer les facilités qui lui avaient été accordées pour préparer ses témoins. Fin 2005 et début 2006 une nouvelle série de mémorandums émanant des autorités du centre de détention visait une fois de plus à réduire les droits de la défense : mémorandum du 7 mars 2005 signé J. Hocking, mémorandums du 6 décembre et du 19 décembre 2005 signés T. McFadden, mémorandum du 20 décembre 2005 signé H. Holthuis, mémorandum du 6 janvier 2006 signé P. Falke, mémorandum du 1er février 2006 signé F. Gilmour, directeur-adjoint du centre de détention, mémorandum du 13 février 2006 signé F. Gilmour (22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27). Tous ces mémorandums accusaient à nouveau Slobodan Milosevic d’aggraver volontairement son état de santé en refusant d’absorber les médicaments prescrits par le Dr. P. Van Dijkman et en absorbant d’autres médicaments non prescrits. Ces mémorandums s’appuyaient sur des rapports médicaux précisant que les taux sanguins des médicaments prescrits étaient anormalement bas. De bonne foi, Slobodan Milosevic proposa alors de se soumettre à des examens sanguins, sous strict contrôle médical, afin de doser les médicaments prescrits et de rechercher d’éventuels médicaments non prescrits. L’examen le plus important fut réalisé le 12 janvier 2006 (28, 29, 30). Le rapport émis le 24 janvier 2006 par le Dr. D. Uges et le Dr. D. Touw (pharmaco-toxicologues, experts en médecine légale) concluait qu' » il y a de solides arguments dans les données pharmacologiques issues de ces tests pour soutenir que l' » Accusé  » ne prend pas ou prend de façon irrégulière son traitement, et qu’il semble évident que ce peut être la cause de l’hypertension artérielle persistante « . Ce rapport mettait, une fois de plus, en évidence des taux anormalement bas de médicaments prescrits, alors qu’ils avaient été absorbés sous strict contrôle médical dans le cadre d’examens sanguins librement acceptés, et même réclamés par Slobodan Milosevic. Notons par ailleurs que les toxicologues se sont limités au dosage du metoprolol et de l’amlodipine et qu’ils n’ont pas jugé utile de doser l’enelapril (élément pourtant essentiel du traitement) ni l’hydrochlorothiazide. Le rapport stipule clairement :  » Nous avons décidé de ne pas doser l’enalapril ni l’hydrochlorothiazide « . En outre, la sensibilité des méthodes de mesures utilisées est sujette à caution, le laboratoire du Dr. D. Uges et celui du Dr. D. Touw n’utilisant pas les mêmes méthodes. Le Dr. D. Touw semble avoir utilisé une méthode de détection en chromatographie UV peu sensible et non une méthode séparative de chromatographie en phase liquide. Or l’interprétation des résultats diffère en fonction de la sensibilité des méthodes de mesure, une activité hémodynamique pouvant être observée à partir de 6 microgrammes par litre pour l’amlodipine et à partir de 20 microgrammes par litre pour le metoprolol. Un point capital doit être souligné à propos de la prise de sang du 12 janvier 2006 : à aucun moment n’apparaît dans le bilan émis par le laboratoire au mois de janvier, la mention de la découverte de rifampicine. En revanche, cet antibiotique, réputé pour son aptitude à déclencher un phénomène d’induction enzymatique, est cité dans la discussion visant à trouver une explication aux taux anormalement bas de metoprolol et d’amlodipine. Un taux sanguin abaissé peut en effet résulter, entre autres, d’une mauvaise absorption digestive, d’interactions médicamenteuses variées, d’un mécanisme d’induction enzymatique ou d’une métabolisation rapide par duplication génique (CYP2D6, CYP3A4). Il est écrit dans le rapport : « Dans la mesure où l’amlodipine est un substrat de l’enzyme CYP3A4, la concentration d’amlodipine peut baisser en cas d’induction enzymatique liée par exemple à une prise de rifampicine », et plus loin : « A ce stade, nous ne pouvons pas fournir d’explication satisfaisante pour ces taux bas de metoprolol et d’amlodipine ». En d’autres termes, lorsqu’ils rendent les résultats des tests sanguins, au mois de janvier 2006, les experts en toxicologie n’ont aucune certitude, seulement des suppositions. Ils évoquent la possibilité d’une induction enzymatique et ils citent « à titre d’exemple » un bon inducteur enzymatique : la rifampicine. Mais ils ne signalent à aucun moment la présence de rifampicine dans les échantillons de sang. Curieusement, deux mois plus tard, ils annoncent avoir découvert un taux élevé de rifampicine dans les prélèvements du 12 janvier, à savoir 0,8 mg/l de rifampicine et 1,1 mg/l de désacétyl-rifampicine, ce qui correspond selon eux à l’absorption d’une dose thérapeutique (environ 10 mg/kg/j soit 2 gélules de 300 mg en une seule prise pour un adulte). Or ce résultat, qui apparaît dans une lettre du Dr. D. Touw au Dr. P. Falke datée du 23 février 2006 (31), puis dans une lettre du Dr. P. Falke au greffier H. Holthuis datée du 3 mars 2006 (32), n’a été communiqué à Slobodan Milosevic que le 7 mars 2006. Slobodan Milosevic n’a jamais absorbé de rifampicine dans le but d’aggraver son état de santé et il na pas absorbé le moindre antibiotique durant ses années de détention. Soulignons à nouveau que la pathologie cardiovasculaire dont souffrait Slobodan Milosevic ne constituait ni une contre-indication absolue ni même une contre-indication relative à la prise de cet antibiotique actif contre de nombreuses maladies bactériennes, pas seulement la tuberculose ou la lèpre. La rifampicine, en cas de prises répétées, est seulement capable de diminuer (et non d’annuler) l’efficacité de certains traitements par un mécanisme d’induction enzymatique. Plusieurs questions viennent naturellement à l’esprit concernant les méthodes des « experts toxicologues » : comment se fait-il que la présence de rifampicine n’ait pas été contrôlée sur différents échantillons de sang ? Comment peut-on affirmer qu’une prise occasionnelle de rifampicine peut annuler les effets d’une puissante association thérapeutique (diurétique, inhibiteur calcique, beta-bloqueur, inhibiteur de l’enzyme de conversion) ? Pourquoi ne pas avoir réalisé un bilan hépatique à la recherche d’une augmentation des transaminases ? Pourquoi ne pas avoir dosé l’enalapril et l’hydrochlorothiazide ? Pourquoi ne pas avoir dosé les métabolites de ces médicaments ? Pourquoi ne pas avoir dosé les médicaments avec une méthode séparative plus sensible telle que la chromatographie en phase liquide ? Pourquoi avoir attendu le 7 mars pour rendre à l’intéressé les résultats d’une prise de sang remontant au 12 janvier ? Pourquoi la feuille informatisée attestant le dosage de rifampicine n’a-t-elle jamais été produite par le Dr. D. Uges ? On reste stupéfait devant tant de légèreté, de lacunes et d’incompétence. Si Slobodan Milosevic avait vraiment voulu diminuer l’efficacité de son traitement, il était plus facile de ne pas absorber le traitement que d’absorber à la fois son traitement antihypertenseur et un médicament non-prescrit (la rifampicine), difficile à se procurer, susceptible d’être découvert lors d’une fouille (comprimés généralement faciles à reconnaître et colorés en rouge), qui colore les urines en rouge et qui peut être facilement décelé par les examens sanguins. Rappelons également que, contrairement à ce qui a été publié, Slobodan Milosevic ne pouvait recevoir de l’extérieur ni médicament ni alcool. Les médicaments étaient absorbés avec un verre d’eau, en présence d’un infirmier. Sa chambre était régulièrement fouillée en son absence, ce qui est illégal. Quant au taux de nordiazepam, métabolite actif de plusieurs benzodiazépines, découvert dans les échantillons de sang, il était trop bas pour avoir des effets pharmacodynamiques. Ces effets auraient été, de toute façon, plutôt bénéfiques sur l’hypertension. Les traces de nordiazepam correspondaient à des prescriptions anciennes de diazepam par le Dr. P. Falke. L’Ordre du TPIY du 26 janvier 2006, citant en référence le mémorandum de H. Holthuis du 20 décembre 2005, revenait sur les accusations de 2004 : « L’accusé a volontairement manipulé le déroulement du procès et a volontairement manipulé son état de santé en ne prenant pas les médicaments qui lui avaient été prescrits et en prenant d’autres médicaments qui n’avaient pas été prescrits par des médecins désignés par le tribunal. L’Accusé a été trouvé en possession de quantités potentiellement mortelles de médicaments non-prescrits à deux reprises en 2004 (à l’occasion d’une fouille de son bureau au mois d’août et à l’occasion d’une inspection de sa cellule dans la semaine du 29 novembre. Les rapports médicaux établis après la découverte du mois d’août font mention de traces de médicaments non prescrits dans le sang de l’Accusé ». (33) Le traitement régulier de Slobodan Milosevic comportait les médicaments antihypertenseurs que nous avons cités, un médicament traitant l’hypercholestérolémie (simvastatine : 40 mg), de petites quantités d’aspirine (ascal : 300 mg), un antihistaminique (cinnarazine : 25 mg), et à l’occasion du diazepam et du diclofenac. Quels sont donc ces médicaments « potentiellement mortels » que l’on a trouvés chez Slobodan Milosevic ? Durant l’été 2004, les gardiens du centre de détention ont trouvé dans son bureau une enveloppe marquée  » Misha  » contenant des comprimés de benzodiazépines (midazolam et prazepam). Il s’agissait d’une enveloppe appartenant à l’avocat Dragoslav Ogjanovic, que ce dernier avait oubliée dans le bureau de Slobodan Milosevic. En tout état de cause, ces médicaments étaient inoffensifs voire bénéfiques. Le 1er février 2006, 21 comprimés d’un médicament antihypertenseur, le Prilazid Plus (association de cilazapril et d’hydrochlorothiazide), ont été découverts dans la cellule de Slobodan Milosevic. Cette découverte a fait l’objet d’un nouveau mémorandum le 2 février 2006 signé J. Hocking (34). En fait, ces comprimés, trouvés avec une notice écrite en cyrillique, étaient périmés depuis le mois de mars 2003. Il s’agissait de comprimés que Slobodan Milosevic avait dans sa poche lors de son enlèvement au mois de juin 2001 et qui avaient été confisqués à son arrivée au centre de détention. Curieusement, ces comprimés sont réapparus lors de la fouille du 1er février 2006 pour étayer la thèse de la manipulation de son état de santé. Une fois de plus, il s’agissait de médicaments dont l’effet ne pouvait être que bénéfique pour un patient souffrant d’hypertension artérielle. Le rapport médicolégal du Dr. W. Zwart Voorspuij, daté du 11 mars 2006, concerne la découverte du corps de Slobodan Milosevic dans la cellule E04 du centre de détention. Avant même de décrire la découverte du corps, le Dr. W. Zwart Voorspuij déclarait dans son rapport : « La non-observance du traitement et la prise de médicaments non-prescrits ont été signalées. Un bilan sanguin réalisé au mois de janvier 2006 révélait la présence de rifampicine (à un taux thérapeutique) et de diazepam. De plus, il prenait un médicament qui n’est pas disponible aux Pays-Bas (Vascase Plus, comparable au Co-Renitec). La rifampicine peut déclencher une induction conduisant à une augmentation du métabolisme des autres médicaments. Certains des médicaments prescrits n’ont pas été retrouvés dans le sang ou ont été retrouvés à des taux anormalement bas. » (35) On peut s’étonner qu’un médecin chargé de constater le décès d’un détenu qu’il ne connaît absolument pas, reprenne en tête de son rapport des accusations non fondées suggérées par le TPIY. A ce stade des investigations, son rôle se limitait à constater les faits, seulement les faits. Le Dr. W. Zwart Voorspuij signale que Slobodan Milosevic prenait un médicament, le Vascase Plus, non disponible aux Pays-Bas. Or le Vascase Plus (association d’un inhibiteur de l’enzyme de conversion, le cilazapril, et d’un diurétique, l’hydrochlorothiazide) apparaît sur les fiches de prescription, en particulier celles du mois de juillet et du mois d’août 2002 (36). Comment un médicament, censé ne pas être disponible aux Pays-Bas, pouvait-il être prescrit dans le centre de détention ? Le Dr. W. Zwart Voorspuij a-t-il commis une erreur en citant le Vascase Plus ? Voulait-il parler du Prilazid Plus, évoqué précédemment, qui comporte également une association de cilazapril et d’hydrochlorothiazide ? Une telle confusion est grave dans un rapport de médecine légale. En tout état de cause, il s’agissait d’un médicament ayant été prescrit à Slobodan Milosevic aussi bien à Belgrade, avant son enlèvement, que dans le centre de détention de Scheweningen. Notons enfin qu’aucun dosage d’inhibiteur de l’enzyme de conversion (qu’il s’agisse de Vascase, de Prilazid ou de Renitec…) ne semble avoir été réalisé par les  » experts toxicologues « .

Des journalistes et des médecins « embedded » (intégrés) par le TPIY

Les accusations non fondées des médecins à l’encontre de Slobodan Milosevic ont permis au bureau du procureur de réduire les droits de sa défense. Comme d’ordinaire les thèses du Procureur ont été reprises et largement diffusées par les médias, en particulier par les médias français. En voici quelques exemples. L’hebdomadaire Le Point du 16 mars 2006 évoqua les « mélanges médicamenteux auxquels se livre le détenu en prison afin de réduire l’efficacité des traitements qu’on lui administre », allant jusqu’à affirmer qu' »à force d’ingérer des substances chimiques, le dictateur serbe aurait ainsi été pris à son propre piège ». Jacques Amalric écrivit dans Libération du 16 mars 2006 : « Milosevic en a profité pour se procurer des médicaments contre-indiqués dans l’espoir d’altérer son état de santé afin de favoriser sa demande de liberté provisoire pour se faire soigner à Moscou ». Cette thèse a également été développée par Stéphanie Maupas qui a suggéré dans les colonnes du Monde que Slobodan Milosevic absorbait des médicaments non prescrits pour fomenter son « évasion » vers la Russie. Stéphanie Maupas signalait des « traces de rifampicine, un médicament contre la tuberculose, annulant les effets du traitement prescrit contre les problèmes cardiovasculaires » (Le Monde, 19-20 mars).

Les soupçons d’empoisonnement.

Slobodan Milosevic, dont l’état de santé ne cessait de se dégrader au début de l’année 2006, semblait convaincu que le tribunal voulait l’empoisonner. Le 11 novembre 2005, le Dr. P. Falke, constatant un état d’épuisement de Slobodan Milosevic, déclara qu’il était incapable d’assister à l’audience (37). Le 21 novembre 2005, le même Dr. P. Falke avertit H. Holthuis que Slobodan Milosevic souffrait d’une poussée hypertensive, que sa « pression artérielle était au-delà des paramètres acceptables » et qu’il ne pouvait pas assister à l’audience (38). Les signes auditifs étaient devenus invalidants. Pour Slobodan Milosevic, les soupçons d’empoisonnement était fondés en grande partie sur le fait que la découverte d’un taux efficace de rifampicine dans le bilan sanguin du 12 janvier ne lui avait été signalée que deux mois plus tard, le 7 mars 2006. Or il savait pertinemment qu’il n’avait jamais absorbé volontairement ce produit. Il semble peu probable que le TPIY ait voulu aggraver l’état de santé de Slobodan Milosevic en lui administrant de la rifampicine pour réduire les effets de son traitement anti-hypertenseur. En effet, la rifampicine aurait due être administrée régulièrement et à son insu. Il y a d’autres inducteurs enzymatiques plus faciles à manier et surtout, il y a des molécules bien plus efficaces et bien plus difficiles à dépister si l’on veut aggraver l’état cardiovasculaire d’un patient. Enfin, on comprend mal pourquoi le TPIY aurait demandé des recherches de médicaments non prescrits dans les bilans sanguins (en particulier celui du 12 janvier 2006), sachant que la rifampicine serait certainement découverte. En revanche le tribunal avait tout intérêt à « découvrir » de la rifampicine pour étayer la thèse de la non-observance et de la manipulation du traitement par Slobodan Milosevic. Pour le TPIY, dans la mesure où Slobodan Milosevic aggravait volontairement son état de santé, il ne méritait pas la moindre mesure de clémence et il devenait licite de réduire les droits de sa défense. Le 24 février 2006, le tribunal a ainsi rejeté la demande d’hospitalisation qui aurait permis à Slobodan Milosevic d’être correctement soigné à Moscou. Slobodan Milosevic a adressé une ultime demande, sous la forme d’une lettre manuscrite datée du 8 mars, au ministre russe des Affaires étrangères, en vue d’une hospitalisation d’urgence dans l’Institut de chirurgie cardio-vasculaire Bakoulev de Moscou. Il est mort trois jours plus tard dans la cellule E04, le samedi 11 mars 2006. Sa mort survenait après celle de Slavko Dokmanovic, après celle de Milan Kovacevic et après celle de Milan Babic. L’autopsie réalisée par l’Institut de médecine légale hollandais a établi que Slobodan Milosevic était mort d’un infarctus du myocarde et qu’il n’y avait pas de trace de médicament toxique dans son sang. Il est clair que la mort subite de Slobodan Milosevic n’aurait jamais pu être mise sur le compte de l’évolution normale et prévisible de sa pathologie cardiovasculaire si cette dernière avait été correctement prise en charge. Il s’agit donc d’un « assassinat judiciaire » provoqué par des conditions de détention inhumaines et des soins médicaux approximatifs et inadaptés, « consentis » par des médecins aux ordres de l’autorité pénitentiaire.

Le suicide écarté sans l’ombre d’un doute

Contrairement à ce qui a pu être avancé hâtivement, Slobodan Milosevic ne s’est pas suicidé. D’une part, ceux qui le connaissaient bien savent à quel point il était résolu à se battre jusqu’à l’effondrement d’un TPIY qui échouait à apporter les preuves matérielles de sa culpabilité. Monsieur J. Bissett, ancien ambassadeur du Canada en Yougoslavie, qui témoignait fin février 2006 devant le TPIY, décrivit Slobodan Milosevic toujours acharné au travail et faisant preuve d’un sens de l’humour inaltéré. Le jour précédant sa mort, Slobodan Milosevic eut une conversation téléphonique avec Milorad Vucelic, du Parti socialiste serbe. Il lui déclara énergiquement : « Ne vous inquiétez pas. Ils ne me détruiront pas, ils ne me briseront pas. C’est moi qui les vaincrai ! ». De fait, le procureur G. Nice avait avoué quelques mois auparavant que le « projet de Grande Serbie », clef de voûte de l’accusation, ne reposait sur aucun fait établi. Il est donc stupide de prétendre qu’une prise de rifampicine ou de médicament non-prescrit ait pu être responsable d’une mort subite assimilable à une forme de suicide. La thèse du suicide peut être écartée sans l’ombre d’un doute, d’autant que l’autopsie de Slobodan Milosevic n’a pas révélé la présence de la moindre molécule suspecte.

L’assassinat judiciaire médicalement assisté

Les médecins n’ont pas une obligation de résultats mais ils ont une obligation de moyens et ils doivent dispenser des soins conformes aux données actuelles de la science. Or, les médecins du TPIY ont fait preuve d’une grande carence diagnostique et thérapeutique, assimilable à une non-assistance à personne en danger. Le seul diagnostic qu’ils ont évoqué, à savoir la manipulation de son traitement par Slobodan Milosevic, est celui qui fournissait un bon motif au procureur pour réduire les droits de la défense. Ils ne se sont pas comportés comme des praticiens responsables de la santé d’un « patient » mais comme des fonctionnaires chargés de surveiller un « accusé ». Les documents internes du TPIY montrent la parfaite collaboration entre les médecins hollandais, les procureurs et les responsables du centre de détention, dans le but accompli de réduire les droits de la défense. Ces médecins devraient être poursuivis pour non assistance à personne en danger dans la mesure où des spécialistes indépendants, dont la compétence et l’expérience ne pouvaient être mises en doute, avaient signalé la gravité de la situation et le risque de complications graves. Les accusations sans fondement portées contre Slobodan Milosevic avaient pour but (et la plupart de ces buts ont été atteints) : 1. De lui interdire d’assurer lui-même sa défense et de lui assigner, contre sa volonté, des avocats chargés de le représenter (Steven Kay et Gillian Higgins). 2. De supprimer les facilités qui lui avaient été accordées pour préparer sa défense par l' »Order concerning the Preparation and Presentation of the Defence Case » du 17 septembre 2003. 3. De réduire le temps alloué à l’organisation de sa défense et d’augmenter le rythme des audiences avec passage à quatre ou cinq audiences par semaine au lieu de trois, de telle façon que Slobodan Milosevic n’ait pas les moyens matériels et physiques de préparer ses témoins, la fatigue et le stress devenant insupportables. 4. De rejeter sa demande d’hospitalisation d’urgence à l’Institut Bakoulev. Les médecins désignés par le TPIY ont accusé Slobodan Milosevic de ne pas suivre les prescriptions médicales pour lui faire porter l’entière responsabilité de la dégradation de son état de santé. Ce faisant, ils se dispensaient de rechercher la véritable cause des signes alarmants présentés par Slobodan Milosevic et ils justifiaient le refus d’une hospitalisation d’urgence à Moscou, puisque selon eux il suffisait à Slobodan Milosevic de prendre correctement son traitement pour que tout rentre dans l’ordre. Ils ont ainsi privé Slobodan Milosevic d’une mesure de clémence pour raison de santé accordée à d’autre détenus (V. Kovacevic, P. Strugar). Dès le mois d’août 2004, le Dr. P. Van Dijkman et le Pr. R. Tavernier signalaient au tribunal que Slobodan Milosevic ne prenait probablement pas ses médicaments. Or il ne disposait d’aucune preuve pour étayer une telle accusation qui a porté gravement préjudice à Slobodan Milosevic et qui relevait plus de la délation que des obligations de soins. Par la suite, les médecins désignés par le TPIY ont repris cette accusation et ont privilégié ce seul  » diagnostic  » pour expliquer la dégradation de l’état de santé de Slobodan Milosevic. Le Dr. P. Falke affirmait que « l’accusé mettait en jeu sa santé et sa vie en ne prenant pas correctement son traitement ». A plusieurs reprises ce médecin généraliste a rendu des avis péremptoires sur des sujets débordant son cadre de compétence (pharmacocinétique du diazepam, validité de la chromatographie UV, etc.). En outre, la fiabilité de ses prescriptions est loin d’être établie : des prescriptions occasionnelles ou « à la demande » n’ont pas notées sur les fiches de prescription. Nous avons également souligné les lacunes diagnostiques des autres médecins désignés par le TPIY, qu’ils soient ORL (Dr. H. Spoelstra), neuroradiologue (Dr. N. Aarts) ou toxicologues (Dr. D. Uges, Dr. D. Touw). L’analyse des documents internes du TPIY montre que les rapports des médecins (1, 8, 9, 10, 11, 17, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32) précédaient voire généraient les mémorandums des autorités pénitentiaires (18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 34) et les charges des procureurs (39). Ces médecins portent une lourde responsabilité dans la mort de Slobodan Milosevic par infarctus du myocarde. Il s’agit indéniablement d’un assassinat judiciaire avec la complicité de médecins, autrement dit d’un assassinat judiciaire médicalement assisté. Nous devons signaler que les avocats Steven Kay et Gillian Higgins, au cours du premier trimestre 2006, ont défendu les droits de Slobodan Milosevic en dénonçant un certain nombre des faits évoqués précédemment (40, 41).

Tels sont les faits, Madame le Procureur et Messieurs les médecins aux ordres du TPIY, et nous vous mettons au défi de les démentir et de nous poursuivre devant les tribunaux. Les documents confidentiels cités en références nous ont été communiqués par des membres du Parquet indignés par le comportement de leur chef.

Références.

1. Lettre du Dr. P. Van Dijkman datée du 23 novembre 2005 et adressée au Dr. P. Falke, IT-02-54-T, pages 45804-45805.
2. Rapport du Pr. F. Leclercq daté du 4 novembre 2005, IT-02-54-T, pages 45840-45842.
3. Rapport du Dr. M. Shumilina daté du 4 novembre 2005, IT-02-54-T, pages 45845-45846.
4. Rapport du Pr. V. Andric daté du 4 novembre 2005, IT-02-54-T, pages 45843-45844.
5. Lettre du Dr. J. De Laat datée du 28 novembre 2005 et adressée au Dr. P. Falke, IT-02-54-T, pages 45800-45801.
6. Conclusion collective (Pr. F. Leclercq, Dr. M. Shumilina, Pr. V. Andric) datée du 4 novembre 2005, IT-02-54-T, page 45839.
7 Lettre du Pr. L. Bockeria datée du 14 décembre 2005 et adressée à Fausto Pocar, président du TPIY, IT-02-54-T, pages 45765-45766.
8. Rapport du Dr. P. Falke daté du 14 novembre 2005 et adressé au greffier H. Holthuis, IT-02-54-T, pages 45822- 45823.
9. Rapport du Dr. P. Falke daté du 14 novembre 2005 et adressé au greffier H. Holthuis, IT-02-54-T, page 45820.
10. Lettre du Dr. P. Van Dijkman datée du 18 novembre 2005 et adressée au Dr. P. Falke, IT-02-54-T, pages 45813-45814.
11. Lettre du Dr. P. Van Dijkman datée du 1er décembre 2005 et adressée au Dr. P. Falke, IT-02-54-T, page 45667 et page 45791.
12. Avis du Pr. J.H. Kingma, ancien Inspecteur-général de la Santé des Pays-Bas, IT-02-54-T, page 45515.
13. Geoffrey Nice, The Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milosevic, 28 février 2006, pages 45514-45517.
14. Rapport du Dr. M. Shumilina daté du 14 décembre 2005, IT-02-54-T, page 45787.
15. The Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milosevic, 2 mars 2006, IT-02-54-T, page 45667.
16. Lettre du Dr. H. Spoelstra datée du 21 novembre 2005 et adressée au Dr. P. Falke, IT-02-54-T, page 45807.
17. Rapport du Dr. P. Van Dijkman daté du 18 août 2004, IT-02-54-T, pages 37641-37643.
18. Mémorandum interne du 31 août 2004 signé T. McFadden, IT-02-54-T, pages 45642- 45644.
19. Mémorandum interne du 14 octobre 2004 signé T. McFadden, IT-02-54-T, pages 45645- 45647.
20. Mémorandum interne daté du 26 octobre 2004 signé J. Hocking, IT-02-54-T, page 45648.
21.Ordre du 22 septembre 2004  » Reasons for Decision on Assignment of Defence Councel. » assignant Steven Kay et Gillian Higgins.
22. Mémorandum interne du 7 mars 2005 signé J. Hocking, IT-02-54-T, page 45508.
23. Mémorandum interne du 19 décembre 2005 signé T. McFadden, IT-02-54-T, page 45640.
24. Mémorandum interne du 20 décembre 2005 signé H. Holthuis, IT-02-54-T, page 45641.
25. Rapport du 6 janvier 2006, adressé par le Dr. P. Falke au greffier H. Holthuis, IT-02-54-T, page 45634.
26. Mémorandum interne du 1er février 2006 signé F. Gilmour, IT-02-54-T, page 45613.
27. Mémorandum interne du 13 février 2006 signé F. Gilmour, IT-02-54-T, pages 45542-45546.
28. Rapports du Dr. D. Touw datés du 16 et du 20 janvier 2006 et adressés au greffier H. Holthuis, IT-02-54-T, pages 45583-45588.
29. Rapport du Dr. D. Uges daté du 24 janvier 2006 et adressé au greffier H. Holthuis, IT-02-54-T, pages 45623-45627.
30. Résultats des analyses toxicologiques adressés le 20 janvier 2006 au TPIY par le Dr. D. Touw, IT-02-54-T, pages 45558-45566.
31. Lettre du Dr. D. Touw datée du 23 février 2006 et adressée au Dr. P. Falke, IT-02-54-T, page 45506.
32. Lettre du Dr. P. Falke datée du 3 mars 2006 et adressée au greffier H. Holthuis, IT-02-54-T, page 45507.
33. Ordre du 26 janvier 2006,  » Submissions following trial chamber’s order du 26 janvier 2006 « , IT-02-54-T, page 45619, paragraphe 6.
34. Mémorandum interne du 2 février 2006 signé J. Hocking, IT-02-54-T, page 45611.
35. Rapport médico-légal du Dr. W.A. Zwart Voorspuij daté du 11 mars 2006, IT-02-54-T, page 45470.
36. Fiches de prescriptions médicales faisant apparaître le médicament anti-hypertenseur  » Vascase Plus « , IT-02-54-T, pages 45522- 45525.
37. Rapport du Dr. P. Falke daté du 11 novembre 2005 et adressé au greffier H. Holthuis, IT-02-54-T, page 45827.
38. Rapport du Dr. P. Falke daté du 21 novembre 2005 et adressé au greffier H. Holthuis, IT-02-54-T, pages 45811.
39. Geoffrey Nice, The Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milosevic, le 6 février 2006, IT-02-54-T, pages 45576-45578.
40. Arguments de Steven Kay et Gillian Higgins pour la défense de Slobodan Milosevic, 20 février 2006, IT-02-54-T, pages 45527-45539.
41. Arguments de Steven Kay et Gillian Higgins pour la défense de Slobodan Milosevic, 6 mars 2006, IT-02-54-T, pages 45509-45512.

Shawn and Ricardo film and serve process on Defendants DNC Services Corp. and Chairperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz at DNC’s headquarters in Washington, D.C., in the fraud class action Wilding et al. v. DNC Services Corp. et al.

It took two attempts, but the job got done! Thanks, guys.

To learn more about the DNC fraud class action (and to make a contribution to Jam PAC), please visit http://jampac.us/

The Class Action includes 121 Plaintiffs.

For details click: http://jampac.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/1-CLASS-ACTION-COMPLAINT-6-28-16.pdf

Update: Since the filing of the lawsuit, Attorney Shawn Lucas who is featured in the video, dies under Mysterious Circumstances. A young Attorney, 38 years old with a firm commitment to Social Justice and Truth in Politics.

Shawn Lucas, who served the DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz with election fraud papers in early July « has been found dead under suspicious circumstances » 

« According to a police report dated August 2nd, Lucas’ girlfriend came home and found him unconscious on the bathroom floor. Paramedics responding to her 911 call found no signs of life. The cause of death has not been confirmed.

Shawn Lucas was known to many frustrated Democrats as the young man depicted in a viral video serving the DNC and Wasserman Schultz with election fraud lawsuit papers.

“The rumor spread on Facebook, Reddit, and Twitter, where many users were concerned that Lucas’ death may have been connected to his role as the process server for the DNC lawsuit. Some versions asserted Lucas was the “lead attorney” on the case, but we were unable to corroborate that claim. 

Lucas was named in a motion [PDF] filed on 22 July 2016 by the DNC, seeking to dismiss the suit on partial grounds of improper service,” Snopes reports.

Official Who Served DNC Election Fraud Papers Found Dead

See Reports published on Global Research

US-POLITICS-DNC-WASSERMAN SCHULTZSudden Death of Attorney Who Served the Lawsuit against the Democratic National Committee (DNC) on Charges of “Fraud, Deceptive Conduct … and Negligence”By Pam Martens and Russ Martens, August 08, 2016

 

clintons

Lead Attorney In Anti-Clinton DNC Fraud Case Mysteriously Found DeadBy Tyler Durden, August 08, 2016

 

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Video: DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz get served in Class Action Lawsuit, Lead Attorney Dead
HIROSHIMA MUSHROOM CLOUD NUCLEAR BOMB EXPLOSION

Hiroshima – A Criminal Enterprise From Which Nothing Has Been Learned

By Felicity Arbuthnot, August 08 2016

When Paul Tibbets was thirteen years old he flew a bi-plane over Florida’s Miami Beach dropping a promotional cargo of Babe Ruth Candy Bars directly on to the promotional target area. 30 years later: “I was told I was going to destroy one city with one bomb.

Olympic-logo

Rio Olympics 2016: US Intelligence Ops, Soldiers and Police Deployed. Mass Street Protests

By Stephen Lendman, August 07 2016

This year, it resembles militarization seen in war zones with tens of thousands of soldiers, police and other security operatives infesting Rio, the site of the games – hosted by an illegitimate US-supported coup d’etat regime. Mass street protests rocked opening night, continued on Saturday, perhaps remaining unrelenting through the August 21 closing ceremony – media downplaying or ignoring them.

DemocraticLogo-400x390

The 2016 Democratic National Convention: Voices from the Streets of Philadelphia

By Michael Welch, August 07 2016

The Democratic Party may have presented themselves as a unified force to go after Republican Donald Trump in November, but such unity was not evident in the streets of Philadelphia. Legions of people collected in the streets of Philadelphia to express their concerns as the Democratic National Convention got underway the week of July 25th.

ban-ki-moon-iran-geneva-ii

Toxic Modus Operandi of the UN Security Council. Ban Ki-moon: “It Is Unacceptable For Member States To Exert Undue Pressure.”

By Carla Stea, August 07 2016

Human Rights Watch stated during today’s UN Security Council meeting on Children and Armed Conflict:  “Unlawful air strikes by the Saudi-led coalition have killed and maimed hundreds of children in Yemen and damaged dozens of schools, but the coalition strong-armed the Secretary-General in an attempt to escape scrutiny.  The coalition should be returned to the Secretary-General’s list of shame until it stops its indiscriminate bombardment of Yemen’s civilians.”

Turkish President Erdogan in USA

Washington’s Strategic Defeat: Erdogan Trumps Gulenist Coup

By Prof. James Petras, August 08 2016

For the past decade, the US intelligence agencies operating in Turkey have worked closely with the increasingly influential parallel government of Fethullah Gulen.  Their approach to power was, until recently, a permeationist strategy, of covertly taking over political, economic, administrative, judicial, media, military and cultural positions gradually without resort to elections or military coups. They adopted flexible tactics, supporting and shedding different allies to eliminate rivals.

malcolm turnbull

Detained for Terror: Proposed Indefinite Detention Laws in Australia

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, August 08 2016

The reactive dimension of global politics – at least at the level of many states – is a broader statement about how far things have rotted.  Nothing is more reactive than a State’s response to terrorism, actual or perceived.  The pure evidentiary dimension is neglected in favour of procedural fluff and unmeasurable contingencies. The box-ticking bureaucrat takes precedence over the judicial officer.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Selected Articles: Hiroshima – A Criminal Enterprise From Which Nothing Has Been Learned

Call it conspiracy theory, coincidence or just bad luck, but any time someone is in a position to bring down Hillary Clinton they wind up dead. In fact, as we noted previously, there’s a long history of Clinton-related body counts, with scores of people dying under mysterious circumstances. While Vince Foster remains the most infamous, the body count is starting to build ominously this election cycle – from the mysterious « crushing his own throat » death of a UN official to the latest death of an attorney who served the DNC with a fraud suit.

As GatewayPundit’s Jim Hoft reports, on July 3, 2016, Shawn Lucas and filmmaker Ricardo Villaba served the DNC Services Corp. and Chairperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz at DNC’s headquarters in Washington, D.C., in the fraud class action suit against the Democrat Party on behalf of Bernie Sanders supporters (this was before Wikileaks released documents proving the DNC was working against the Sanders campaign during the 2016 primary).

Shawn Lucas was thrilled about serving the papers to the DNC before Independence Day…

Shawn Lucas was found dead this week…

According to Snopes Lucas was found dead on his bathroom floor.

We contacted Lucas’ employer on 4 August 2016 to ask whether there was any truth to the rumor.

According to an individual with whom we spoke at that company, Shawn Lucas died on 2 August 2016. The audibly and understandably shaken employee stated that interest in the circumstances of Lucas’ death had prompted a number of phone calls and other queries, but the company had not yet ascertained any details about Lucas’ cause of death and were unable to confirm anything more than the fact he had passed away.

An unconfirmed report holds that Lucas was found lying on the bathroom floor by his girlfriend when she returned home on the evening of 2 August 2016. Paramedics responding to her 911 call found no signs of life.

*  *  *

This follows the death of 27 year-old Democratic staffer Seth Conrad Rich who was murdered in Washington DC on July 8.The killer or killers appear to have taken nothing from their victim, leaving behind his wallet, watch and phone.

Shortly after the killing, Redditors and social media users were pursuing a “lead” saying that Rich was en route to the FBI the morning of his murder, apparently intending to speak to special agents about an “ongoing court case” possibly involving the Clinton family.

So, to summarize, courtesy of Janet Tavakoli, the Clinton related suspicious deaths so far this election cycle:  Five in just under six weeks – four deaths plus one suicide…

1) Shawn Lucas, Sanders supporter who served papers to DNC on the Fraud Case (DOD August 2, 2016)

2) Victor Thorn, Clinton author shot himself in an apparent suicide.  (DOD August, 2016)

3) Seth Conrad Rich, Democratic staffer, aged 27, apparently on his way to speak to the FBI about a case possibly involving the Clintons. The D.C. murder was not a robbery. (DOD July 8, 2016)

4) John Ashe, UN official who allegedly crushed his own throat while lifting weights, because he watched too many James Bond films and wanted to try the move where the bad guy tries to…oh, never mind. “He was scheduled to testify against the Clintons and the Democrat Party.” (DOD June 22, 2016)

5) Mike Flynn, the Big Government Editor for Breitbart News. Mike Flynn’s final article was published the day he died, “Clinton Cash: Bill, Hillary Created Their Own Chinese Foundation in 2014.” (DOD June 23, 2016)

It must be coincidence, right?

If former Secret Service agent Gary Byrne is to be believed, this is business as usual for the Clintons. Excerpt via Zero Hedge:

BYRNE: I feel so strongly that people need to know the real Hillary Clinton and how dangerous she is in her behavior. She is not a leader. She is not a leader.

SEAN: She does not have the temperament?

BYRNE: She doesn’t have the temperament. She didn’t have the temperament to handle the social office when she was First Lady, she does not have the temperament.

SEAN: She’s dishonest.

BYRNE: She’s dishonest, she habitually lies, anybody that can separate themselves from their politics and review her behavior over the past 15 years…

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Lead Attorney In Anti-Clinton DNC Fraud Case Mysteriously Found Dead

Former DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz

On Friday, July 1, just ahead of the long Fourth of July weekend, a happy, exuberant process server, 38-year old Shawn Lucas of One Source Process, served a lawsuit at the Democratic National Committee headquarters in Washington, D.C. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Senator Bernie Sanders’ supporters and named the DNC and its then Chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, as defendants. It leveled the following serious charges: fraud, negligent misrepresentation, deceptive conduct, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence.

The suit seeks class action status and was filed in the Federal District Court in the Southern District of Florida. (Wilding et al v DNC Services Corporation and Deborah ‘Debbie’ Wasserman Schultz; Case Number 16-cv-61511-WJZ).

Shawn Lucas, Process Server for One Source Process, Who Delivered the Lawsuit Against the Democratic National Committee and Debbie Wasserman Schultz on July 1, 2016.

Shawn Lucas, Process Server for One Source Process, Delivering the Lawsuit Against the Democratic National Committee and Debbie Wasserman Schultz on July 1, 2016A video of the service of process (see embedded video below) shows Shawn Lucas saying he was “excited” and “thrilled” to be the process server on this lawsuit, later in the video equating it to his “birthday and Christmas” rolled into one. A month later, Lucas was found dead on his bathroom floor. A cause has yet to be announced.

As of this writing, we could find no mainstream newspaper or wire service that has reported on the troubling death of Shawn Lucas. The original YouTube video, however, has skyrocketed from 32,000 views to more than 350,000 views as of this morning. The flurry of angry comments below the video are suggesting there is some form of Hillary Clinton hit squad in operation.

According to the official report from the Metropolitan Police Department in Washington, D.C., officers Kathryn Fitzgerald and Adam Sotelo responded to a 911 call from the girlfriend of Lucas, Savannah King. The officers arrived “at 1913 hours,” or 7:13 p.m. on the evening of  Tuesday, August  2. The report states that Lucas was “laying unconscious on the bathroom floor” and that “DCFD Engine 9 responded and found no signs consistent with life.”

Just hours before Lucas was found dead, there had been a major housecleaning of DNC officials implicated in the DNC emails leaked by Wikileaks, showing that key executives had secretly strategized on how to sabotage the campaign of Senator Bernie Sanders while bolstering the campaign for Hillary Clinton. (Those leaked emails provide important new evidence to buttress the class action lawsuit.)  DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz had stepped down earlier as a result of the emails at the outset of the Democratic Convention but Politico reported on the afternoon of August 2 that “CEO Amy Dacey, communications director Luis Miranda and chief financial officer Brad Marshall” were leaving the DNC and that staffers had been told of the changes that very day. All three had been implicated by the leaked emails.

Marc Elias, Law Partner at Perkins Coie, the Law Firm Representing the DNC Against Fraud Charges

Marc Elias, Law Partner at Perkins Coie, the Law Firm Representing the DNC Against Fraud Charges

Also implicated in the emails leaked by Wikileaks was law partner Marc Elias of the politically-connected legal powerhouse, Perkins Coie, who chairs its Political Law practice. The name “Perkins Coie” appears 263 times in the Wikileaks emails. The law firm vetted essentially every media ad released by the DNC, as well as drafting responses to Senator Sanders’ campaign charges of serious irregularities taking place at the DNC to boost Clinton’s campaign. (Under DNC bylaws, it must conduct its activities in a fair, unbiased manner toward all Democratic candidates in the primaries.)

Following charges from the Sanders’ campaign that a joint fundraising account called the Hillary Victory Fund was being used by the DNC and Hillary Clinton’s campaign to “launder money” for Clinton, that is, to evade her fundraising caps from wealthy donors, Marc Elias sent an email to four DNC officials on May 3 of this year, advising them to “put out a statement saying that the accusations [from] the Sanders campaign are not true.” Elias doesn’t provide any specifics on why the charges are not true.

Read complete article on Wall Street on Parade

 

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Sudden Death of Attorney Who Served the Lawsuit against the Democratic National Committee (DNC) on Charges of « Fraud, Deceptive Conduct … and Negligence »