Voici le message reçu ce dimanche, 20 novembre, d’un ami d’Alep :

« Tuerie : Ce dimanche matin, comme chaque jour, pluie d’obus de mortiers tirés par les terroristes d’Alep-Est sur nos quartiers. MAIS aujourd’hui, ils ont atteint une école au quartier Forkane : 10 enfants tués et de très nombreux blessés. Les médias occidentaux vont-ils rapporter ce crime de guerre ? Les gouvernements vont-ils s’indigner et protester ?

[…]

Depuis un an, les médias occidentaux diffusent des informations mensongères ou exagérées (ce qui revient au même) sur ce qui se passe à Alep-Est. Comme par exemple l’annonce de la destruction par les raids aériens du « dernier hôpital – the last hospital » d’Alep, annonce qui a été reprise chaque deux semaines, une dizaine de fois au total. C’est comme si ce « dernier hôpital » ressuscitait à chaque fois… Nabil. Antaki. ». 

Que répondre à cette question ? Sinon qu’en effet, la veille de cette « tuerie » [1], « The Guardian » s’est une fois de plus payé la tête de ses lecteurs en accusant le « régime » syrien et la Russie d’avoir détruit ce même  dernier hôpital [2].

Et que penser de ce qu’a osé proposer l’envoyé spécial de l’ONU Staffan de Mistura, pour prétendument sauver cette ville meurtrie ? Une proposition dévoilée par M. Walid al-Mouallem, Vice-Premier ministre, ministre des Affaires étrangères et des Expatriés, lors d’une conférence de presse tenue ce même 20 novembre à Damas, suite à la visite de l’émissaire de paix d’une instance internationale qui n’a pas fini de nous écœurer, sans plus jamais nous surprendre [NdT].

_____________________________________________

DÉCLARATION DE M. WALID AL-MOUALLEM

Désolé pour mon retard, c’est encore une fois de la faute de M. de Mistura [dit sur le ton de la plaisanterie, NdT].

Ce matin, nous avons eu des discussions avec l’envoyé spécial du Secrétaire général de l’ONU et sa délégation. Nous nous attendions, mes collègues et moi, à ce qu’il nous informe de la date fixée pour la poursuite du dialogue entre Syriens ; ce qui ne fut pas le cas. Il s’est focalisé sur ce qu’il a qualifié d’« idées personnelles concernant l’est d’Alep ».

Nous lui avons répondu que, vu la situation, nous étions d’accord sur la nécessité que les terroristes sortent des quartiers est de la ville quel que soit leur nombre, qu’il était absolument inconcevable que 275 000 de nos concitoyens restent pris en otage par 5000, 6000 ou 7000 hommes armés [de Mistura les avait chiffrés à 900 au maximum ; NdT, [3]], qu’aucun gouvernement au monde n’autoriserait cela, et que plus vite ils sortiraient d’Alep en sachant que nous leur garantissions le choix de leur destination, plus vite ils atténueraient les souffrances endurées par les nôtres à l’Est d’Alep.

Mais il nous a parlé d’« administration locale » déjà présente à l’est d’Alep, [idées donc partagées par le président Hollande lorsque, le 19 octobre 2016, il encensait un fameux Comité local de terroristes, selon lui « démocratiquement élu » par la population des quartiers est d’Alep, tout en donnant un coup de pouce aux « Casques blancs », candidats au prix Nobel de la forfaiture; NdT, [4]].

Nous lui avons répondu que nous rejetions son idée, globalement et dans tous ses détails.

Est-il concevable que les Nations Unies en arrivent à ainsi récompenser des terroristes qui continuent à tirer leurs obus, au hasard, sur les quartiers ouest d’Alep, lesquels obus ont coûté des milliers de vies et de blessés ? Aujourd’hui même, ils ont ciblé l’école élémentaire du quartier Forkane, ôtant la vie à dix de ses élèves [blessant et estropiant nombre d’entre eux, non sans s’attaquer à d’autres régions du pays ; NdT, [5][6]] ? Est-il concevable que nous les récompensions ?

Ils ont aussi bombardé le Palais de Justice, la Faculté de droit et, me dit-on, l’hôpital Al-Bassel… Ces terroristes ne souffrent d’aucun interdit moral !

Nous avons catégoriquement refusé cette idée d’« administration autonome », car c’est une atteinte à notre souveraineté nationale et une récompense offerte au terrorisme et moi, je ne conçois pas que les Nations Unies agissent de la sorte.

Ce refus étant définitif, nous avons rappelé que, concernant l’évacuation des malades et des blessés des quartiers est d’Alep, nous avions offert trois chances de trêves successives et, qu’à notre grand regret, les terroristes ne les ont pas laissés sortir, alors que des ambulances les attendaient aux points de passage via des couloirs sécurisés délimités à cet effet. Des couloirs malheureusement devenus dangereux parce que frappés de leur pluie de mortiers empêchant la sortie des civils, malgré les préparatifs du gouvernorat d’Alep visant à assurer leur réception en toute sécurité.

Les terroristes ont eu plus d’une chance de s’en sortir, mais ils n’en ont pas profité. Et voilà que vous entendez les habitants manifester autour des entrepôts d’aliments qu’ils gardent ou vendent au marché noir à la population des quartiers est d’Alep. À savoir que même les convois d’aide humanitaire ont été bloqués par leurs tirs de mortiers.

Je crois donc qu’il est du devoir de l’État syrien de sauver ces citoyens pris en otage par ces terroristes. C’est pourquoi, nous avons proposé à de Mistura un autre projet disant que ceux des nôtres qui souhaiteraient ne pas quitter ces quartiers est d’Alep pouvaient y rester en toute sécurité, que les éléments armés pouvaient en faire autant après avoir régularisé leur situation, et que la route était ouverte aux éléments armés qui souhaiteraient se diriger vers Idleb ou la Turquie.

En effet, les terroristes doivent sortir de ces quartiers et les institutions régaliennes de l’Est d’Alep ne peuvent rester dans une telle anormalité comparativement aux régions où la situation a été réglée par les « réconciliations », la dernière en date ayant libéré Al-Moadamiyé [région de Damas ; NdT]. Il n’est plus possible de déroger à cette règle !

Nous avons dit à de Mistura : « Vous parlez de cessez-le feu. Avez-vous pris contact avec les États qui parrainent ces groupes armés ? Vous-ont-ils donné des garanties qu’il sera respecté ? Il a répondu qu’il ne disposait pas de telles garanties.

Par conséquent, ne voulant pas abuser de votre temps, je dis que nous n’avons rien appris qui puisse aider à la poursuite du dialogue entre Syriens. Peut-être attend-il la nouvelle administration des États-Unis ou le nouveau Secrétaire général de l’ONU. Dans tous les cas, nous sommes prêts parce que nous croyons que la solution politique est à la base de la solution de la crise syrienne.

VOUS POUVEZ ME POSER VOS QUESTIONS :

Russia Today : On parle d’un probable congrès de l’opposition syrienne de l’intérieur en présence de quelques personnalités de l’opposition à l’étranger, lequel congrès aurait lieu à Damas. Quel est le rôle de l’État syrien dans ce cadre, étant donné que les idées et solutions avancées par de Mistura sont sans rapport avec ce vous proposez pour l’est d’Alep et ailleurs ?

M. Al-Mouallem : En Syrie, nous avons foi en l’Organisation des Nations Unies, mais en une ONU qui respecte sa propre charte, une ONU qui respecte la souveraineté de ses États membres. Quant à ce qui se dit à propos d’un Congrès de l’opposition, nous sommes favorables à toute rencontre entre Syriens pour discuter de l’avenir de la Syrie, loin de toute ingérence étrangère. S’ils souhaitent se réunir en Syrie, ils sont les bienvenus. S’ils préfèrent se réunir à Genève, il en sera de même.

Al-Fadaiya (TV syrienne) : Permettez que je vous interroge sur un sujet qui intéresse tous les Syriens. Il s’agit des opérations menées par les Forces Démocratiques Syriennes [FDS : en majorité kurdes, NdT] couvertes par l’aviation de ladite Coalition internationale [menée essentiellement par les USA et la France, NdT] pour ce qui est annoncé comme la libération de Raqqa, ainsi que des récentes déclarations de la Turquie à ce sujet. Bien que les opérations soient en cours et que la Turquie soit rendue aux portes d’Al-Bab, nous n’avons entendu aucun commentaire de l’État syrien sur ce qui se passe !?

M. Al-Mouallem : Concernant Raqqa, les Américains se sont mis d’accord avec les FDS pour qu’elles avancent dans la campagne nord de cette ville afin de l’assiéger, mais en même temps, ils se sont mis d’accord avec les Turcs sur qui devrait la gérer à l’avenir. Je parle ici de la rencontre entre les chefs d’État major des armées des USA et de la Turquie, dans le sens où l’Américain utilise l’élément kurde dans une première étape et, une fois Raqqa assiégée, compte passer à la deuxième étape avec la collaboration de la Turquie ; les deux éléments kurde et turc étant rejetés par les habitants de Raqqa qui sont des arabes syriens.

C’est pourquoi je dis que l’Américain n’est pas sérieux, que le Kurde est incapable de libérer Raqqa, vu ses capacités, et que l’avancée turque en territoire syrien est une invasion, que ce soit à Al-Bab ou à Jarablus. Mais tout le territoire syrien sera libéré. Actuellement, nous avons affaire aux « instruments » du Turc, tels les autoproclamés Armée Syrienne Libre [ASL], le groupe Nour el-Dine al-Zenki, etc.

AFP : D’après ce que j’ai compris, votre rencontre avec M. de Mistura fut très négative, ce qui signifie que la guerre va continuer. Concernant les groupes armés présents à Alep, dans quel but le gouvernement syrien les poussent-ils vers Idleb ? Pourquoi Idleb ? Serait-ce pour en faire un État séparé, ou quoi  d’autre ?

M. Al-Mouallem : Je n’ai pas dit que ces pourparlers ont été inutiles. Nous avons toujours œuvré dans le sens d’une solution politique. Que nos avis divergent sur ce sujet est chose normale. Par ailleurs, nous ne poussons pas ces gens vers Idleb. Le gouvernorat d’Idleb est limitrophe de la Turquie et c’est là que se trouvent leurs quartiers généraux, leur logistique et leur réservoir humain. En tout cas, s’ils choisissaient une autre destination, nous ne les empêcherions pas.

Al-Mayadeen : Jusqu’à quel point existe-t-il une coordination entre les armées syrienne et irakienne pour empêcher les terroristes présents à Mossoul de se rendre en Syrie, alors que nous avons beaucoup entendu parler d’une stratégie américaine fondée sur des couloirs de passage aménagés dans ce but, que nous savons qu’un grand nombre d’entre eux sont déjà rendus à Abou-Kamal et à Raqqa, d’où sont expédiés des éléments armés, notamment des enfants, vers Mossoul ? Ensuite, il paraitrait que l’opération turque baptisée « Bouclier de l’Euphrate » arrivée aux abords de la ville d’Al-Bab [2 à 3 kms, NdT] aurait dépassé les limites d’une entente non déclarée entre la Russie et la Turquie. Pouvez-vous nous rassurer sur le fait que les Turcs n’avanceront pas vers Alep ou, en tout cas, qu’ils n’influeront pas sur les combats en cours dans cette ville ?

M. Al-Mouallem : Je n’ai pas entendu parler de ces ententes secrètes, alors que nous coopérons étroitement avec nos amis russes dans les domaines politique et militaire. Je ne sais donc pas si une telle entente existe. En revanche, je sais que la partie russe condamne toute violation de la souveraineté syrienne, ce que M. Lavrov a confirmé récemment.

Concernant Mossoul, il est évidemment très dangereux que des éléments armés puissent passer en Syrie, parce que ceux-là ne laisseront jamais l’Irak en paix. Ils y retourneront. D’ailleurs, c’est de Syrie qu’ils sont partis pour envahir l’Irak. Il existe donc des intérêts partagés entre les deux armées irakienne et syrienne.

Il est possible que certains éléments puissent continuer à s’infiltrer en Syrie et nous savons parfaitement que les plans américains ne consistent pas à éliminer Daech, mais à le contenir, puisqu’ils continuent de croire qu’il menace le pouvoir syrien à Damas, témoins en sont ces deux dernières longues années de prétendues frappes aériennes qui n’auraient pas réussi à l’éradiquer.

Quoi qu’il en soit, certains changements au niveau mondial s’accélèrent et nous espérons que Raqqa sera libérée. Ceci dit, celui qui lit attentivement le déroulement des combats du « Hachd al-Chaabi » [Unités de mobilisation populaire] à Tal-Afar, en Irak, réalise que le but est d’empêcher les éléments de Daech de venir en Syrie. Je profite de cette occasion pour leur dire que nous saluons leur courage ainsi que le courage de l’Armée irakienne et que leur combat est le nôtre.

BBC : Pensez-vous que l’arrivée d’une nouvelle administration américaine aura des effets positifs sur la résolution de la crise syrienne dans les prochains mois, soit par la mise à exécution de l’accord russo-américain qui n’a pas été concrétisé, soit par un nouvel accord ?

M. Al-Mouallem : Concernant la nouvelle administration américaine, nous sommes pour l’option choisie par le peuple américain. Il est prématuré de dire ce que sera la politique étrangère des États-Unis. Nous savons tous qu’existent différents groupes de pression et de conseillers, mais nous espérons qu’ils réviseront la stratégie de leur pays à l’égard de la Syrie.

Est-ce que la stratégie de l’administration sortante a été bénéfique pour le peuple américain, alors qu’elle a dépensé des millions de dollars pour entraîner et armer des éléments qualifiés d’« opposition syrienne modérée », lesquels ont fini par rejoindre les rangs d’Al-Nosra ? Toute personne raisonnable dirait que cette politique fut une succession d’erreurs, qu’il est impératif de corriger.

Cette correction passe par un dialogue entre Moscou et Washigton ; la Russie étant un acteur majeur grandement concerné par la lutte contre le terrorisme, respectueuse du droit international et de la souveraineté des États. Quant aux modalités de leur future entente, l’avenir nous le dira.

Press TV : Étant donné que les forces armées turques s’approchent d’Al-Bab et que les forces syriennes sont rendues au sud de cette ville, y’a-t-il une coopération entre les deux armées pour éviter une confrontation non calculée ?

M. Al-Mouallem : J’affirme qu’il n’existe aucune relation ou coordination entre nous et la Turquie en ce qui concerne cette invasion de notre territoire. Nous considérons les groupes armés, derrière lesquels elle se dissimule, pour ce qu’ils sont : des terroristes qu’il faut traiter avec fermeté. Désormais, plus personne n’ignore le soutien de la Turquie aux factions armées en Syrie.

Al-Watan (Syrie) : De Mistura est arrivé à Damas sur fond de déclarations publiées auparavant par le quotidien The Guardian [8]. En bref, il fait un parallèle entre l’Irak et la Syrie en parlant de processus politique inclusif des sunnites en Syrie, pour conforter sa vision confessionnelle du futur État syrien, et met en garde contre un risque accru du terrorisme « si Assad remportait une victoire militaire totale ». Ensuite, étant donné que les terroristes ont utilisé des substances chimiques toxiques contre la population et les soldats à Alep, usage pour lequel vous avez officiellement demandé à l’ONU l’envoi d’une commission d’enquête sur le terrain, pensez-vous que cette commission se déplacera cette fois-ci, contrairement aux fois précédentes ?

M. Al-Mouallem : Nos expériences passées ont démontré que nous ne devons pas attendre grand-chose de ces commissions. Quant à de Mistura, il aurait formulé ses opinions personnelles alors que nous, en Syrie, refusons absolument ces considérations et restons fiers de la cohésion nationale entre les différentes composantes du peuple syrien. Je crois qu’il a reçu le message.

SANA : Pensez-vous qu’avec Trump à la présidence des USA, Washington cessera effectivement de soutenir le terrorisme ?

M. Al-Mouallem : J’ai déjà dit qu’il était prématuré de répondre à cette question à partir de slogans d’une campagne électorale et que toute personne sensée qui réviserait la politique de l’administration sortante devrait corriger ses erreurs. Ce que nous attendons de la future administration est non seulement qu’elle cesse de soutenir les groupes armés, mais aussi quelle freine les États régionaux notoirement connus pour cela.

Al-Manar : Le retour des forces de l’UNDOF [Force des Nations Unies chargée d’observer le désengagement] au Golan syrien occupé paraît hors contexte. Comment l’expliquez-vous ? 

M. Al-Mouallem : Le centre de commandement de cette force était basé à Nabeh al- Faouar, laquelle localité est redevenue sure. Pour revenir, l’ONU a dû obtenir du Qatar et d’Israël, en particulier, des garanties assurant qu’elle ne sera plus ciblée, puisqu’il est de notoriété publique que le Qatar et Israël soutiennent les groupes armés sévissant dans la région. Nous n’y voyons aucune signification politique. Ce n’est qu’un retour à la normale. C’est pourquoi, nous coopérerons avec l’UNDOF.

Al-arabi : Vous nous avez habitués à vos blagues diplomatiques, ce qui n’est pas le cas aujourd’hui, mis à part votre entrée en matière sur votre retard dû à de Mistura. Ma question est : pensez-vous que le train égypto-syrien est arrivé à la destination espérée ?

M. Al-Mouallem : Franchement, lorsque mes collègues m’ont informé du décès de ces dix enfants dans leur école à Alep, mon esprit blagueur m’a abandonné. Quelle est leur faute ? Sinon, je vous avais préparé une bonne blague, mais le cœur n’y est pas.

Quant à votre question, le discours égyptien a certainement évolué dans le bon sens, mais n’est pas encore arrivé à la destination où nous l’attendions et où nous l’attendons toujours, pour la bonne raison que quand la Syrie et l’Égypte marchent ensemble, la nation arabe va bien. Il n’est pas possible que le grand peuple égyptien et son armée se contentent d’observer ce qui se passe en Syrie, comme il n’est pas possible que la Syrie ne sympathise pas avec l’armée égyptienne, qui lutte contre le terrorisme au Sinaï. C’est pourquoi nous espérons. Plus qu’un petit bond et les choses reviendront à la normale.

Agence Tasnim : Concernant l’éventuel congrès de l’opposition à Damas, le gouvernement syrien s’est-il engagé à ne pas incarcérer l’un quelconque des congressistes, d’autant plus que le chef du « Comité national de coordination », Hassan Abdel-Azim, a déclaré que s’il obtenait cette garantie, le congrès se tiendrait dans la capitale ? 

M. Al-Mouallem : Hassan Abdel-Azim entre et sort de Syrie, se réunit avec les gens de Riyad, s’épanche sur Al-Mayadeen ou ailleurs, en racontant tout et n’importe quoi. Il n’a pas été arrêté par le gouvernement syrien. N’est-ce pas là la meilleure des garanties ?

Sawt al-Arab : Il est clair que la Turquie est déçue par les récentes déclarations américaines concernant la Syrie, objet probable de son ressentiment parce qu’elle considérerait qu’elle est à l’origine du problème qui menace ses frontières sud, en plus du fait qu’elle doit héberger trois millions de Syriens. Pensez-vous que nous allons assister à un revirement, vu que M. Poutine a déclaré que la Russie fera tout ce qui est en son pouvoir pour assurer l’équilibre stratégique des forces ? Et avez-vous prévu de quoi ramener ces réfugiés de Turquie vers la Syrie ? 

M. Al-Mouallem : Si deux alliés comme la Turquie et les USA se chamaillent à cause de la crise syrienne, alors que tout le monde est au courant du rôle de chacun dans sa création, que sommes-nous censés faire ? Que la Turquie soit déçue ou satisfaite ne nous concerne pas.

Quant aux réfugiés, je ne sais pas si votre chiffre est précis. En tout cas, nous souhaiterons la bienvenue à tout citoyen syrien qui souhaite revenir, même s’il est sorti illégalement du pays. C’est certain.

NBN : Alors que les États-Unis exigent l’arrêt des opérations à Alep et lancent des avertissements, que signifie l’idée d’une « administration autonome » proposée par de Mistura ?

M. Al-Mouallem : Il y a actuellement deux batailles : l’une à Mossoul, l’autre à Alep. La bataille de Mossoul suscite un consensus international, la bataille d’Alep suscite l’hystérie occidentale. Pourquoi ? Parce qu’ils veulent sauver le Front Al-Nosra qu’ils ont mis sur la liste des organisations terroristes, mais qu’ils jugent toujours utile pour menacer Damas. Sauver Al-Nosra est d’ailleurs la raison fondamentale de la dérobade des USA de l’accord passé avec la Russie. D’où l’idée de recourir à ladite « administration locale », laquelle a été imaginée par les éléments armés dans le but de gérer l’aide alimentaire arrivée à l’est d’Alep, qu’ils stockent avant de la vendre dix fois son prix aux citoyens devenus leurs otages.

Concernant les avertissements venus des USA, je ne suis pas militaire, mais sachez que la décision de libérer totalement Alep est prise et qu’elle est définitive.

Al-Ikhbariya : Que signifie cette escalade militaire et médiatique contre Alep ? Pourquoi l’ONU a-t-elle été absente alors qu’elle devait surveiller les couloirs humanitaires prévus pour la sortie volontaire des civils, tandis que de Mistura s’est proposé pour accompagner « physiquement » les éléments armés désireux de quitter les quartiers est d’Alep ? Voyez-vous une certaine synchronisation entre sa visite et cette aggravation de la situation ?

M. Al-Mouallem : Soyons honnête, je ne vois pas de synchronisation entre ces deux faits, puisque nous avons fixé la date de cette visite. En revanche, si les groupes armés ont exploité sa venue, ce serait une preuve supplémentaire de leur refus de toute solution politique.

Quant à la situation à Alep, elle est vraiment tragique. Une tragédie qui doit cesser. Nous espérons que ce sera pour bientôt.

As-Safir : Suite à votre entrevue avec de Mistura, avez-vous l’impression qu’il n’y aura pas de solution politique avant la rencontre entre les deux administrations américaine et russe, ou bien conservez-vous l’espoir que quelque chose de positif arrive pendant cette période transitoire de la présidence d’Obama ? Enfin, en tant que ministre syrien des Affaires étrangères avant et pendant la crise, quel message lui adresseriez-vous ? 

M. Al-Mouallem : Question message, je ne peux pas lui adresser ce que je pense, les relations sont coupées entre lui et nous. Par contre, ce que j’ai compris de l’entrevue avec de Mistura est qu’il va se diriger vers New York pour une réunion avec le nouveau Secrétaire général de l’ONU et certains membres proches du président élu, Donald Trump, avant de se forger une idée concernant les pourparlers du dialogue entre Syriens.

Souriyana : En ce qui concerne la Syrie, certains considèrent que la relation entre la Turquie et la Russie n’est pas claire. Voudriez-vous nous donner votre point de vue ? D’autre part, le Hachd al-Chaabi a affirmé qu’il se dirigerait vers la Syrie, une fois qu’il aura libéré Mossoul, à la demande du gouvernement syrien. Le gouvernement a-t-il exprimé officiellement cette demande ou bien se prépare-t-il à le faire ?

M. Al-Mouallem : Je vois que la relation entre la Turquie et la Russie est fondée sur l’économie. Je vois que la Russie est un État ami qui respecte notre souveraineté et nous aide incontestablement dans notre lutte contre le terrorisme, alors que la Turquie est un État envahisseur qui soutient les terroristes et porte atteinte à notre souveraineté.

TV libanaise ? : Maintenant que les relations syro-libanaises vont vers le mieux, quel plafond pensez-vous qu’elles puissent atteindre depuis l’élection du Président Michel Aoun ? 

M. Al-Mouallem : Cela dépend du versant libanais. Nous n’avons pas de plafond et sommes ouverts à nos frères libanais autant qu’ils sont ouverts envers nous.

DAMAS, 20 novembre 2016

 

Source : video Al-Ikhbariya [TV Syrie]

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

Transcription et traduction par Mouna Alno-Nakhal pour Mondialisation.ca

 

Notes :

[1] Up to 8 children killed in militant shelling of western Aleppo civilian area

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFg18f7owAM

[2] East Aleppo’s last hospital destroyed by airstrikes

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/19/aleppo-hospitals-knocked-out-airstrikes

[3] Staffan de Mistura prêt à accompagner les membres d’Al-Nosra hors d’Alep

http://www.rts.ch/info/monde/8070807-staffan-de-mistura-pret-a-accompagner-les-membres-d-al-nosra-hors-d-alep.html

[4] 2. Syrie – Situation à Alep – Point de presse de M. François Hollande, président de la République, avec M. Rahed Al Saleh, président des Casques blancs, et une délégation syrienne d’Alep (Paris, 19/10/2016)

http://basedoc.diplomatie.gouv.fr/vues/Kiosque/FranceDiplomatie/kiosque.php?fichier=bafr2016-10-19.html

Extrait :

« Je voulais recevoir, ici, à l’Élysée, le président des Casques blancs syriens, qui, avec son organisation, lutte chaque jour, non pas pour détruire des vies, mais pour en sauver. Et qui, avec au moins 3.000 volontaires, réussit, malgré la barbarie qui s’acharne sur notamment Alep, à trouver dans les décombres encore des vies humaines.

Cette organisation, les Casques blancs, a été également capable de pouvoir alimenter, approvisionner en eau une partie de la population et faire en sorte qu’une vie soit possible.

Je voulais également accueillir le président du Comité local d’Alep, élu démocratiquement et qui, lui aussi, assure avec les services qu’il peut mobiliser une vie à Alep, avec, là encore : de l’eau, des soins, des écoles qui peuvent fournir à la population de quoi subsister ».

[5] 16 martyrs et des blessés par la chute de roquettes sur Alep, Quneitra, Idleb, Daraa, Homs et la banlieue de Damas

http://sana.sy/fr/?p=74754

[6] 4 martyrs et des blessés dans des attaques terroristes contre Damas, sa banlieue et Idleb

http://sana.sy/fr/?p=74862

[7] UN Syria envoy warns of terror risk if Assad wins total military victory

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/15/staffan-de-mistura-un-special-envoy-syria-terror-risk-assad-total-military-victory

 

  • Posted in Francais @fr
  • Commentaires fermés sur Alep : Réponse de la Syrie à de Mistura qui propose une administration autonome confiée à un comité local de terroristes!

A powerful earthquake struck northeastern Japan on Tuesday morning, briefly disrupting nuclear fuel cooling functions at the Fukushima No. 2 power plant and generating tsunami of over 1 meter in the region that was devastated by the Great East Japan Earthquake, tsunami and nuclear disaster five years ago.

The 5:59 a.m. quake with a preliminary magnitude of 7.4 is believed to be an aftershock of the March 2011 mega-quake, the Meteorological Agency said.

It was the first quake with a magnitude of 7 or bigger to hit Japan since July 2014. The agency warned that there may be similar-scale quakes for around a week.

A tsunami measuring 1.4 meters high was observed at Sendai port in Miyagi Prefecture and a wave of about 1 meter reached the coast near the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant that was crippled by the 2011 quake-tsunami disaster.

Authorities instructed residents in coastal areas to evacuate to higher ground and hundreds of schools canceled classes. Over 3,000 people fled to evacuation centers in Fukushima Prefecture.

“The sound of sirens brought back memories of the huge earthquake (in 2011),” said Tomomi Nagakubo, 48, who drove her car to an evacuation center in Ibaraki Prefecture with her 13-year-old son.

According to the Fire and Disaster Management Agency, a total of 17 people in Fukushima, Chiba, Tokyo and Miyagi prefectures were injured as a result of the quake. They included an 82-year-old woman in Chiba who fell down some stairs in her home and fractured her hip. In Fukushima, three people were injured, two of whom were elderly women who tripped and suffered broken bones.

The cooling system for the spent fuel pool in the No. 3 reactor building at the Fukushima No. 2 power plant stopped working but was restarted about 100 minutes later, according to operator Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings Inc.

“I have been informed that it will not immediately lead to a radiation leak or an increase in the temperature of the fuel,” Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga said in a news conference in Tokyo.

Equipment to measure dust for radioactive materials at the Fukushima No. 2 complex also stopped working, but Tepco said the glitch did not cause any serious problems.

No abnormalities were observed at other nuclear plants in northeastern Japan, according to Tepco and other power companies. Reactors at these nuclear plants have been offline.

Sixteen small boats were overturned off the coast of Miyagi Prefecture, the Japan Coast Guard said, adding no one was believed to be onboard.

All tsunami warnings and advisories were lifted as of 12:50 p.m., the Meteorological Agency said.

The quake, which also shook the Tokyo area, measured lower 5 on the Japanese seismic intensity scale of 7 in Fukushima, Ibaraki and Tochigi prefectures, the agency said.

It was the first time since December 2012 that the agency issued a tsunami alert due to an aftershock from the 2011 quake.

Television footage showed ships moving out to sea from harbors as tsunami warnings wailed after alerts of waves of up to 3 meters were issued.

“We saw high waves but nothing that went over the tidal waves,” a man in Iwaki, Fukushima Prefecture, told NTV.

Aerial footage showed tsunami flowing up rivers in some areas, as well as the overturned fishing boats in the port of Higashimatsuyashima, Miyagi Prefecture.

The focus of the quake was about 25 km under the seabed in the Pacific Ocean off Fukushima, the agency said.

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said in a news conference in Buenos Aires that the government will assess the damage and keep the public informed.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Northeast Japan 7.4 Earthquake « Briefly Disrupts Nuclear Cooling at Fukushima Power Plant »

The success of China’s longest-ever manned space mission is a symbol of the new heights reached by the Chinese space program, the People’s Daily commented on Saturday, after two Chinese astronauts successfully returned to Earth after 30 days in space.

The reentry module of Shenzhou-11 landed safely at the designated site in central Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region at about 1:59 pm Friday Beijing Time.

The following is a translation of the People’s Daily article provided for publication to Global Research:

The Chinese space heroes have returned after completing their 30-plus-day mission. The Shenzhou-11 space capsule landed safely in Inner Mongolia with astronauts Jing Haipeng and Chen Dong on board. This historic moment is so momentous that it has lifted the spirit of every Chinese citizen.

This moment will go down in the history books to be remembered for generations to come. Over the past five weeks, the two astronauts completed a series of scientific and technical experiments in the Tiangong-2 space laboratory, setting a record as China’s longest crewed mission to date.

The success not only marked an important and decisive achievement in terms of the projects completed in the space lab, but also laid the foundation for follow-up construction and operation of a functional space station. Chinese manned space science has finally risen to a new level.

This will always be a proud moment for the Chinese people. China started its space exploration journey 60 years ago from scratch, but has now grown into a world space power. The « Two Bombs, One Satellite » project, the lunar exploration program as well as the Beidou Navigation Satellite System are evidence of China’s progress and strength as a major world power.

In just 24 years, China has mastered the three most important technologies in manned space, namely the earth-to-orbit transportation system, extravehicular activity (EVA) and space rendezvous and docking, which signals that it will not be long before China realizes its goal of operating a permanent space station as well as conducting space application on a large scale.

The Chinese people who have suffered in the “age of navigation” can finally hold their heads up high.

Despite difficulties faced along the journey, China has, with its unremitting efforts, staunch determination and independent innovation, finally made seminal breakthroughs in key space technologies, applied its research results to the industrial, agricultural and service sectors, upgraded technologies of relevant industries, and brought tangible benefits to the public.

As of the end of the 12th Five-Year Plan period, China has completed 42 commercial launches for 25 nations and international organizations, launched 48 satellites, provided 10 carrying services, delivered nine whole spacecrafts, managed to export its basic aerospace facilities, and expanded the international market of satellite application, thus making great contributions to the peaceful exploration and use of outer space.

The praise received from the international community acknowledges China’s efforts in space technology and the peaceful development of mankind.

A nation should be self-reliant in order to survive in the international arena. Space exploration relies on perseverance and independent innovation. In the past six decades, Chinese space scientists upheld the spirit shown both in the “Two Bombs, One Satellite” project and manned spacecraft science research, while always placing the national interest and the needs of the people first.

Their innovation, perseverance, solidarity and dedication, the most precious legacies of this era, propel the modern rejuvenation of China.

The dream of space exploration is part of the dream of rejuvenation. China today needs strategic scientific support more than ever. It has yet to complete the national strategy that maps out three major steps to promote manned space, and also needs more efforts in deep space exploration and application of space technologies.

China should prioritize space science development, implement innovation-driven national development strategies and focus on independent innovation and groundbreaking technological innovations. The future success of the “Long March” and space exploration as a whole hinge on continued efforts from us all.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur China’s Manned Space Mission. Reentry and Return of Shenzhou-11 Space Capsule

Sunoco Logistics Partners L.P. is set to buy its competitor Energy Transfer Partners — under fire over the construction of the Dakota Access oil pipeline — for about US$20 billion, AP reported Monday. Shares for both companies fell in the afternoon by 8-9 percent.

Sunoco Logistics has been found to spill crude more often than any company, with more than 200 leaks since 2010, according to a Reuters analysis of government data.

The lands of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe sit a half mile south of the proposed route of the Dakota Access pipeline. The tribe fears the line could destroy sacred sites during construction and that a future oil spill might pollute its drinking water.

A tribal protest over the US$3.7 billion project drew broad support from other Native American nations, domestic and international environmental groups and Hollywood celebrities.

In response to the tribe’s objections, the U.S. government earlier this month called for a temporary halt to construction along a section of the 1,100-mile line in North Dakota near the Missouri River.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Leader in Oil Spills Buys Dakota Pipeline’s Energy Transfer Co.

In December 2002 I cooperated closely with the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Theo van Boven, who was paying an inspection visit to Uzbekistan. As I recorded in Murder in Samarkand “against the protocols, the Uzbek authorities refused to let him enter the SNB holding centre in Tashkent, the most notorious of all the torture sites.” I upbraided the Uzbek Foreign Minister for this.

That kind of contempt of the UN is perhaps expected of dictatorships. But consider this. The Immigration detention centre at Yarls Wood became notorious for the sexual exploitation of female detainees by staff, on a large scale. In April 2015 the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women, Rashida Manjoo, visited the UK. The government denied her entry to Yarls Wood. In accordance with UN protocols, she went anyway, and was blocked from entering– on the direct orders of Home Secretary Theresa May

You very probably did not know that, because the great problem our society faces is an over-mighty executive government backed by corporate wealth which controls a corporate media. But it is typical of May’s instincts, and they are terrible. Her default position is retreat into secrecy and blatant abuse of power. That is precisely what we are seeing over Brexit, where there is no plan and much to hide. May’s natural instinct is to brook no opposition, debate or discussion of her actions, but to proceed on the basis of executive fiat, with as little information as possible given to parliament, devolved authorities and – Heaven forfend – the public.

Everything you do on the web is now stored for twelve months by the security services. They can hack into your laptop or phone to see what is on there without any conditions at all. Not only do they not need to convince a judge you are suspected of a crime, they do not need to even pretend to actually suspect you of anything at all. They can just decide to target you and go fishing. The UK has now zero right to online privacy and the most vicious security service powers of any democracy. Indeed when you combine powers with capability (and the security service are recruiting tens of thousands more staff to our stasi state) the UK is now the most authoritarian country in the world. The legislation. passed this week, was framed by Theresa May as Home Secretary and received no significant opposition from the UK’s complicit political class.

screenshot-156

This mass gathering of data is nothing to do with fighting terrorism – being lost in a massive ocean of irrelevant data is actually a major hindrance to fighting terrorism. It is about social control. I have nowhere heard this better explained than by John Kiriakou, former senior CIA agent who was jailed as part of the Obama administration’s vicious war on whistleblowers, after Kiriakou blew the whistle on CIA torture. Kiriakou’s speech on receiving the Sam Adams award in Washington is well worth hearing (1 hour and 3 minutes in video below).

It was May who sent poster vans around London urging immigrants to go home, and whose anti-immigrant instincts were so strong she banned the tiny number of Afghan interpreters for UK armed forces from being given asylum in the UK.

That May is intellectually out of her depth is plain even to Conservatives every Prime Minister’s question time in the Commons. Expect her to fall back more and more on those instincts for secrecy and authoritarianism – and the abuse of the massive powers of the state.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Theresa May’s “Retreat into Secrecy and Blatant Abuse of Power”

The US-European funded « Syrian Civil Defence » also known as the « White Helmets, » have been incrementally exposed as perhaps one of the most extensive and elaborate deceptions in modern war propaganda.

Posing as both « rescuers » of civilians trapped in alleged Syrian and Russian airstrikes, and « monitors » reporting alleged « atrocities » carried out against armed militants fighting the Syrian government, evidence has mounted that they are in fact accomplices with militant groups including listed terrorist organizations, as well as propagandists.

Image: This is not Aleppo, Syria, but rather the streets of Europe where a recent « save Aleppo » protest was staged. Actors posing in fake dust and blood proved just how easy it is for anyone to create « war victims » anytime, anywhere

In early October of this year, protesters in Europe easily recreated virtually every « rescue » scene portrayed by « White Helmets » simply by applying flour and red paint to their faces and lying in the streets of European cities. (See image above) As part of the « Save Aleppo » campaign, the protesters likely sought to bring the « reality » of the « White Helmets' » work to Western audiences, but maybe did so a little too literally – revealing that many of the scenes portrayed by « White Helmet » camera crews in Syria were likely staged in a very similar, theatrical manner.

In real warfare, bombardments generally leave behind unspeakable carnage, including bodies burned beyond recognition, dangling limbs, gushing wounds, and piles of tangled gore. The « White Helmets' » videos are suspiciously absent of these realities, and instead feature almost exclusively the flour and red paint extras seen protesting in Europe’s streets last October.

It was noted last October that the only feature missing from the « White Helmets »-inspired protests in Europe was the backdrop of a ruined city and rubble to « bury » actors in.

But a recent video shared on Facebook by Syrian activist Mimi Al Laham, exposes this charade with this final feature included.

What appears to be a « White Helmet » video shot in a style known as the « mannequin challenge » – in which actors remain still as a camera moves around them similar to a technique employed in Hollywood movies for dramatic effect – has surfaced on YouTube.

It begins with three men attempting to remain still as a camera moves around them. The men are posing in the rubble of a collapsed building. Two men are dressed as « White Helmet » volunteers, and the third man is laying down with his legs partially buried beneath rubble. An audible sound effect is added to the soundtrack – similar to that heard in a war movie when a character is dazed and his ears are ringing – before suddenly the characters begin moving and shouting – the volunteers begin « unburying » the trapped man who feigns screams of pain.

Aside from the « mannequin challenge » stylization, the video is utterly indistinguishable from the full summation of the « White Helmets' » previous « filmography. » Like all of the « victims » the « White Helmets » have « saved, » the man in this video is clearly not physically injured and is simply covered in dust just as protesters in Europe were, and just as all of the alleged « victims » the « White Helmets » have claimed to save in Syria have been in the wake of alleged airstrikes.

Serious Ethical Questions Raised 

In this video, the three men are undoubtedly actors. The « victim » was undoubtedly, intentionally buried in preexisting rubble, not trapped in it from an airstrike. The fact that two of the actors are fully dressed in « White Helmet » uniforms acquired through the tens of millions of dollars provided to the organization by Western governments, reveals a potentially serious breach in ethical behavior – similar to ethical violations committed by legitimate medical and rescue workers who use their resources and protected status for political or military purposes, rather than missions of mercy.

The « White Helmets » are perhaps the perfect embodiment of the entire Syrian « opposition. » A facade created by foreign interests to divide and destroy an entire nation, unhinge an entire region, all while posing as heroes of « freedom, » « democracy, » and « humanitarianism. » For other supposed nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) worldwide receiving funding from the US and EU, they should seriously consider the company they find themselves among – terrorists, liars, and actors preying on people’s good intentions while exploiting misery they themselves are directly involved in creating.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Syria’s « White Helmets »: Extensive and Elaborate Deceptions of Modern War Propaganda

Trump’s Victory, the US Dollar and the Domino Effect: Will the Euro Survive Beyond 2017?

novembre 22nd, 2016 by Global Europe Anticipation Bulletin (GEAB)

Donald Trump’s victory in the US presidential election creates the conditions for change, but it is not change yet, contrary to what the media and populists believe.

Far from being a “revolution”, the Trump’s advent at the head of the Western system corresponds to a radicalisation of the ex-ante situation. In reality, Trump is the symptom of a Western system which has failed to adapt[1] and is now trying to rule through pure violent rhetoric, by targeting citizens and nations who propose politico-economic counter-models. The method will therefore change, but the objectives and the main principles will not.

Among all the uncertainties that remain, we must now understand the subsequent challenges that threaten the rest of the world; especially the Euro zone. Technically, new opportunities for a greater European independence are now to be seized, but will we be able to seize them?

The rise or fall of the dollar: The interest rate paradox

Visibly, the euro did not manage to play its role as an international reference currency. On the contrary, it could only serve as a crutch for the US dollar. Hence, to clearly anticipate the future of the Euro, one must first understand the future of the dollar.

Figure 1 – The international weight of currencies: the US dollar, the euro and the yen, 1979-2014. Source: BIS.

Whilst everyone predicted a collapse of the stock market and of the US dollar with a Trump victory, this did not happen. Quite the contrary, markets are on the rise. This is because the programme of the newly elected leader, as unclear as it is, requires a heap of new debt[2]. A debt which calls for some investments, perfectly recyclable in the financial markets. Even a new cycle of quantitative easing or an equivalent might occur; and by the way, we know how profitable that is to the American stock markets.

Figure 2 – The evolution of the Dow Jones over a month; the rise, starting with the election. Source: CNBC.

The same logic has increased the US bonds’ interest rate rise, in anticipation of the abundant debt supply which will struggle to find a home; and inflation will undoubtedly be triggered by the implementation of protectionist measures. Thus, the rates’ increase creates a call for money in the United States, as it becomes more profitable, and increases the value of the dollar by the increased demand.

Then, will the underdog US dollar become strengthened? Is that truly compatible with Trump’s policy? Not really. With more and more protectionist barriers, trade between the United States and the rest of the world will mechanically fail, resulting in less international use of the dollar and thus a weaker US currency. The impact of expected inflation due to rising import prices is much less clear: it all depends now on interest rates which will at least have to offset the expected inflation to attract investors. But these rates have no longer been left in the hands of the free market (since at least 2009) particularly because of Fed’s operations. On the other hand, to be able to maintain the capacity to export, despite the protectionist measures soon to be imposed on them by their trading partners, the US will need a weak dollar.

But does it really have a choice? The interest rate on sovereign bonds is the wall against which Trump’s contradictory motives will clash (Keynesian stimulus without raising debt and with lowering taxes). This rate is indeed the most revealing point of the investors’ true feelings: will the United States still be able to borrow? And for how long? A brief, simplistic calculation is enlightening[3]: in 2015, the Federal government paid $223 billion of debt interest; an increase in borrowing rate by only 1 percentage point on a debt of $19.8 trillion would double those expenses. To pay them, it would then be necessary to increase the Federal budget by more than 5% (which in 2015 amounted to $3,700 billion), and not to diminish it – as Trump would want; this is without even counting the infrastructure renovation plans he also has. It is so dangerous and unrealistic that in just one week, since the announcement of the results of the election, the 10-year bond rate has already increased by 0.4 percentage points.

Figure 3 – 10 year maturity US bonds interest, October-November 2016. Source: Bloomberg.

Keeping this in mind, and not mentioning the shock of rising interest rates for US businesses and households doped with easy money, there are only three possible options:

– cutting off expenditures other than debt repayment, especially military or social spending, a difficult and unlikely option given the political stakes and the amounts involved;
– ask the Fed to buy back the bonds via a new round of quantitative easing operation;
– defaulting on the debt, which is not an option to exclude with Trump as president… (Read more in the GEAB no 109)

Notes

[1] All attempts to regulate and reorganise the eco-financial Western system since 2008 were blocked in 2010. The Frank-Dodd Act and the attacks directed mostly from the Republicans provide the most representative illustration of the failure of the reforming process following the Lehman Brothers affair. Source : LA Times, 13/01/2015
[2] Source: Fortune, 11/11/2016
[3] Source: Wikipedia.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Trump’s Victory, the US Dollar and the Domino Effect: Will the Euro Survive Beyond 2017?

US-supported terrorists control eastern Aleppo public and private hospitals still functioning – using them for military purposes, denying vital treatment for residents in need.

Syrian and Hezbollah forces began a large-scale offensive to liberate Aleppo entirely from the scourge of US-backed terrorism.

On October 18, Russian and Syrian aerial operations were halted within a 10 km area in terrorist-controlled eastern parts of the city – conducting them in surrounding areas alone so far, aimed at cutting supply lines and aiding the advance of government-led forces.

At the same time, Russian and Syrian aerial operations are ongoing in Idlib and Homs provinces, along with other areas infested with US-backed terrorists.

In times of war, media scoundrels are virtual Pentagon and administration press agents, notably The New York Times, America’s leading propaganda disseminator.

It’s latest misinformation claims “intensifying bombardment…forced (eastern Aleppo hospitals) to stop providing care,” citing a World Health Organization report lacking credibility.

For months, area hospitals controlled by US-supported terrorists virtually halted treatment for injured and ill residents, using the facilities entirely for themselves.

NYT:

“(T)he Syrian government has resolved to press forward regardless of the humanitarian cost, and to gamble that Western countries, particularly the United States, will not stop them.”

“President Obama has never been keen on military action in Syria, and the incoming American president, Donald J. Trump, is more sympathetic to Russia, which has allied with the Syrian government.”

Fact: Syrian and allied forces launched a large-scale offensive to liberate eastern Aleppo from US-backed terrorists controlling it – an operation deserving universal support.

Fact: Syria is Obama’s war, naked aggression against a sovereign independent nation threatening no one, using ISIS, al-Nusra and other terrorist groups as imperial foot soldiers. So-called “moderate rebels” are misnamed. None exist. All anti-government forces are foreign-supported cutthroat killers.

Fact: Trump’s geopolitical agenda remains unknown until he’s inaugurated and begins governing. Whether he’ll fulfill pledges made remains to be seen.

Terrorists continue massacring defenseless civilians in eastern and western parts of the city, including women and children. The Times and other media scoundrels ignore their war crimes – blaming Syria and Russia irresponsibly.

Throughout years of endless war and fruitless Russian diplomatic efforts for resolution, media scoundrels continue misreporting what’s ongoing.

In all US war theaters, they’re imperial agents and facilitators, abdicating their responsibility as journalists – serving as advocates for Washington’s geopolitical agenda.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected] His new book as editor and contributor is titled « Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the 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 US-Supported Terrorists Deny Medical Care to Eastern Aleppo Residents

The following text is an excerpt of a forthcoming E-Book entitled Voices From Syria, by Mark Taliano.

Taliano focusses on the broad issue of  Media Disinformation and America’s Wars: Liars Versus Truthers. According to the author, the  “Progressive Left” Has Been Coopted.

Voices From Syria is slated to be launched by Global Research Publishers in December.

*       *      *

Well-documented facts pertaining to the 9/11 wars, all supported by sustainable evidence, have barely made inroads into the collective consciousness of Western media consumers. 

The War on Syria is no exception.  Despite the presence of five years of sustainable evidence that contradicts the Western narratives, people still believe the “official” lies.

One of the more prevalent lies about the dirty war on Syria, for example, is that there are so-called “moderate rebels”.  This false cover for certain terrorists groups furnishes Western powers with pretexts for illegally arming and supporting terrorism in Syria.

Syrian resident Lilly Martin describes the crimes committed by the so-called “moderate” Free Syrian Army (FSA) on August 4, 2013, in Ballouta, a small village near Latakia, Syria:

The FSA went house to house killing everyone in their path.  Whole families were wiped out.  One pregnant woman was seized and her stomach cut open and the fetus hung in a tree.  There were many survivors, despite the fact that 220 dead bodies were later counted at the hospital in Latakia.  The survivors made their way to an empty school in Latakia and took shelter there until the village could be freed by the Syrian Arab Army on August 17, 2013.

During the sectarian massacre, 100 small children and a few females were kidnapped by the FSA.  They were taken as captives to Selma, which was and still is occupied and held by the FSA.  The children and females were tortured.  They were all held underground without sunlight.   One boy had his eyes gouged out, and another boy was shot through the head.

About 2 weeks later the FSA used those children to create a video.  They drugged the 100 children and arraigned them in poses on the floor to appear dead.  They created many videos using their captives as actors.  The video was sent via cell phone to a contact person in Damascus.  It was that person who later uploaded the famous Sarin Chemical attack video on YouTube.com

Martin explains further, that on May 7, 2014,

 after 9 months of captivity, 44 of the original 100 kidnap victims were released from Selma to a hospital in Latakia.  Their release was part of the deal which also released terrorists in the Old City section of Homs.  However, the remaining kidnap victims continue to be held in Selma.  On May 8th some of the captives began to give testimonies about their time in captivity in Selma with the FSA.  They said most of the terrorists were Syrian but that they did occasionally hear foreign languages spoken.  From other sources, we know that Selma was home to many Australian terrorists, especially from the Sydney area, which also had ties to Latakia.  Those Australians would be able to speak Arabic with a Syrian accent, and also speak English very well.

The notion that these un-Islamic murderers are somehow “moderate”, is patently absurd, yet the “Big Lie” is sustained in the West by a “consensus of ignorance” which is protected by what Prof Michel Chossudovsky describes as an “American Inquisition”. Beneath the protection of this psychological operation, the engineered enemy is Islam, and the Global War On Terrorism (GWOT) has become a brand to disguise imperial wars of aggression as “humanitarian”.

Thus, huge sums of public monies are diverted from worthwhile, domestic projects such as healthcare schools and roads, to support a criminal Project for a New American Century (PNAC) that is globalizing death, poverty, and destruction as the U.S led empire tries to impose a unilateral model of control over the world.

The U.S is said to be “exceptional”, and therefore the rightful ruler. Manifest Destiny writ large.

Dissent is suppressed within the framework of corporate media monopolies.  Predominant narratives are supported by corrupt “NGOs” – totally bereft of objectivity — and intelligence agency “fronts”. Real investigative journalism offering historical context and legitimate evidence are relegated to the fringes, far outside the domain of the broad-based “consensus of misunderstanding.”

The “Progressive Left” has been co-opted.  So-called “progressives” (presumably unwittingly) support Canada’s close relationships with Wahabbi Saudi Arabia, Apartheid Israel, and even the foreign mercenaries currently invading Syria (ie ISIS and al Nursra Front/al Qaeda, and all the “moderates”).

The foundational sources upon which the pretexts for war are built and perpetrated are taboo topics, despite longstanding evidence that the official narratives explaining the crimes of 9/11  – and the subsequent “Gladio B” operations — are flawed.  The truth is seen as “heresy”, and fact-based narratives are derided as “conspiracy theories”.

Thus, a firm foundation of lies that serves as a sanctified justification for global war and terror, remains strong.

But the stakes are high, as Western hegemony presses us closer and closer to a real prospect of widespread nuclear war.  Already, the use of nuclear weapons is being “normalized” through the introduction of “mini-nukes” into the equation, and the blurring of lines between conventional and nuclear war.

Chossudovsky explains in “Is the Bush Administration Planning a Nuclear Holocaust?|Will the US launch ‘Mini-nukes’ against Iran in Retaliation for Tehran’s ‘Non-compliance’?”  that

The Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations outlines the procedures governing the use of nuclear weapons and the nature of the relationship between nuclear and conventional war operations.

The DJNO states that the:

‘use of nuclear weapons within a [war] theater requires that nuclear and conventional plans be integrated to the greatest extent possible’ (DJNO, p 47, italics added, For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, Jan 2006 )

The implications of this ‘integration’ are far-reaching because once the decision is taken by the Commander in Chief, namely the President of the United States, to launch a joint conventional-nuclear military operation, there is a risk that tactical nuclear weapons could be used without requesting subsequent presidential approval. In this regard, execution procedures under the jurisdiction of the theater commanders pertaining to nuclear weapons are described as ‘flexible and allow for changes in the situation …’ ”

The taboos need to be lifted, and all of the repeated lies need to be contradicted.

The War on Syria is not a “civil” war; the “uprising” was not “democratic”; Assad does not “starve his own people”; Assad does not “bomb his own people”, and, of course, there are no “moderate” terrorists.

The initial uprisings were marred by foreign-backed violence perpetrated against innocent people, soldiers, and police. Peaceful grassroots protests were hijacked by these murderous foreign-backed elements (as was the case in Ukraine) – all consistent with “hybrid war” as elaborated by Andrew Korybko.

The illegal sanctions imposed by the West – which benefit the terrorists and punish Syrian citizens – coupled with terrorist practices of theft and hoarding of humanitarian aid – are responsible for the starvation.

Assad is a democratically elected reformer, and hugely popular with Syrians, not a brutal dictator. Claims that he “kills his own people” were further debunked when the so-called “Caesar photos” evidence was proven to be a fraud. Many Syrians criticize Assad for not carpet bombing terrorist occupied areas (as US occupiers did in Fallujah, for example).  Syrians sometimes refer to Assad as “Mr. Soft Heart”.

Unfortunately, though, the well-documented truth is not yet widely accepted.  We need to shatter the “Inquisition” which serves to protect the criminal cabal perpetrating and orchestrating this global catastrophe.  Truth and justice must prevail over lies and crimes.  Currently, the opposite is the case.

 

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Empire Perpetrates Its Dirty War on Syria Beneath the Protected Cover of Big Lies

Fukushima: Japan’s Second Nuclear Disaster

novembre 21st, 2016 by Sherwood Ross

In light of developing events in Japan, we bring to the attention of our readers this piece on the Fukushima disaster originally published in November 2011:

Terming Fukushima Japan’s « second massive nuclear disaster, » novelist Haruki Murakami said « this time no one dropped a bomb on us » but instead « we set the stage, we committed the crime with our own hands, we are destroying our own lands, and we are destroying our own lives. »

« While we are the victims, we are also the perpetrators. We must fix our eyes on this fact, » he continued. « If we fail to do so, we will inevitably repeat the same mistake again, somewhere else. »

Murakami, whose novels « Norwegian Wood » and « The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle, » among others, have given him a global following, made his comments in an interview with Evan Osnos which appears in the Oct. 17th issue of « The New Yorker » magazine.

Osnos writes about the Japanese response to the March 11th earthquake and the subsequent tidal waves that rocked the Fukushima Daichi Nuclear Power Station on Japan’s Pacific coast.

He quotes then Prime Minister Naoto Kan as saying that he felt « Japan was facing the possibility of a collapse. » Kan, 64, resigned last August amid widespread criticism that he had mishandled the Fukushima crisis.

As journalist Walter Brasch summarized in OpEdNews November 9th: « an earthquake measuring 9.0 on the Richter scale and the ensuing 50-foot high tsunami wave led to a meltdown of three of Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear reactors. Japan’s nuclear regulatory agency reported that 31 radioactive isotopes were released. In contrast, 16 radioactive isotopes were released from the A-bomb that hit Hiroshima Aug. 6, 1945.  The agency also reported that radioactive cesium released was almost 170 times the amount of the A-bomb, and that the release of radioactive Iodine-131 and Strontium-90 was about two to three times the level of the A-bomb. »

The Fukushima tragedy caused the operators of most of the world’s 432 nuclear power plants to reassess their safety systems, or to suspend nuclear power generation entirely. Some countries, Osnos says, earlier had suspended nuclear ops as too dangerous following the April, 1986, meltdown at the Chernobyl power plant in the Ukraine.

Soviet officials attempted to conceal the meltdown but disclosure came when its wind-borne radioactive plume tripped a monitoring device in a nuclear plant north of Stockholm. Fukushima officials were far more candid last March but the areas they said needed to be evacuated were smaller than those U.S. officials told their nationals in Japan to quit.

One casualty of the Fukushima meltdown was candor: Prime Minister Kan’s spokesman Yukio Edano said, « Let me repeat that there is no radiation leak, nor will there be a leak. » Osnos writes, « After the tsunami, Tokyo Electric barred rank-and-file employees from speaking publicly, and the ban is still in effect. » He adds that a poll late in May showed that more than 80 per cent of the population « did not believe the government’s information about the nuclear crisis. »

« The Fukushima meltdowns scattered nuclear fallout over an area the size of Chicago, » Osnos continued, and government scientists estimated total radiation released on land was about a sixth as much as at Chernobyl. In a preliminary estimate, Frank von Hippel, a Princeton University physicist, said that roughly a thousand deadly cancers may result from the Fukushima meltdowns. Luckily, significant radioactive fallout allegedly did not reach Tokyo, the world’s largest metropolitan area with 35-million inhabitants. Some 80,000 Japanese living near the plant site were forced to evacuate their homes, though, converting some lovely villages into ghost towns.

Despite all this, Japanese politicians are not about to put an end to generating nuclear power in there country.   Osnos writes, « The country would possibly close some of its oldest plants, but the rest—by one estimate, 36 of the 54 reactors—would endure. »

He quotes Economics Minister Kaoru Yosano as saying, « We thought that human beings—the Japanese—can control nuclear by our intelligence, by our reason. With this one accident, will that philosophy be discarded? I don’t think so. » He added that he expects China to build « a hundred or two hundred » nuclear power stations, concluding, « I hope our experience will be a good lesson for them. »

Maybe Fukushima will cause Japan’s nuclear owners to take warnings more seriously. Tokyo Electric in 2009 disregarded warnings by two seismologists that Fukushima Daiichi was acutely vulnerable to tsunamis. In addition, Tokyo Electric endangered the public by concealing more than half a dozen emergencies from government regulators. It had also « faked hundreds of repair records, » Osnos noted.

This pattern of deception on safety issues raises the question of how many « accidents » it will take before Japan reverses course on nuclear power. Also, aren’t those who suffer from radiation and who are driven from their homes entitled to compensation from Tokyo Electric? When a private firm with such an awesome responsibility for public health covers up emergencies and is unprepared for a disaster, isn’t it guilty of crimes against humanity?

Even absent earthquakes and tidal waves, nuclear plants pose an existential threat to humanity. Not only are vast amounts of fossil fuels burned to mine and refine the uranium for nuclear reactors, polluting the atmosphere, but nuclear plants are allowed « to emit hundreds of curies of radioactive gases and other radioactive elements into the environment every year, » Dr. Helen Caldicott, the antinuclear authority, points out in her book « Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer » (The New Press).

The thousands of tons of solid radioactive waste accumulating in the cooling pools next to those plants contain « extremely toxic elements that will inevitably pollute the environment and human food chains, a legacy that will lead to epidemics of cancer, leukemia, and genetic disease in populations living near nuclear power plants or radioactive waste facilities for many generations to come, » she writes. Countless Americans are already dead or dying as a result of our nuclear plants, a story not being effectively told.

Americans have been told there were no casualties as a result of the Three Mile Island (TMI) plant meltdown on March 28, 1979. Yet some 2,000 Harrisburg area residents settled sickness claims with operators’ General Public Utilities Corp. and Metropolitan Edison Co., the owners of TMI.

Their symptoms included nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, bleeding from the nose, a metallic taste in the mouth, hair loss, and red skin rash, typical of acute radiation sickness when people are exposed to whole-body doses of radiation around 100 rads, Caldicott said.

David Lochbaum, of the Union of Concerned Scientists, believes nuclear plant safety standards are lacking and before Fukushima predicted another nuclear catastrophe, stating, « It’s not if, but when. »

« The magnitude of the radiation generated in a nuclear power plant is almost beyond belief, » Caldicott writes. « The original uranium fuel that is subject to the fission process becomes 1 billion times more radioactive in the reactor core. A thousand-megawatt nuclear power plant contains as much long-lived radiation as that produced by the explosion of 1,000 Hiroshima-sized bombs. »

Each year, operators must remove a third of the radioactive fuel rods from their reactors because they have become contaminated with fission products. The rods are so hot they must be stored for 30 to 60 years in a heavily shielded building continuously cooled by air or water lest they burst into flame, and must afterwards be packed into a container.  « Construction of these highly specialized containers uses as much energy as construction of the original reactor itself, which is 80 gigajoules per metric ton, » Caldicott says.

What’s a big construction project, though, when you don’t have to pay for it? In the 2005 Energy Bill, Congress allocated $13 billion in subsidies to the nuclear power industry. Between 1948 and 1998, the US government showered the industry with $70 billion of taxpayer dollars for research and development —–corporate Socialism if ever there was any.

Caldicott points out there are truly green and clean alternative energy sources to nuclear power. She refers to the American plains as « the Saudi Arabia of wind, » where readily available rural land in just several Dakota counties « could produce twice the amount of electricity that the United States currently consumes. »

If we do not grab hold of such green alternatives, we, like Japan, as Murakami warned, will “repeat the same mistake again. »

Sherwood Ross is a Miami-based public relations consultant who also writes on political, social, and military topics. Reach him at [email protected]

A  smear campaign is currently underway accusing the alternative online media of producing « Fake News ». 

Our analysis confirms that the mainstream media are routinely involved in distorting the facts and turning realities upside down. 

They are the unspoken architects of « Fake News ».  

In this regard, we bring to your attention a GR March 2016 which documents how Belgium’s  TV news used « fake videos » in its report of the Brussels terrorist attacks. In fact it was a blogger who discovered that the media had broadcast video footage from a 2011 Moscow airport attack.

A subsequent GR  article confirms the use of a fake video in the news coverage of the second bomb attack in the afternoon of March 22 at the Brussels Maelbeek Metro station. The TV report (which was broadcast Worldwide) used video footage from a 2011 terror attack in Minsk, Belarus

Michel Chossudovsky, November 21, 2016

*        *        *

Fake Video Used in News Coverage of Brussels Terror Attacks

Global Research, March 22, 2016

Brussels News media Dernière Heure at dhnet.be as well as La Libre reported on the terror attacks by providing a CC Camera Airport Surveillance Video of the terror attacks. 

The published video footage was fake as documented by a blog posting on Media Part

The video pertains to a terror attack at Moscow’s Domodedovo airport on 24 January 2011 (posted on youtube in November 2013).

The  report of DHnet.be on the Brussels airport attack used the video of the Moscow 2011 attack with the date of the Brussels attack: (22/03/2016) pasted onto the Russian video.

Below is the screenshot of DH’s report.

 And the screenshot of  La Libre at http://lalibre.be,

And here is a screenshot of the January 2011 terror attack at Moscow’s Domodedova International Airport published on youtube in November 2013 followed by the full youtube video of the Moscow attack:

 

According to the BBC (January 24, 2011) report (which includes the video), the Moscow 2011 airport attack  resulted in 35 dead.

Both the DH and La Libre reports have since then been removed:

http://www.dhnet.be/recherche?query=video+

source: http://www.dhnet.be/s/vid/56f0ff8f35702a22d59d46bf

source: http://www.lalibre.be/recherche?query=video

Was it sloppy journalism or  media disinformation? Or profit? Did the Brussels media (mistakenly) rely on a fake video taken from social media or from video archives? The background audio in Russian was suppressed.

The CC camera video recordings at Brussels airport would not normally have been made available to journalists immediately after the attacks.

The video was posted on lalibre.be and dhnet.be at 9.07 am local time; the attacks took place at approximately 8am local time. The video was identified as an airport CC surveillance  video.  The timely decision to post this video indicating its source (Airport surveillance camera) was taken within less than an hour following the attacks.

Under the auspices of airport security, the video would normally have been made available to police investigators prior to a later decision to making it public.

Update

The official media through an RTL Belgique report acknowledged that the video was fake, pointing to the spreading of rumors on the internet.  What the RTL report fails to acknowledge is that the « rumor » was spread by a powerful mainstream media, which produced one of the first documented video reports within an hour of the announcement of the attacks, shortly after 8.00am. In all likelihood, they took it from their archives and inserted it into their report.

RTL Belgique at rtl.be

http://www.rtl.be/info/belgique/faits-divers/attentats-a-bruxelles-attention-aux-fausses-rumeurs-qui-circulent-sur-le-web-videos–804189.aspx

Patric Jean on his Blog on the internet (see below) saw the fallacy and accused La Dernière Heure (DH.be), one of Belgium’s largest dailies (in print and online) of deliberately digging up a fake video in its March 22 report 9.07am, –i.e. promoting sensationalism to increase profits. « I could not imagine that the editors of a national daily  would cynically publish a fake video of an attack less than an hour after its occurrence »

 

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur The « Fake News » Controversy: Mainstream Media Used Fake Videos in Coverage of March Brussels Terror Attacks

Dear Global Research Readers,

A  smear campaign is currently underway accusing the alternative and independent online media of producing « Fake News ».

Our analysis confirms that the corporate media rather than the alternative media are routinely involved in distorting the facts and turning realities upside down.  

They are the unspoken architects of « Fake News ». 

  • They deny Israeli war crimes against Palestinians,
  • they fail to mention that the US, Britain, France, Turkey and Saudi Arabia are providing covert support to both Al Qaeda and the Islamic State (ISIS-Daesh),
  • they disregard the fact that two Neo-Nazi parties are part of the Ukrainian government coalition,
  • they accuse the Syrian government of killing their own people. 

In  the words of Mark Taliano:

« The War on Syria is not a “civil” war; the “uprising” was not “democratic”; Assad does not “starve his own people”; Assad does not “bomb his own people”, and, of course, there are no “moderate” terrorists. »

The US and its allies are directly or indirectly involved in several illegal wars: Afghanistan, UkraineIraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen. These acts of military aggression are casually upheld by the mainstream media as « humanitarian wars » under the doctrine of « Responsibility to Protect (R2P).

In turn, the ongoing US-led bombing raids against Syria and Iraq resulting in countless civilian deaths are portrayed by the MSM as a « counter-terrorism campaign » against the Islamic State, which just so happens to be financed by America’s closest allies, including Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

Over the years the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and its webpage Global Research have worked to bring you cutting edge analysis and news that the is barely covered by the mainstream media.  Our objective is counter-propaganda as a means to restoring Truth in Media. We are also working to preserve the alternative media and promote voices that would otherwise go unheard.

The Centre for Research on Globalization does not seek financial support from private and public foundations or governments. This is why we value every single donation and contribution made by our readers.

Please help us reverse the tide!

In the face of mainstream media disinformation, Global Research has remained independent and continues to act as a vital information portal, and we are grateful to all those involved in this process.

Without the support of our readers, the Global Research websites would not exist in their present forms. We have been able to develop our activities thanks to the contribution of Global Research readers.

We encourage you to re-post Global Research articles.

Donate online, by mail, or by fax by clicking below

To send your donation by mail, kindly send your cheque or international money order, in US$, Can$ or Euro, made out to CRG, to our postal address:

Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)
PO Box 55019
11, Notre-Dame Ouest
Montreal, QC, H2Y 4A7
CANADA

For payment by fax, please print the credit card fax authorization form and fax your order and credit card details to Global Research at 1 514 656 5294

Become a member of Global Research

Show your support by becoming a Global Research Member
(and also find out about our FREE BOOK offer!)

Browse our books, e-books and DVDs

Visit our newly updated Online Store to learn more about our publications. Click to browse our titles:

Join us online

“Like” our FACEBOOK page and recommend us to your friends!

Subscribe to our YouTube channel for the latest videos on global issues involving places like the Gaza Strip, Ukraine, and Syria.

A note to donors in the United States:
Tax Receipts for deductible charitable contributions by US residents

Tax Receipts for deductible charitable contributions by US residents can be provided for donations to Global Research in excess of $400 through our fiscal sponsorship program. If you are a US resident and wish to make a donation of $400 or more, contact us at [email protected] (please indicate “US Donation” in the subject line) and we will send you the details. We are much indebted for your support.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur « Fake News » on Syria, Iraq, Palestine, Ukraine, Yemen: Support Global Research’s Battle against Media Disinformation

rainyday-aHaiti’s Rainy-Day Presidential Elections Without Clinton Thunder

By Dady Chery, November 21 2016

Haiti held presidential and legislative elections again on Sunday, November 20, and this alone was a minor victory. To reach this point, Haitians had to boycott three fraudulent elections and replace Michel Martelly’s dictatorial rule in February 2016 with an interim administration. This transition government has been sufficiently honest to verify the election results of October 2015. An Independent Committee for Electoral Evaluation and Verification discovered that about 70 percent of the ballots cast were fabricated.

left

The “Left” Is No Longer Left or Progressive. It Has Been Co-Opted

By Mark Taliano, November 19 2016

An effective form of suppression and control is the co-optation of the so-called “progressive left” in such a way that self-described “progressives” or “leftists” find themselves unwittingly supporting terrorism.

Climate Change

Climate Chaos Worse than the COP22 is Letting on

By Michael Welch and Dahr Jamail, November 20 2016

While the surprise victory of Donald Trump in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election has dominated headlines, the annual U.N. Climate talks were taking place in Marrakech, Morocco. Whether or not the international community through these U.N. Summits constitute an authentic response to the climate crisis, there are a number of alarming trends in evidence.

Federal-Reserve-Economy

Video: Crisis at the US Federal Reserve, End of the Washington Consensus?

By Nomi Prins and James Corbett, November 20 2016

In the multipolar world of the 21st century, the locus of economic attention is shifting toward Eurasia. And as journalist and author Nomi Prins notes, in this changing economic landscape, the dominance of the Federal Reserve and the Washington consensus is coming into question for the first time since the end of the Second World War.

Canada 300

Canada: “A Northern Power” Once Again? NAFTA, “A Monstrous Swindle”

By David Orchard, November 21 2016

Today a new US president has said he wants to renegotiate or cancel NAFTA. In response, Canadians are being treated to a great wailing and gnashing of teeth by shortsighted leaders, and an alarmist media, about the possibility of “losing NAFTA.” Thoughtful leadership would recognize an opportunity for Canada to stand on its own two feet, step out of the straitjacket of foreign control and build the only economy that offers security and independence — one that is domestically controlled.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Selected Articles: Elections in Haiti, The Co-opted « Left », Climate Change and COP22

L’élection de Donald Trump a provoqué une certaine panique dans les milieux dirigeants japonais. Le Premier ministre, Shinzo Abe, a rapidement organisé une réunion avec Trump à New York hier.

La réunion, tenue à Trump Tower à Manhattan, n’a duré que 90 minutes. Presque rien n’a filtré, car Abe a indiqué que les pourparlers étaient officieux. Selon lui, la discussion était « candide » et marquée par une « atmosphère chaleureuse », Trump était digne de confiance, et les deux se réuniraient plus tard pour des discussions « plus larges et plus profondes ».

Le ton de ses propos trahissait les inquiétudes profondes du gouvernement Abe sur la victoire de Trump. Abe avait convoqué cette réunion à la hâte, lors d’un appel téléphonique à Trump le lendemain de l’élection ; le jour avant, l’heure et l’emplacement de la réunion, ainsi que l’identité des conseillers qui y assisteraient, étaient « en suspens », selon les sources officielles.

La principale préoccupation d’Abe et de la classe politique japonaise est que, selon l’Asahi Shimbun, l’un des principaux quotidiens du pays, la victoire de Trump « constitue un énorme tremblement de terre politique qui secouera l’ordre de l’après-guerre jusqu’à la moelle ».

Les enjeux concernent les relations économiques, l’avenir du Pacte de sécurité entre le Japon et les États-Unis, le coût du stationnement des troupes américaines au Japon, si oui ou non les États-Unis continueront à soutenir le Japon dans ses conflits avec la Chine en mer de Chine orientale, ainsi qu’en mer de Chine méridionale.

La visite d’Abe à New York a été organisée dans le cadre de son voyage à la réunion du sommet de la Coopération économique Asie-Pacifique (APEC) à Lima, au Pérou, ce week-end, où la désintégration du Partenariat Trans-Pacifique (PTP) sera l’un des points clés de l’ordre du jour.

Le PTP, qui excluait la Chine, était la pierre angulaire économique du « pivot vers l’Asie » contre la Chine mené par l’Administration Obama. Il est maintenant mort et enterré. Trump a dit qu’il ne l’accepterait pas après son investiture le 20 janvier et Obama a mis au rebut des engagements antérieurs pour tenter de le faire passer au du Congrès avant que Trump prenne le pouvoir. Il abandonnait ainsi le Japon et d’autres partenaires du PTP qui l’avaient signé.

Sous la pression d’Obama, Abe s’était investi considérablement dans la tentative d’adopter le PTP, l’imposant cette semaine à la Chambre basse du Parlement japonais malgré une opposition interne. Mais cette stratégie est maintenant en lambeaux, créant des occasions pour la principal rival régional du Japon, la Chine.

S’adressant à un comité de la Chambre haute sur le PTP mardi, Abe a dit qu’à présent, l’imposition d’un accord de libre-échange soutenu par la Chine excluant les États-Unis était possible.

« Sans doute, il y aura un pivot vers le Partenariat économique régional intégré (RCEP) si le PTP n’avance pas », a-t-il dit. « Le RCEP n’inclut pas les États-Unis, faisant de la Chine l’économie ayant le plus gros produit intérieur brut qui y participerait ».

Le Japon craint que l’échec du PPT ne conduise d’autres pays de la région à renforcer leurs liens économiques avec la Chine. Le vice-ministre du Commerce de Malaisie, Ong Ka Chuan, a déclaré que son pays chercherait à compléter le RCEP après l’élection de Trump.

« Maintenant, vu la situation du PTP, on mettra l’accent sur le RCEP. Nous espérons que la conclusion du RCEP compensera beaucoup de l’impact négatif du PTP », a déclaré Ong, exprimant l’espoir que l’accord pourrait être rapidement conclu.

Le Singapour a lancé plusieurs avertissements que l’échec du passage du PTP avec les États-Unis obligerait ce pays, un grand entrepôt commercial, à envisager d’autres solutions.

Le gouvernement australien, qui forme, avec le Japon, la base des alliances américaines dans l’Asie-Pacifique, a indiqué qu’avec l’échec du PTP, il pourrait également regarder ailleurs.

Cete semaine, le ministre du Commerce, Steve Ciobo, a déclaré au Financial Times que l’Australie appuierait la proposition d’une zone de libre-échange de la région Asie-Pacifique (FTAAP), car toute mesure visant à accroître le commerce et la croissance économique est un « pas en avant dans la bonne direction ».

La FTAAP, dont on discute au sein de l’APEC depuis 2010, inclut officiellement les États-Unis. Toutefois, vu l’opposition de l’administration Trump aux accords commerciaux, il est très peu probable que les États-Unis s’y inscrivent. La Chine y jouerait donc un rôle de premier plan. Dans un commentaire publié dans l’Australian Financial Review, Ciobo a déclaré que l’Australie travaillerait en coopération avec ses partenaires sur le RCEP.

Les relations commerciales ne constituent qu’une des préoccupations d’Abe et de la classe dirigeante japonaise. Dans le cadre de la politique d’après-guerre, le Japon a affirmé ses intérêts économiques et stratégiques dans le cadre de l’alliance avec les Etats-Unis. Plus récemment, le gouvernement Abe a mis en avant plus agressivement le rôle mondial du Japon, notamment face à l’essor économique et militaire de la Chine, qu’il considère comme la plus grande menace à ses intérêts.

Mais l’élection de Trump met en cause l’ensemble de ce cadre politique, fondé sur l’alliance entre les États-Unis et le Japon, au sein de laquelle l’élite dirigeante japonaise mène sa politique économique et étrangère.

Pendant la campagne, Trump a dénoncé à plusieurs reprises le Japon comme un rival commercial et exigé que Tokyo finance intégralement le stationnement des troupes américaines sur son sol — qui coûte plus de 5,7 milliards de dollars par an — en plus des dépenses que le Japon paie déjà (environ 6,6 milliards de dollars). Selon Trump, le Traité de sécurité bilatéral serait déséquilibré. Il a dit au Japon de « nous payer » ou d’envisager de fournir ses propres moyens de défense.

C’est bien plus qu’une question d’argent. Dans un discours qui a sans doute effrayé Tokyo, Trump a déclaré à Des Moines, en août : « Savez-vous que nous avons un traité avec le Japon, où si le Japon est attaqué, nous devons utiliser toute les forces des États-Unis ? Mais si nous sommes attaqués, le Japon n’a aucune obligation. Ils peuvent rester chez eux regarder leurs télévisions Sony. Etes-vous d’accord ? », a-t-il déclaré, ajoutant les alliances doivent « aller dans les deux sens ».

L’Administration Abe, comme d’autres gouvernements dans le monde entier, n’a pas cru à la possibilité d’une victoire de Trump. Lors d’une visite en septembre aux États-Unis, Abe a rencontré Clinton, qui, en tant que secrétaire d’État d’Obama, était la force motrice derrière le « pivot vers l’Asie », et non avec Trump. Cette erreur de calcul provoqua la frénésie de la réunion Trump-Abe.

Selon Abe, l’alliance entre les États-Unis et le Japon était « la pierre angulaire de la diplomatie et de la sécurité japonaises » et que puisqu’ « une alliance s’anime seulement quand il y a confiance, », il voulait faire confiance à Trump.

Alors que les questions immédiates dans les relations entre les États-Unis et le Japon diffèrent dans le détail, il y a de nettes ressemblances à la situation dans les années 1920.

Après la Première Guerre mondiale, le Japon, qui s’était aligné avec la Grande-Bretagne et les États-Unis contre l’Allemagne, a voulu faire progresser ses intérêts économiques et stratégiques dans un contexte international de plus en plus marqué par la domination des États-Unis. Cette stratégie a failli avec le krach de Wall Street en 1929, le tournant des États-Unis vers le nationalisme économique et le protectionnisme, et l’effondrement du commerce mondial.

Après une lutte acharnée au sein des élites politiques et militaires, le Japon a lancé l’invasion de la Mandchourie en 1931, puis par l’invasion à grande échelle de la Chine en 1937, ce qui a déclenché finalement la guerre avec les États-Unis en 1941.

Aujourd’hui, toutes les contradictions qui ont mené finalement dans une période antérieure à la guerre réapparaissent, alors que le Japon fait face à la perspective d’une rupture dans son alliance stratégique clé, la montée du nationalisme économique et d’un rival régional, la Chine.

Nick Beams

Article paru d’abord en anglais, WSWS, le 18 novembre 2016

  • Posted in Francais @fr
  • Commentaires fermés sur Le Premier ministre japonais rencontre le président élu Trump

LA REVANCHE DE FRANÇOIS FILLON

Sauf à sombrer dans un comique de répétition, Nicolas Sarkozy quitte définitivement la scène publique le 20 novembre 2016 sur un échec retentissant de la dimension d’un séisme de grande magnitude, en 3me position de la primaire des partis de la droite française, loin derrière son ancien premier ministre François Fillon, qu’il a durement rudoyé durant les cinq ans de sa mandature présidentielle, derrière le chouchou de Jacques Chirac, son ancien mentor, dont il fut un brutus impitoyable.

Dans ce qui peut être interprété comme un message subliminal des électeurs à leurs représentants, la propulsion de François Fillon à la tête de la compétition a visé à saluer l’unique grand candidat de cette consultation à n’avoir pas défrayé la chronique judiciaire pour des affaires en rapport avec l’argent illicte, contrairement à Alain Juppé (affaire de l’appartement de son fils Laurent et emplois fictifs à la Marie de Paris), contrairement surtout à Nicolas Sarkozy, qui traine une batterie de casseroles en la matière (sondages de l’Elysée, financement libyen etc..).

Le choix de François Fillon, ancien lieutenant de Philippe Seguin, chef de file du gaullisme social, devrait replacer le curseur de la droite vers son centre de gravité naturel, le gaullisme, que le «sang mêlé» philosioniste Nicolas Sarkozy avait fortement déplacé vers la borne atlantiste. Sur le plan international, François Fillon, nullement impliqué au premier plan dans les guerres de prédation économique du monde arabe, contrairement à Nicolas Sarkozy (Libye) et Alain Juppé (Syrie). Si ces propos de campagne étaient confirmés, il pourrait relancer le dialogue avec la Russie sur les grands sujets d’actualité, notamment la Syrie.

En 2012, à son échec face à son rival socialiste François Hollande, Nicolas Sarkozy avait fait ses adieux à ses troupes. Les promesses, c’est bien connu, n’engagent que ceux qui y croient. Sans tirer les conséquences de son premier échec, l’erreur était humaine, mais sa répétition serait diabolique et le discrédit irréversible.

LA DALLE D’ARGENTEUIL, FATALE À SON DESTIN.

Depuis 2012 tous les candidats à la présidentielle l’ont fait, y compris Alain Juppé. Nicolas Sarkozy a calé, lui, devant l’obstacle, n’osant y retourner pour conjurer son ostracisme. Le sort dès lors en était jeté. Onze ans après la bravade du «sang mêlé» sur le lieu désormais emblématique de la «dalle d’Argenteuil», son rival post gaulliste a rendu visite, le 2 novembre 2016, à cette ville encore sous le choc de la stigmatisation, signant par la même l’échec du sarkozysme.

En tournée pré-électorale, accueilli par des insultes et des canettes vides, Nicolas Sarkozy, à l’époque ministre de l’intérieur, interpellait un interlocuteur imaginaire pour faire passer un message de fermeté: «Vous en avez assez de cette bande de racailles? On va vous en débarrasser». Deux jours plus tard, l’électrocution de deux adolescents Zyed et Bouna, à Clichy sous Bois, serviront de déclencheur des émeutes périurbaines de 2005, conduisant le gouvernement à décréter l’État d’urgence, pour la première fois en 45 ans depuis la fin de la guerre d’Algérie.

Depuis cette date, Nicolas Sarkozy était «personna non grata» dans cette cité qu’il ne s’est plus hasardé de revisiter. En 2012, lors de sa campagne pour sa réélection, Nicolas Sarkozy a buté sur l’étape d’Argenteuil, un évitement qui a tourné en sa défaveur. En 2017, la récidive lui a été fatale.
Que pouvons-nous espérer d’un président d’un pays qui n’a pas le courage de franchir le périphérique de sa capitale ?

«Casse-toi pauv’con »: La dalle d’Argenteuil était le véritable test de la crédibilité de «Bomber Sarko». Battu en 2012, l’homme avait promis de renoncer à la politique active, mais sa promesse n’a pas résisté à l’appétit du pouvoir, ses ors et ses apparats. Bye Bye Sarko, sans regrets ni remords pour le champ de ruines qu’il a laissé à son passage au pouvoir.

Retour sur ce bilan désastreux pour la France.

LA ROULETTE RUSSE.

Les Français ont joué à la roulette russe à l’élection présidentielle de Mai 2007. Nicolas Sarkozy a gagné, la France a perdu.

Propulsé au pouvoir sur fond d’un paysage international dévasté, à contretemps du momentum stratégique, en pleine déroute des États Unis en Afghanistan et en Irak (2003), et d’Israël au Liban (2006), à la veille du collapsus de l’économie occidentale, l’idole des jeunes était déjà un président à contre sens.

LE TRIOMPHE DU NÉO-PÉTAINISME

En signant son ralliement aux thèses des néoconservateurs américains par la réintégration du giron atlantiste, il mettait ainsi fin à la parenthèse gaulliste sur le plan diplomatique, et, sur le plan interne, avec l’adoption des lois sur l’exclusion sociale et le pistage génétique, le président rétrograde marquait le triomphe du néo-pétainisme.

Le délire narcissique dans lequel avait baigné la France pendant un an a débouché brutalement sur la plus grande mystification politique de l’Histoire de la V me République, avec un état de grâce le plus bref de l’Histoire, implosant le soir même de son élection avec «la nuit du Fouquet’s», le dîner groupant les plus importantes fortunes du pays, couplé d’une croisière à bord du yacht de Vincent Bolloré et du vaudeville de son couple glamour à la Kennedy qui s’achèvera par son mariage avec un mannequin people fort apprécié du Paris intellectuel et artistique, enfin, son langage de charretier dégageant un entreprenant jeune homme par un langage châtié dont il a le secret.

«Casse-toi pauvre con», est passé à la postérité comme le parfait contre-exemple du bon goût présidentiel français.

Dans l’ordre symbolique, Nicolas Sarkozy a refait l’unité de la droite sur la base des thèses de l’extrême droite pétainiste et l’apparence de la droite gaulliste. Le sarkozysme a signé ainsi la défaite du gaullisme et le triomphe du néo-pétainisme. Se réclamant du gaullisme tout en siphonnant les thèses de l’extrême droite xénophobe, le sarkozysme a purgé en fait la querelle de légitimité par le dépassement syncrétique des deux grandes familles de la droite française, dont le point d’exacerbation avait été atteint lors de la présidentielle de 2002.

Une compétition présidentielle qui avait placé les Français devant l’infamant dilemme de choisir entre un «escroc» et un «facho», deux septuagénaires vétérans politiques de l’époque de la guerre froide occupant le devant de la scène depuis près de quarante ans, les deux candidats les plus âgés, les plus fortunés et les plus décriés de la compétition, mutuellement confortés dans une campagne sécuritaire, l’un, Jacques Chirac, héritier d’un gaullisme dévoyé dans l’affairisme le plus débridé, l’autre, Jean Marie Le Pen, héritier d’un vichysme sublimé par un ancien tortionnaire de la Guerre d’Algérie.

Le premier, auteur d’une formule chauvine d’une démagogie achevée sur les «bruits et les odeurs» des familles immigrées qui ponctionnent la sécurité sociale par leur prolificité génésique, le second, auteur d’une formule d’une abomination absolue sur le «Durafour crématoire, point de détail de l’Histoire».

L’AGITÉ DU BOCAL

Sujet Médiatique Unique pendant les deux premières années de sa mandature, l’homme glanera au passage le sobriquet d’«agité du bocal».

Sous Nicolas Sarkozy, la France a vu sa notation économique dégradée, son taux de chômage explosé à 10 pour cent de la population, parallèlement à l’inflation des lois répressives (13 en cinq ans), alors que sur le plan interne, son parti, l’Union.

Pour la Majorité (UMP), a sombré dans une gigantesque farce avec le duel fratricide des deux prétendants François Fillon et Jean François Copé et le scandale de son Bygmalion sarkozyste.

Sous son mandat, la dette publique a explosé de 600 milliards d’euros, alors que, parallèlement, les cadeaux fiscaux se sont élevés à 75 milliards d’euros et que 350.000 emplois industriels ont été détruits, générant 337.000 pauvres supplémentaires.

Recordman de la hausse la plus brutale du taux de chômage depuis trente ans, sous Sarkozy, à 8,1% en 2007, le taux se situait autour de 10% en 2012, selon les prévisions de l’Insee de l’époque. La baisse des moyens consacrés à la lutte contre le chômage s’est accélérée depuis 2008 (-10,5% entre 2010 et 2011 et -11,3% entre 2011 et 2012) et certaines mesures, comme la défiscalisation des heures supplémentaires, ont eu des effets néfastes sur l’emploi en période de crise.

Sur le plan diplomatique, le projet phare de sa mandature, l’Union Pour la Méditerranée (UPM), a sombré corps et âmes du fait de la destitution de ses deux piliers sud, le tunisien Zine El Abidine Ben Ali et l’égyptien Hosni Moubarak, emportés par le vent d’est du changement.

Sa libération de la Libye a fait de ce pays un «incubateur de dictateurs», une zone de non droit absolu, débouchant sur l’instauration de la charia dans le pays et la talibanisation du Nord Mali, le pré carré africain de la France.

LE POPULISME N’EST PAS POPULAIRE

Ce président qui a fantasmé sur «les moutons que l’on égorge dans les baignoires» a néanmoins constamment quêté l’hospitalité des baignoires des palais royaux arabes, de Doha à Rabat, prenant l’initiative de stigmatiser une composante de la population pour des motifs inavoués bassement électoralistes.

A ce titre “les moutons que l’on égorge dans les baignoires” (Nicolas Sarkozy), tout comme «les bruits et les odeurs des familles immigrées» prolifiques (Jacques Chirac) demeureront une tache indélébile du discours politique français et déshonorent leurs auteurs. A n’y prendre garde, elles ouvriraient la voie à des dérives fascisantes du comportement politique français.

Bouclier fiscal, dîner au Fouquet’s avec le CAC 40 et tutti quanti. Travaillez plus pour gagner moins. Pour réfléchir moins? Le mépris du peuple. Le mépris de la souffrance du peuple.

Le populisme n’est pas populaire. Nicolas Sarkozy, dégradé, ses soutiens droitiers -Alain Delon et Jean Marie Bigard- en désertion et les symboles de la diversité en quenouille.

Plagiaire, Rama Yade, rayée des listes électorales de Colombes, puis dégagée de l’UDI. Fadela Amara, délogée de son appartement de fonction et Abdel Rahman Dahmane, des Palais de la République. Faudel renvoyé à ses fourneaux et Doc Gynéco à ses vapeurs. La banlieue n’aime pas les frimeurs et les tricheurs. Et si la diversité à la Sarkozy n’était finalement qu’un «piège à c…» et Sarkozy piégé par lui-même ?

L’ALLÉGEANCE AUX ARMES ET LE FICHIER DE LA DOUBLE NATIONALITÉ, DEUX ASPECTS D’UN MÊME PIÈGE DÉMAGOGIQUE.

L’allégeance aux armes, -la proposition de Jean François Copé, le chef de l’UMP, qui consiste pour tout candidat à la nationalité française ou tout français accédant à la majorité, de prêter un serment de loyauté à la France-, comme le fichier de la double nationalité, la proposition de Claude Goasguen, auront été les deux aspects d’un même piège de la démagogie qui se sont refermés contre ses auteurs.

Tout comme la «déchéance de nationalité» sur le socialo motoriste François Hollande.

L’allégeance aux armes a été lachée en pâture à une opinion chauffée à blanc, sans tenir compte ni des objecteurs de conscience, ni des pacifistes.

Une allégeance n’immunise pas contre la trahison. La collaboration avec l’ennemi de la France, l’Allemagne nazie, a été institutionnalisée par un Maréchal de France, lors de la Deuxième guerre mondiale. Plutôt que de légiférer à tout vent, les législateurs UMP se devaient, au préalable, de réviser leurs cours d’histoire. Plutôt que de se lancer dans une entreprise si chauvine, mettre de l’ordre chez soi: La défense du caporal binational franco israélien Gilad Shalit par la France devient dès lors caduque et, non avenue, de même que la promotion du réserviste israélien Arno Klarsfeld au poste de directeur de l’office de immigration et de l’intégration.

Pour en finir avec le double standard… et dans le même ordre d’idées, faire intervenir l’Otan en Libye en dépassement du mandat de l’ONU et opposer son veto à l’admission de la Palestine, relève de la duplicité, une forme de déloyauté à l’égard de ses propres principes fondamentaux et accentue le discrédit de son auteur.

LA CLASSE POLITIQUE FRANÇAISE, UNE STRATE PARASITAIRE

Tunisie, Maroc, Mamounia, Hammamet Djembé et Mallettes. Karachi et Clearstream. Rétro commissions et Taïwan. Alexandre Djhouri et Robert Bourgi. Ziad Takieddine et Bismuth. Financement libyen et sondages élyséens.

Bygmalion (2) et consorts. La classe politique française…une strate parasitaire et obséquieuse. «République irréprochable», claironnait Nicolas sarkozy avait de succomber à un malaise vagal, «État exemplaire d’un siècle de l’éthique», tambourinait son ancien mentor.

Honte à l’Afrique de nourrir ses bourreaux. Cinq siècles d’esclavage pour un tel résultat. Pour continuer à entretenir à grands frais l’un de ses colonisateurs les plus implacables, la France, l’un de ses tortionnaires les plus impitoyables. Sans la moindre pudeur pour les victimes de la traite négrière, de l’esclavage, des zoos ethnologiques… les bougnoules, les dogues noirs de la République?

Gabon, Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Sénégal, Guinée équatoriale. Drôle de riposte que de cracher au bassinet lorsqu’on vous crache sur la gueule. Qu’il est loin le temps béni des Mau Mau du Kenya. A vomir ces rois fainéants, dictateurs de pacotille de pays de cocagne.

La honte. Vénalité française et corruption africaine, combinaison corrosive, dégradante pour le donateur, avilissante pour le bénéficiaire: Quatre cent milliards de dollars (400 milliards) évaporés en 35 ans du continent africain vers des lieux paradisiaques, de 1970 à 2005, selon les estimations de la CNUCED (2).

POSTURE ET IMPOSTURE

Allégeance aux armes? La proposition de Jean François Copé prendrait davantage de consistance si elle était assortie d’un serment d’intégrité de la classe politique française. Mais qui trahira sa parole en premier? Le postulant ou le moralisateur?
Exception française et Pays des Droits de l’homme. Du pipeau. Ventouses et vampires plus vrais que nature, plus conformes à la réalité. En toute impunité. Sans la moindre pudeur. Travailler plus pour gagner qu’ils redisent. L’imposture absolue. Un ridicule qui tue, le signe indiscutable du déclin. Tant pis pour les fossoyeurs de la douce France.

Que l’on ne compte pas cette fois sur l’Afrique pour relever leur pays. Du balai, Erhal (dégage). Pour renvoyer à ses fadaises l’homme du discours de Dakar, spécialiste de la répétition, pas encore entré dans l’histoire.

LE MATAMORE DE LIBYE, UNE MÉTAPHORE

Quelle inversion des valeurs que de voir l’homme de la stigmatisation africaine bombait le torse, ivre de sa victoire en Libye. Une victoire à la Pyrrhus d’ailleurs qui propulse la Charia comme la principale source de législation en Libye de par la volonté de Moustapha Abdel Jalil, le protégé du philosophe médiatique Bernard Henry Lévy. Il se raconte que dans la griserie de sa victoire le nouveau Scipion l’africain se serait vanté de nouveaux exploits devant le commandant Massoud de la Cyrénaïque et de la Tripolitaine: «Dans un an l’Algérie, dans trois ans l’Iran».

Stratège d’opérette promoteur, à grand fracas, l’Union Pour la Méditerranée, une merveille de diplomatie au résultat piteux. Ses deux piliers sud, Moubarak et Ben Ali, gisant au fond de la Méditerranée.

«Dans un an l’Iran..: «Bomber Sarko» a seriné cette menace pendant cinq ans avec sa formule passée à la postérité: «la bombe ou le bombardement». Bravant ses foudres, l’Iran est parvenu, entre temps, au statut pleinement reconnu de puissance du seuil nucléaire, une puissance régionale redoutable d’efficacité en Syrie, en Irak, au Yémen, un acteur majeur de la scène internationale pendant que sarko galope encore à la recherche de sa gloire passée.

Le matamore de Libye est une métaphore. Complètement à l’Ouest: un président à contretemps, à contresens de l’histoire, le pire sinistre industriel de la France depuis l’avènement de la Vème République. Ce stratège en chambre confond le principe du désir et le principe de réalité.

A la pêche électorale, le premier président de «sang mêlé» de France sera tour à tour «gaulois». Flattant le réservoir électoraliste que représente les «Harkis», les anciens supplétifs algériens de l’armée française, il se découvrira partiellement -une chouya- «Français Musulman».

Sans craindre la contradiction, l’homme du discours négationniste de Dakar et du discours de Strasbourg se revendiquera de la filiation d’Aimé Césaire, le chantre de la négritude et du métissage, symptomatique de la confusion mentale dans laquelle il a baigné, de la démagogie dans laquelle il a plongé ses compatriotes, de son désarroi face à son bilan calamiteux, si désastreux pour la France.

La vulgarité à un tel niveau n’est pas dans la tradition de la France. «Casse toi pauv con»……La dalle d’Argenteuil, assurément, aura été la tombe de Nicolas Sarközy de Nagy-Bocsa, «karchérisé» à jamais pour le bien de la France.

Pour aller plus loin

Se référant aux estimations de la CNUCED, Me Fabrice Marchisio, avocat spécialisé dans le recouvrement d’actifs frauduleux, précise que 400 milliards de dollars ont fui l’Afrique entre 1970 et 2005 vers d’autres continents et se fondant sur les estimations de la banque Mondiale, il indique que le montant des détournements des dictateurs arabes déchus lors du «printemps arabe», Hosni Moubarak (Égypte), Zine El Abidine Ben Ali (Tunisie) et Mouammar Kadhafi (Libye) serait d’une ampleur oscillant entre 100 milliards et 200 milliards, une variation qui intègre dans ses estimations des actifs dissimulés. Me Fabrice Marchisio est membre du cabinet Asset Tracing and Recovering / Cabinet Cotti, Vivant, Marchisio and Lazurel. Interview au journal Le Figaro 12 septembre 2011.

René Naba

  • Posted in Francais @fr
  • Commentaires fermés sur Nicolas Sarkozy, un président qui n’a pas osé franchir le périphérique de sa capitale

L’ennemi public n° 1 : le système monétaire mondialisé

novembre 21st, 2016 by Jean-Yves Jézéquel

Si nous voulons trouver une solution aux problèmes graves qui nous touchent, il est tout d’abord indispensable d’avoir une vision claire et une connaissance approfondie de ces problèmes et de leur origine. Un diagnostic précis est indispensable à la prescription du remède adéquat pour une guérison possible ! Tant qu’on ne connaît pas vraiment bien le problème qui se pose pour nous, aucune résolution ne peut avoir lieu ! Il faut ajouter : connaître vraiment un problème c’est avoir déjà sa solution. Si nous n’avons pas encore trouvé les moyens de résoudre le problème qui nous colle à la peau et qui répand sa dévastation sur le monde, c’est parce que nous refusons sans doute de le regarder en face pour des raisons qu’en réalité nous connaissons tous mais dont nous ne voulons peut-être rien savoir ! Pourquoi cet aveuglement volontaire notamment des médias? Pourquoi ce silence muet sur la réalité et la propagande mensongère qui inonde l’information ainsi galvaudée? Pourquoi cette trahison collective de notre propre intelligence, de notre raison, de notre conscience ? Nous pouvons trouver la réponse à ces questions dérangeantes, car le moment est peut-être venu d’une Ère nouvelle qui s’annonce par un bouleversement planétaire devenu inévitable ou de la part des hommes ou de la part de la nature elle-même…

Ce n’est pas le triomphalisme du Capitalisme qui a provoqué la chute du communisme. Ce n’est pas Ben Laden qui a provoqué la chute du Capitalisme (et pas plus celle du WTC), c’est le capitalisme financier lui-même qui détruit l’Occident tout entier. C’est sa logique barbare qui est à l’origine de tous nos maux.

C’est à chacun d’entre nous d’être le changement que nous proposons.

Cet enchaînement meurtrier qui frappe aujourd’hui nos peuples européens et qui installe à nouveau les logiques autoritaristes, dictatoriales, fascistes, de plus en plus visibles dans l’UE, s’est déroulé en 4 étapes.

1 – La dérégulation économique et financière décrétée par les accords de la Jamaïque en 1976, à l’initiative de Thatcher et Reagan, laissant libre cours à l’ultra capitalisme ou ultra libéralisme, expliquait très naturellement que les riches, possédant un capital allaient bénéficier de revenus supplémentaires considérables. Les autres, n’ayant que leur seul travail, allaient subir la stagnation puis la régression des salaires, puisque le revenu spéculatif se suffit à lui-même tandis que la valeur travail disparaîtrait dans la logique ultra libérale. Puis, la régression des salaires allait à son tour entraîner logiquement la difficulté à accéder aux services publics et sociaux qui perdraient en conséquence leur gratuité. La précarisation, le chômage et la perte des revenus de transfert (services publics et sociaux) entraîneraient enfin le déclassement des classes moyennes.

2 – Ce déclassement devenait vite une injustice insupportable, source de colère sociale. Logiquement, le système économique et financier aurait dû être l’ennemi public N°1 à abattre. Mais, ce dernier a d’emblée situé le débat sur le plan émotionnel en attirant le regard de ces classes sociales souffrantes sur la « distinction », faisant la différence entre elles et les classes encore plus pauvres qu’elles, afin d’échapper au déclassement. Dans ce contexte de manipulation par le système, l’immigré devint alors un parfait bouc émissaire.

3 – Dans cette nouvelle situation politique et sociale, les autoritarismes et xénophobies ont trouvé un terrain favorable à leur renaissance ! On peut dire aujourd’hui que si la casse sociale n’est pas stoppée d’urgence par des hommes politiques avisés, alors nous allons tout droit vers le fascisme renaissant, tel qu’on le voit, en effet, actuellement dans la politique de répression, de surveillance à outrance, de perte des libertés fondamentales, de l’autoritarisme politique qui ignore les principes les plus élémentaires des urnes. Les peuples sont mis au « pas de l’oie » par la prolifération de lois liberticides… une pratique courante de l’Etat policier en marche vers la militarisation intensive de l’Europe et la menace de guerre nucléaire.

4 – Ces Pouvoirs, entièrement inféodés à l’idéologie ultra libérale, inspirés par la peur et la haine de l’autre qui est différent et donc menaçant, ne peuvent se maintenir à cette place dominante qu’en promotionnant des logiques guerrières et des gouvernements autoritaires. Ce processus est de nouveau en marche. On le voit particulièrement à Bruxelles.

Quant au président français, il n’hésite pas à recourir à la surveillance quasi sans limite des citoyens ; il n’hésite pas à utiliser la « menace terroriste » pour justifier la régression démocratique spectaculaire commencée avec Sarkozy ; il n’hésite pas à partir en guerre et à financer mais aussi armer les djihadistes du Front Al-Nosra devenu le Front Fateh Al-Cham faisant partie aujourd’hui de Daech ; il n’hésite pas à commanditer des crimes d’Etat réalisés par les Services Spéciaux afin de focaliser l’attention des colères sociales sur l’ennemi extérieur et bouc émissaire désigné par ce système… C’est l’exemple parfait du massacre des journalistes de Charlie Hebdo !

Que chacun prenne le temps de réfléchir et d’observer qu’un Etat soutenant, armant, formant et finançant des groupes terroristes, de manière tout à fait officielle, non dissimulée, ne peut être que le grand terroriste en chef, celui qui manipule ces factions criminelles au service de sa seule et unique raison d’être théocratique, absolutiste, ennemie de la démocratie… Le cauchemar du Pouvoir c’est la démocratie : il fait tout pour se transformer en leurre démocratique et tout pour empêcher toute naissance de ce qui est pour lui l’abomination démocratique !

Samuel Huntington, dans le « Choc des civilisations », Odile Jacob, 1997, écrit : « les problèmes de gouvernance, aujourd’hui, aux Etats-Unis, proviennent d’un excès de démocratie » ! Ce qui est fortement démocratique engendrerait donc le chaos, compris comme une défaillance de l’ordre absolu? CQFD: la démocratie n’est donc pas compatible avec le fascisme de l’ordre absolu. Serait-ce donc une sorte de régime hitlérien qui serait l’idéal recherché par la politique des Etats-Unis désirant l’imposer à tout l’Occident?!

Les économies de marché ayant pris le pas sur les Gouvernements, il est logique que ce soit alors les grandes entreprises multinationales qui fassent la pluie et le beau temps sur la société. La loi du profit est donc la loi fondamentale de cette société ultra capitaliste qui n’en a que faire de l’humain et de ses besoins fondamentaux ! Tout cela n’a rien à voir avec un « excès de démocratie » ! C’est justement le contraire : une absence de l’homme et donc de ce qui est fondamental à l’existence d’une démocratie (un peuple d’humains qui se gouverne par lui-même !)

Alain Minc n’a pas hésité à dire, dans un article du Point : « faire croire aux peuples européens qu’ils doivent être consultés à chaque grande étape de la construction européenne, est non seulement démagogique, mais criminel » ! Ce genre de déclaration est réellement étrange et provoque une certaine inquiétude lorsqu’on fait le rapprochement entre les mots « criminel » et « démocratie »…

Thomas Friedman, éditorialiste du New York Time a fait l’éloge de l’autocratie chinoise, en expliquant que l’efficacité chinoise viendrait de son Régime autocratique.

Des gouvernants techniciens ont été placés en Grèce et en Italie, chargés de mettre en application l’austérité. Les peuples ont donc été mis en demeure de payer les conséquences des dérèglements financiers : une dette fictive qui ne les concerne pas. De plus, ces techniciens sont tous liés à la banque Goldman Sachs représentant le cynisme financier le plus exacerbé de tous ces derniers temps. Si l’on choisis délibérément la logique financière plutôt que la logique démocratique, c’est dire qu’on ne veut pas la paix.

Les marchés financiers agissent à une vitesse extrême; ce sont des milliers de transactions qui se déroulent à la seconde. Les décisions sont rapides. Les Etats et les principes de démocratie ne sont pas compatibles avec ces coutumes dans lesquelles la rapidité décisionnelle est déterminante. Les Etats sont donc priés de laisser les techniciens financiers prendre les rênes du pouvoir. Et c’est ainsi que les démocraties même embryonnaires sont purement et simplement enterrées. Des régimes autoritaires prennent le relais : c’est la finance qui compte et c’est elle qui donne son avis sur tout en se passant de celui des peuples. Lorsque la « démocratie est criminelle » (Minc) c’est lorsqu’elle met en péril l’avenir doré du totalitarisme monétaire qui passe avant la fraternité humanitaire…

Au cœur de l’économie se trouve le pouvoir financier. La finance est liée à l’accoutumance euphorie et panique. Un tel système ne peut qu’être chaotique. En 1930, on a vu la période ultra capitaliste se transformer en ultra dirigisme bureaucratique, puis totalitaire avant de devenir guerrière.

Aujourd’hui, c’est exactement la même logique qui est en marche : nous marchons dans les pas déjà tracés par la crise de 1929 et cela nous conduit exactement au même point qu’on voulait pourtant à tout prix éviter, théoriquement.

Si une logique de libéralisme financier spéculateur nous a déjà conduits au chaos en 1929, pourquoi cette même logique, débridée en 1976 à la Jamaïque, aurait-elle eu désormais un autre effet que celui de nous conduire au même chaos ? Les mêmes causes produisent les mêmes effets ! En 2007/2008, la « crise » bancaire explosait à la face du monde et les contribuables devaient se transformer en « sauveurs de banques » qui se remettaient aussitôt à les piller sans vergogne ! De plus, le système financier prédateur allait exiger pour les peuples, «l’austérité». Courbant l’échine, les peuples étaient sanctionnés pour des délits commis par les banques coupables de ce malheur…

En 1963 JF. Kennedy demandait un rapport dans lequel il posait la question : « quelles conséquences aurait un système mondial fondé sur une paix durable ? »

Réponse du rapport : « En l’état actuel de nos connaissances, le système fondé sur le pouvoir de faire la guerre est trop structurant dans tous les domaines – économique, social, culturel et bien sûr militaire- pour pouvoir envisager de l’abandonner » !

Dans ce commentaire, par Kenneth Galbraith « La paix indésirable, Rapport sur l’utilité des guerres», Calmann-Lévy, 1984, on peut comprendre pourquoi les sociétés capitalistes ont un besoin vital de se fabriquer des ennemis quand la « paix menace de s’installer durablement » !

L’histoire tragique des guerres, nous avait appris à quel point un ultra libéralisme débridé n’avait pour seule « vertu » que celle de « libérer » le démon des égocentrismes d’États et des égoïsmes des personnes et des Trusts…

A Bretton Woods, du 1er au 22 juillet 1944, aux États-Unis, les grandes nations du monde entier avaient signé un accord qui fixait les règles d’une stabilité économique planétaire. Le premier problème de cet accord, venait de ce que ce sont les États-Unis qui fixaient les règles, ayant l’économie la plus forte, après avoir vendu un armement colossal aux pays alliés comme d’ailleurs à l’Allemagne nazie elle-même. Déjà, dans cette base, se trouvait le ferment d’une perversion : celle qu’on peut appeler avec Nietsche, « La volonté de puissance » et une manifestation pathologique de toute-puissance !

Ayant fixé les règles, les Américains n’étaient pas obligés de respecter leur engagement envers les comptes extérieurs.

D’ailleurs le FMI n’a jamais joué son rôle de gendarme sur les fluctuations énormes du dollar.

Une inflation spectaculaire du dollar se produisait dans les années 70, à cause d’une voracité du complexe militaro-industriel faisant son beurre avec la guerre du Viêt Nam et à cause de la course à l’espace sous emprise d’anti communisme : il fallait à tout prix devancer l’Union Soviétique.

En 1971, les Américains suspendaient la convertibilité du dollar en or. Le dollar étant la devise de référence, tous les pays étaient piégés dans ce système qui dépendait entièrement des décisions américaines. Techniquement, c’est la République Fédérale d’Allemagne qui mettra fin, la première, aux accords de Bretton Woods, justement pour échapper à cette souricière.

La régulation organisée du système international monétaire n’existait plus à partir des accords de la Jamaïque, signés le 8 janvier 1976.

Le FMI perdait aussitôt son rôle technique de gendarme en cas de dérapage.

A partir de là, tout allait dépendre des taux de variations du dollar américain. Ces variations allaient être fréquentes et extrêmement brutales.

Le fameux « Dilemme Triffin », allait démontrer que la devise du dollar ne pouvait que générer la méfiance, alors que tout reposait sur elle! Ce système n’était donc pas viable ! La dette des États-Unis passera à 356,7% du PIB en juin 2008, annonçant l’effondrement du système avec fracas. Mais, les centaines de millions de contribuables étaient là pour éponger les dégâts pendant que les profiteurs d’en haut devenaient, à l’occasion, les plus grosses fortunes du monde! Tout avait été prévu pour que les Etats ne puissent plus s’en sortir par eux-mêmes, les Banques nationales ayant été dépossédées de leur pouvoir traditionnels, en ce qui nous concerne, par les « accords » de l’Union Européenne et les pouvoirs transférés à la BCE (Banque Centrale Européenne), entièrement conçue sur le modèle de la Fed (Federal Reserve System ou Banque Centrale des USA) pour gérer un Euro entièrement calqué sur le Dollar.

Le néolibéralisme ou ultralibéralisme né avec les accords de la Jamaïque, en 1976, allait en 1980, inspirer la politique de Reagan et de Thatcher, de Pinochet et du FMI, de l’OMC et de la Banque Mondiale ainsi que de l’Union Européenne.
Cette nouvelle direction de l’économie mondiale se basera sur la dérégulation des marchés et sur une levée de toutes les contraintes, en particulier fiscales, et qui pesaient logiquement sur les initiatives privées ; la dérégulation des marchés et la levée des contraintes fiscales et autres, allaient donc se faire au nom de la liberté de l’individu et de « l’efficacité économique ».

Avec ce renforcement du libéralisme, provoquant l’avènement de l’ultra libéralisme, le résultat ne se faisait pas attendre : on obtenait très rapidement une phénoménale emprise des mécanismes du marché sur l’ensemble de la vie.

Les inégalités sociales allaient exploser et la souveraineté des États disparaître : c’est désormais, aujourd’hui, la haute Finance qui dirige la vie des sociétés, c’est elle qui fait la pluie et le beau temps, c’est elle qui autorise, permet, refuse ou condamne. Les États sont à sa merci et leur dette les met à genoux face à sa quasi divinité « révélée ».

Les Agences de notations donnent leurs bons ou mauvais points aux Etats, aux pays théoriquement « souverains », en les livrant ainsi à la turbulence des marchés et aux états d’âmes des investisseurs. Pour être bien noté, il faudra satisfaire aux lois intransigeantes de la dictature financière au service du profit pour les 20% de « profiteurs d’en haut », laissant sur place les 80% d’une population priée de se serrer la ceinture en récitant religieusement le credo du dogme de l’austérité et en allant même jusqu’à « sauver » par l’impôt le système bancaire et les tyrans « profiteurs » qui les abusent! Voilà la situation du désastre sociétal et civilisationnel qui nous concerne aujourd’hui avec ses conséquences tragiques concernant, avant tout, les pays du Sud traditionnellement pillés par l’Occident colonialiste ou néo colonialistes.

Le système monétaire international était donc créé à Bretton Woods (1944) et les grandes banques américaines avec la Fed (Federal Reserve System – Banque Centrale USA) et le BIS (Bank International Settlements, appelée aussi « la banque des banques centrales », ou « l’œil du Mordor » dont la tour est le siège à Bâle en Suisse), contrôleraient désormais l’économie mondiale : ce système monétaire ne dépendait pas de l’économie réelle des nations du monde, mais c’est l’économie réelle des nations du monde entier qui allait, à partir de ce moment là, dépendre du système monétaire mis en place par les USA ! Le ver était d’emblée dans le fruit !

Il faut donc comprendre que notre système monétaire basé sur le dollar détermine l’économie, plutôt que le contraire. En effet, c’est l’économie qui devrait faire le système monétaire. C’est l’économie d’un pays qui doit fixer le système monétaire qui s’applique à cette économie.

En constatant à quel point ce système marche sur la tête, on peut tout de suite savoir à qui profite cette aberration et pourquoi existent tant d’incohérences dans nos sociétés qui passent leur vie à lutter contre le « chômage endémique » et autres malheurs fatalement récurrents dans ces conditions!

On peut ainsi mesurer à quel point peut être dérisoire, insensée, absurde, l’imposition à coup de 49-3, d’une loi El-Khomri pour traiter le « problème » économique et l’emploi lié à l’économie ! Tant que les politiques « aveugles » qui conduisent la France et l’Union Européenne dans l’idéologie ultra libérale, seront en vigueur, nous assisterons à l’absurde, au cynisme démesuré d’un échec « programmé », volontaire, ouvertement voulu pour l’élimination d’une population devenue inutile dans cette perspective de la dictature absolue du monétaire spéculateur se suffisant à lui-même !

C’est là qu’était le mal clairement identifié et qui explique les malheurs actuels dans lesquels toutes les politiques sont enfermées, qu’elles soient de droite ou de gauche!

La solution à nos malheurs se trouve donc dans le bouleversement du système monétaire, dans une refondation de son rôle, dans une réforme complète de sa signification et de sa fonction au cœur d’une société future qui ne peut être que celle de l’émancipation de la marchandisation. A cette fin, c’est une « subversion du capitalisme » qu’il faudra réaliser pour la libération des peuples pris en otages par le système carcéral de la Finance prédatrice.

Jean-Yves Jézéquel

  • Posted in Francais @fr
  • Commentaires fermés sur L’ennemi public n° 1 : le système monétaire mondialisé

According to Israel’s Intelligence DebkaFile: « Israel, Jordan and Syria have embarked on secret discussions for the stabilization of their borders in southern Syria by restoring the status quo ante that reigned on the Golan prior to the outbreak of the Syrian civil war in 2011. »

The Debka report –which remains to be confirmed and corroborated —  quotes intelligence sources from Washington and Moscow. It is highly unlikely that Damascus would have entered into direct bilateral talks with Tel Aviv. The procedure may in fact be envisaged to encroach upon Syria’s sovereignty in the Golan heights.

According to Debka:

 » A vanguard of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) has arrived on the Syrian side of the Golan. It has taken up position at its former Fawwar Camp base 4km east of Quneitra, which it evacuated during the Syrian fighting. The main body of the force, around 1,000 UN soldiers and 70 observers, is expected soon, to take up the task of reconstituting the former demilitarized zone that separated Israel and Syria under the 1974 armistice agreement.

This DMZ runs 80km along the Hermon range up to the Lebanese border in the north and down to the Israel-Syrian-Jordanian triangle in southern Syria up to the Jordanian border. In the 25km long Golan strip, between half a kilometer and 10 deep, the IDF and Syrian army were originally limited as to the number of soldiers and types of weaponry they are allowed to maintain. The strip will revert to Syrian civil administration under UNDOF control, and the Israeli-Syrian border crossing point will be reopened in the Quneitra area under the joint supervision of UN, Israeli and Syrian officers.

The military arrangements are still in discussion and changes may be introduced to this format.

The parties with varying degrees of involvement in the restoration of the UN-controlled DMZ on the Golan border are, therefore, the incoming Trump administration, Moscow, Damascus, Amman, Abu Dhabi and Jerusalem. Russia, Jordan and the Emirates have gained relevance for the first time as a result of changes in the strategic balance engendered by the Syrian war.

To Read the complete Debka report, click here 

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur « Secret Talks » between Israel, Jordan and Syria Regarding « The Stabilization of Borders »?

Les résultats de la primaire des Républicains sont sans appel : François Fillon est largement en tête et il a toutes les chances de l’emporter le 27 novembre. C’est un nouvel échec des instituts de sondage qui, comme pour Donald Trump, ne se sont aperçus des chances de Fillon que dans les tout derniers jours. C’est surtout un énorme échec pour les médias du système qui avaient fait d’Alain Juppé leur favori et qui à présent doivent à nouveau manger leur chapeau.

Les résultats.

Les résultats quasi définitifs donnent plus de 44 % de votes à François Fillon et plus de 15 points d’avance sur Alain Juppé. Avec les ralliements de Nicolas Sarkozy (20,6 %) et de Bruno Le Maire (2,4 %) à Fillon, la tâche de Juppé, qui ne pourra compter que sur le report majoritaire des voix de Nathalie Kosciusco-Morizet (2,6 %), risque d’être insurmontable lors du second tour.

L’inconnue, ce sont les électeurs de gauche qui ont voté aux primaires de droite. Ils devraient logiquement amener toutes leurs voix à Juppé qui a un programme plus social mais tactiquement, il serait plus intéressant pour eux d’avoir une confrontation Fillon / candidat de gauche au premier tour de la présidentielle.

On attend avec impatience une déclaration de François Bayrou. S’il se rallie à Fillon et c’est sa dernière chance de survivre politiquement, il devra remanier son programme politique.

Dans ce cas, Juppé (71 ans) aurait tout intérêt à renoncer à sa candidature pour renforcer l’unité du parti et pour terminer sa carrière politique en beauté en décrochant un dernier maroquin de prestige dans un probable gouvernement sous la présidence de Fillon.

Jean-Frédéric Poisson a gagné une mention : celle de s’être fait connaître. Jean-François Copé a reçu une claque et il est inimaginable de le voir un jour dans un gouvernement Fillon après la pantalonnade de 2012.(1) Un petit pain au chocolat, cela peut coûter très cher.

Fillon et son programme.

C’est un programme assez clair : libéralisme économique et europhilie. (2)

C’est un programme qu’Alain Madelin (3,91 % à la présidentielle de 2002) ne désavouerait pas : 100 milliards d’euros d’économies en 5 ans, baisse des charges pour les entreprises, augmentation du temps de travail et recul de l’âge de la retraite. C’est tout ce que demande Bruxelles depuis longtemps.

En revanche, c’est un programme très conservateur en ce qui concerne les lois sociétales et il va à l’encontre des idées de la gauche libertarienne : adoption plénière réservée aux couples hétérosexuels, limiter la PMA aux couples hétérosexuels infertiles et interdire la GPA. Ce sont des mesures qui devraient plaire à ceux qui ont suivi la Manif pour tous.

Pour ce qui est de la sécurité, ce programme devrait plaire à ceux qui sont tentés par un vote FN : augmentation des budgets de la Sécurité, de la Défense et de la Justice, 16 000 places de prison supplémentaires, réduire l’immigration et les prestations versées aux migrants, empêcher le retour des Français partis combattre dans les rangs terroristes à l’étranger, expulser les étrangers appartenant à la mouvance terroriste (imams salafistes?) etc.

Le FN va avoir difficile à trouver sa niche à l’avenir parce que c’est ce qu’il prône depuis des années. En cas de victoire de Marine Le Pen à la présidentielle, Fillon ferait un bon Premier Ministre.

Et la présidentielle ?

Elle sera intéressante, c’est sûr : avec François Fillon, un candidat libéral à la Margaret Thatcher, Marine Le Pen, une candidate conservatrice et protectionniste et un candidat de gauche, Jean-Luc Mélenchon en défenseur des classes populaires.

La candidature d’Emmanuel Macron et celle qui sera désignée par le parti socialiste, François Hollande probablement, devraient s’annihiler avec un avantage pour François Hollande grâce au soutien prévisible des médias de gauche et à celui du parti socialiste. Ces candidatures centristes ont peu de chances de réussir à passer au second tour de la présidentielle sauf si les Républicains se divisent, ce qui est peu probable.

Il y a aussi une diversité d’opinions en ce qui concerne l’UE : Marine Le Pen et Jean-Luc Mélenchon ont des positions beaucoup plus critiques que François Fillon.

Poutine marquera un point.

Loin de moi l’idée que Vladimir Poutine manipule les élections françaises. L’éviction probable de Juppé de la course à la présidence française est une décision populaire et démocratique. Elle ouvre la voie à trois principaux candidats dont aucun n’est hostile à la Russie. Marine Le Pen est même franchement favorable à un rapprochement et c’est elle, avec son programme économique conservateur et protectionniste qui comprend des éléments sociaux qui est la plus proche du système économique russe tel qu’il semble se définir pour les prochaines années : l’autoritarisme présidentiel en moins évidement.

Après la défaite de Hillary Clinton, la France sera un nouveau pays important qui risque de se rapprocher de la Russie. Barack Obama ne sera plus là pour le pleurer. Angela Merkel finira bien isolée, surtout en cas de victoire de Marine Le Pen.

Poutine, s’il se présente à la présidentielle russe en 2018, sera largement réélu et son prestige sortira renforcé dans son pays et dans le monde.

C’est un effet inattendu de la primaire française. La probable défaite du candidat président désigné par le système et qui était le seul à vouloir continuer sur la voie « Obama » des sanctions renforce la position de Vladimir Poutine.

En conclusion et à six mois de la présidentielle, il peut encore se passer beaucoup de choses. C’est le président actuel qui tire les ficelles et qui est le maître de l’agenda. Nous savons que son but est de réussir à remporter la prochaine élection présidentielle mais sera-ce par tous les moyens ?

Ce serait une énorme surprise s’il y arrivait vu ses taux de popularité actuels.

Pierre Van Grunderbeek

 

 1.L’élection à la présidence de l’UMP de 2012 avait été très controversée. http://www.agoravox.fr/tribune-libre/article/comment-determiner-l-age-exact-d-126426

2.-https://www.fillon2017.fr/participez/15-mesures/

  • Posted in Francais @fr
  • Commentaires fermés sur Échec pour les médias français faisant d’Alain Juppé leur favori. Fillon gagne le premier tour.

On Sunday, pro-Western UN envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura made Damascus an offer it refused – dividing Aleppo, letting US-supported terrorists called “moderates” control eastern areas.

Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem slapped him down diplomatically, rejecting his outrageous proposal, saying:

We held talks Sunday morning with UN Special Envoy to Syria Staffan de Mistura and his delegation, and we expected a date for resuming the intra-Syrian dialogue, but we did not heard about that from him.

We gave three truce opportunities respectively for evacuating the residents from the eastern neighborhoods of Aleppo, but the terrorist organizations did not allow them to get out through the safe corridors identified by the state.

The idea of the self-management proposed by de Mistura in eastern Aleppo is categorically rejected.

We have not seen any desire from de Mistura to resume Syrian-Syrian dialogue. Perhaps he is waiting for a new administration in the United States or a new leadership at the United Nations” beginning January 1.

“Syria believes in a role by the United Nations that respects its Charter and the sovereignty of member states.” Representing US-led Western interests, de Mistura has other ideas.

“It is impossible to accept the presence of any Turkish soldier on the Syrian territories…Turkey hides behind terrorists in its invasion to the Syrian territories as its support to those terrorists is no longer a secret to anyone and this issue must be tackled decisively,” said al-Muallem.

We and the Russian side are in continuous coordination in the political and military fields and Russia condemns any violation of the Syrian sovereignty.

There are mutual interests between the Syrian and Iraqi armies to prevent the infiltration of ISIS terrorists from Mosul into Syria. The United States wanted to provide cover to ISIS and not eliminate it.

There are positive changes on the international arena with regard to the crisis in Syria. These changes were imposed by the steadfastness of the Syrian people with the allies in the fight against terrorism.

What we want from the next US administration is not only to stop its support for terrorists, but also to curb the states backing them.

Assad repeatedly explained his objective is totally liberating Syria from foreign-supported terrorists infesting the country. Nothing less is acceptable – nor should it be.

He knows his main adversary is America, along with NATO, Israel, Riyadh, Turkey and other regional rogue states. Support from Russia, Iran and Hezbollah is vital.

Without it, Syrian sovereignty perhaps would already be destroyed, a pro-Western puppet leader in charge, he perhaps brutally eliminated like Gaddafi.

Instead, the dynamic on the ground was changed in his favor. If Trump fulfills his pledge to ally with Russia in combating regional terrorism, mainly in Syria, for the first time since America’s rape of Yugoslavia it’s imperial agenda could change.

Is it likely? Do I expect it? Will Trump go his own way, diverging from longstanding US imperial policy? Will he be more diplomatic than belligerent?Does his America First plan mean disengaging from foreign entanglements? Does he want less adventurism?

From inception, America has been a warrior nation at home and abroad. Will Trump change its sordid tradition? It takes a giant leap of faith to believe it.

Throughout the campaign, I said no matter which wing of America’s one-party state wins, dirty business as usual will continue like always.

If Trump proves me wrong, I’ll applaud him. If not, I’ll get on his back and stay there – criticizing him relentlessly like I went at Bill and Hillary Clinton, Bush/Cheney and Obama.

The only way to defeat pure evil is by combating it without letup. It’s headquartered in Washington.

Changing of the guard won’t likely matter. Yet with two months before Trump succeeds Obama, I hope he proves me and other critics wrong.

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

His new book as editor and contributor is titled « Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the 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 Syria Rejects Eastern Aleppo « Autonomy » Run by US-Supported « Moderate » Terrorists

Quoting Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, they met briefly like “(s)hips that pass in the night, and speak (to) each other in passing.”

Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said “(a)t the beginning of the (APEC summit), they greeted each other and exchanged a couple of words.”

Their earlier meetings and discussions accomplished nothing toward achieving peace in Syria and Ukraine, nor improved bilateral relations. Washington consistently undermines Russia’s good faith efforts.

During Obama’s oval office meeting with Trump, he urged his successor to “stand up” to Russia.

The president-elect pledged more cooperative bilateral relations on combating terrorism. It remains to be seen if he’s a man of his word – or just another deceitful politician, saying one thing, doing another.

Putin is delighted to see Obama go, adversarial throughout his tenure. So-called 2009 reset with Hillary as secretary of state was farcical, achieving nothing positive.

Moscow hopes relations will improve under Trump, Putin taking no chances, hoping for the best, preparing for continued hostility if things turn out this way – his only choice given Washington’s longstanding regime change objective, wanting Russia transformed into another US vassal state.

Addressing reporters from Lima, he said Trump indicated “he is willing to normalize Russian-American relations. I told him the same.”

Proving his sincerity requires straightaway rescinding illegal sanctions – no equivocating, just do it by executive order. Failure will raise doubts about Trump’s alleged good intentions.

Both leaders plan to meet face-to-face – nothing scheduled so far. Unsurprisingly, Putin acknowledged troubling relations with Obama. “(I)t was difficult to work with each other,” he said.

He understands Russia/US relations under Trump may not change enough to matter until and unless he proves otherwise. The challenge of changing a near-century of US hostility may be more than any American president can achieve, especially one committed to “America First.”

While in Lima, Putin met with other APEC leaders on the sidelines. Most important were talks with China’s Xi Jinping, Russia’s main strategic ally.

“(W)e always have things to talk about,” said Putin. Both leaders will meet again in each other’s capitals next year. Their alliance plays a crucial role in working for global stability – unattainable under the Clintons, Bush/Cheney and Obama.

Trump has a chance to change things if willing to try. It’s hard being optimistic given America’s imperial agenda. It’s unknown what he’ll do until he begins governing.

At the onset of new US administrations, hope springs eternal, orchestrated anti-Trump protests and continued scoundrel media hostility notwithstanding.

Nearly two-and-a-half months will elapse from Trump’s triumph to when he’s inaugurated – so-called transition to form a new administration, fill numerous positions, and likely hit the ground running.

We’ll then learn if he represents disturbing continuity or a new direction. Will he change America’s role in NATO while keeping the alliance intact?

Will he use it to combat terrorism, not sovereign independent nations? Will he stop supporting ISIS, al-Qaeda, al-Nusra (al-Qaeda in Syria) and other US-created terrorist groups, used to further its imperial agenda?

Will he pursue improved bilateral relations with Russia and China, or invent reasons not to, blaming Putin and Xi instead of himself?

Will he kill anti-consumer, anti-environment, jobs-destroying TPP and TTIP, along with renegotiating NAFTA – or ending it altogether?

Will he ignore his promises to “drain the swamp…end our government corruption…(end) the special interest monopoly in Washington…(change the) rigged political establishment…mak(e) life better for working people…protecting those who have no power.”

Inevitably, politicians renege on campaign promises. Pledges most often are hollow. Ignore them. Follow Trump’s post-inauguration actions.

Domestic and geopolitical policies he pursues will be the measure of his presidency – for good or ill.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected] His new book as editor and contributor is titled « Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the 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 Putin and Obama Meet Briefly at APEC Summit. « It Was Difficult to Work with Each Other ». Trump Wants to « Normalize US-Russia Relations »

Tandis que beaucoup de médias ont spéculé que le Kremlin a eu un rôle dans la diffusion des emails de Podesta, piratés par Wikileaks – chose que Julian Assange a niée la semaine dernière – et tandis que les services de renseignement américains ont officiellement accusé des pirates soutenus par le gouvernement russe de s’ingérer dans les élections américaines, la vérité est que Vladimir Poutine est ravi du résultat de ces élections : pas tant par la chute de Hillary, que par le fait de voir l’aile forte et néo-con du Pentagone étouffée pendant les quatre prochaines années.

Suite au premier essai de Trump de reconstruire les ponts avec la Russie, le porte-parole de Poutine a suggéré que le président élu Donald Trump devrait commencer à reconstruire la relation entre les États-Unis et le Kremlin, en exhortant l’OTAN à retirer ses forces de la frontière russe. Dmitry Peskov a déclaré à Associated Press qu’une telle mesure «mènerait à une sorte de détente en Europe». Trump a loué à plusieurs reprises Poutine au cours de sa campagne et a suggéré aux États-Unis d’abandonner leur engagement envers l’alliance de l’OTAN.

Cette demande intervient à un moment où les tensions militaires entre l’OTAN et la Russie sont inquiétantes et implacables : cette semaine, nous avons signalé que l’OTAN avait mis 300 000 soldats en état d’alerte pour préparer la confrontation avec la Russie.

Peskov a déclaré dans l’interview que la présence de l’OTAN n’est pas faite pour rassurer la Russie. «Bien sûr, nous devons prendre des mesures pour contrer cela», a-t-il dit.

En outre, préparant le décor pour la position officielle de Trump sur la Crimée, dans une interview séparée avec Associated Press jeudi, Peskov a insisté pour dire que la Crimée, qui est devenue partie de la Russie après le coup d’État présidentiel en Ukraine sponsorisé par la CIA en 2014, restera au sein de l’État russe. «Personne en Russie – jamais – ne sera prêt à entamer une quelconque discussion sur la Crimée», a-t-il déclaré, refusant de l’appeler une annexion.

Lorsqu’on lui a demandé comment Trump pourrait aborder la question de la Crimée, cité par The Hill, Peskov a dit que cela prendrait du temps. «Nous comprenons qu’il faudra du temps pour que nos partenaires en Europe et aux États-Unis comprennent cela. Nous sommes assez patients pour attendre que cette compréhension se fasse, ici à Washington, aux États-Unis, et en Europe.»

Mais alors que la question de la Crimée est largement discutable, avec l’Occident résigné à sa concession à Moscou, la crainte que Trump suive effectivement les conseils de la Russie sur la réduction de la pression de l’Alliance à ses frontières ou, pire, retire le soutien américain, a carrément provoqué la panique. Selon le magazine allemand Der Spiegel, les stratèges de l’OTAN prévoient un scénario dans lequel Trump ordonnerait aux troupes américaines de quitter l’Europe.

Der Spiegel ajoute que des stratèges du secrétaire général de l’OTAN, Jens Stoltenberg, ont rédigé un rapport secret qui inclut le pire scénario, dans lequel Trump ordonne aux troupes américaines de se retirer d’Europe, en mettant en œuvre sa menace de moins impliquer Washington dans la sécurité européenne.

«Pour la première fois, la sortie américaine de l’OTAN est devenue une menace» qui signifierait la fin du bloc, a déclaré un officier allemand de l’OTAN au magazine. Il a également suggéré que sous son administration, les États-Unis pourraient refuser de venir au secours des alliés de l’OTAN, à moins qu’ils ne «payent leurs factures et respectent leurs obligations envers nous».

Bien sûr, c’est le même Der Spiegel qui, après la victoire de Trump, a prédit la fin du monde.

La fin du monde (que nous connaissons)

 

«Nous vivons un moment sans précédent, de grande incertitude dans la relation transatlantique», a déclaré Wolfgang Ischinger, ancien ambassadeur d’Allemagne à Washington et chef de la prestigieuse Conférence de Munich sur la sécurité. En critiquant la défense collective, Trump a mis en doute le pilier fondamental de l’OTAN dans son ensemble, a ajouté Ischinger.

Par ailleurs, en remettant en question le pilier de base qui est derrière les provocations sans fin de l’OTAN et l’accumulation de troupes à la frontière de la Russie, Trump peut empêcher la troisième guerre mondiale.

L’OTAN exige que l’on suive sa voie et pas une autre, c’est pourquoi Ischinger demande au président élu de rassurer ses alliés européens, avant son investiture, sur le fait qu’il restera ferme dans l’engagement des États-Unis au titre de l’article 5 de la Charte de l’OTAN. [Aide mutuelle en cas de conflit]

Ce n’était pas la seule critique lancée contre Trump par l’alliance militaire : plus tôt cette semaine, Stoltenberg a éreinté l’ordre du jour de Trump, disant : «Tous les alliés ont pris l’engagement solennel de se défendre. C’est quelque chose d’absolument inconditionnel.» Peut-être cet engagement ne dépend-il que de la présence, dans le bureau ovale, d’un président qui met les intérêts du complexe militaro-industriel avant ceux du peuple américain, par exemple ?

La panique de l’OTAN a tellement grandi que, de crainte que Trump n’apparaisse pas à Bruxelles, même après son investiture, l’OTAN a réorganisé son sommet – qui devait avoir lieu début 2017 – le repoussant à l’été prochain, a déclaré Der Spiegel.

Le rapport de l’OTAN reflète aussi les humeurs actuelles au sein de l’establishment européen, après que Jean-Claude Juncker, président de la Commission européenne, a demandé aux États membres de construire une force armée européenne. Washington «n’assurera pas la sécurité des Européens à long terme […] nous devons le faire nous-mêmes», a-t-il soutenu jeudi. Parce qu’il ne faut pas s’attendre à ce que les troupes grecques donnent leur vie pour défendre les citoyens allemands et vice-versa.

En attendant, Der Spiegel admet que, nonobstant la rage de l’OTAN, Trump a tous les atouts en main, et s’il est sérieux quand il veut réduire le nombre de troupes américaines stationnées en Europe, les grands pays de l’OTAN comme l’Allemagne ont peu à offrir. Même les forces armées des grands États membres n’ont pas d’unités capables de remplacer les Américains, ce qui peut provoquer un débat sur le renforcement du bras nucléaire de l’OTAN, question délicate dans la plupart des pays européens pour des raisons domestiques.

Comment Trump répondra-t-il ? Ce n’est pas clair : alors que, dans sa rhétorique préélectorale, Trump a poussé pour un programme anti-interventionniste, et a certainement fait comprendre que l’OTAN serait faible sous sa présidence, il reste à voir comme son équipe de transition élabore actuellement les spécificités assez vagues de sa politique. Nous ne serions pas étonnés du tout de constater que, malgré toutes les postures anti-establishment, le «gouvernement de l’ombre» – maintenant entre les mains du clan Bush, contre lequel Ron Paul avait précédemment mis en garde – parvienne à restaurer sa domination et, loin d’apporter une détente, la position de Trump n’encourage l’OTAN à mettre encore plus de pression sur Poutine. Nous serions ravis que notre cynisme se révèle erroné à cette occasion.

Tyler Durden

Article original en anglais :

 

russia-nato

NATO Panics as Putin Urges Trump to Force Alliance Withdrawal from Russian Border

Traduit par JJ pour le Saker Frrancophone

  • Posted in Francais @fr
  • Commentaires fermés sur L’OTAN panique après que Poutine ait mis la pression sur Trump pour qu’il retire les forces de l’Alliance de la frontière russe

Trump Begins Selecting Ultra-Right Cabinet

novembre 21st, 2016 by Patrick Martin

President-elect Donald Trump announced his first two cabinet nominations Friday, as well as the selection of his national security adviser. The three appointments—Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama for attorney general, retired General Michael Flynn for national security adviser, and Representative Mike Pompeo for CIA director—underscore the ultra-right, militaristic and anti-democratic character of the new Republican administration.

Trump has been encouraged by the response of the Democratic Party to the election to press forward with an extremely right-wing agenda, confident that he will encounter no significant political opposition.

In the 10 days since the election, leading Democrats have, in succession, come out to wish Trump well and pledge to work with him in implementing key elements of his nationalist policy.

Trump’s selection for “chief strategist” of Stephen Bannon, the former head of Breitbart News, which has ties to fascistic and white nationalist organizations, has been largely dropped by the Democrats and the media. Trump’s government appointments, while drawn from the political and military establishment, are generally along the same line.

For attorney general, who supervises both the FBI and the Civil Rights division of the Justice Department, Trump has selected Senator Sessions, (left) an extreme-right figure best known because his nomination as a federal judge was rejected by a Republican-controlled Senate 30 years ago due his racist sympathies.

The foremost qualification for Sessions to be the chief law enforcement officer of the United States is his loyalty to Trump, whose vast business empire is mired in scandal and litigation, making his administration a ripe target for investigations into corruption and conflicts of interest.

Sessions was the first Republican senator to endorse Trump’s campaign for the presidency, and the only one to offer support until Trump had effectively clinched the Republican nomination.

Born in Selma, Alabama in 1946, Sessions was 18 at the time of the famous civil rights march there, led by Martin Luther King Jr. and John Lewis. He graduated from Huntingdon College in 1969, and then the University of Alabama law school in 1973, soon joining the US attorney’s office in Mobile. In 1981, Ronald Reagan named him US attorney for the southern district of Alabama, a position he held for 12 years.

During this period, Sessions carried out a notorious witch-hunting prosecution of three veteran civil rights workers, Albert and Evelyn Turner, and Spencer Pogue, charging them with vote fraud under a section of the Voting Rights Act, because of their efforts to register elderly rural black voters. The three were brought to trial, but a racially mixed jury unanimously acquitted them of all charges after deliberating only three hours. Four months after this legal farce, Reagan nominated Sessions to fill a vacant position on the US District Court.

Four co-workers of Sessions from the Justice Department testified to racist comments, ranging from favorable references to the Ku Klux Klan to calling a black attorney “boy” during an office discussion. Sessions admitted to describing both the NAACP and the American Civil Liberties Union as “un-American” and “communist.” The political uproar was so strong that a Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee ultimately refused to bring his nomination to the floor of the Senate for a vote.

While denied a judgeship, Sessions continued as US attorney and built a political career on the alleged snub, which became a cause célèbre for southern racists. He ran for Alabama state attorney general in 1994 and won, then ran for a vacant US Senate seat in 1996, winning first the Republican primary and then the general election. He has been reelected three times, in his last campaign, in 2014, running unopposed, without even a token Democratic challenger.

Sessions has been one of the most consistently reactionary figures in the US Senate, particularly in relation to immigration. He once told the publication Roll Call that “nativist” was a perfectly acceptable description of his viewpoint. His hardline opposition to both legal and illegal immigration was apparently the basis for his early enthusiasm for the Trump campaign.

More recently, he criticized the finding by FBI Director James Comey that Hillary Clinton had committed no crime in her use of a private email server while secretary of state. As attorney general, Sessions would be Comey’s direct superior and could order him to reopen the Clinton investigation, or appoint a special prosecutor, as Trump has suggested.

If confirmed, Sessions would be the first Republican attorney general from the Deep South since the Southern segregationists moved en masse into the Republican Party after the civil rights reforms of the 1960s.

In the person of retired Lieutenant-General Michael Flynn (right), Trump has put a former military intelligence officer in charge of coordinating foreign and military policy, a clear indication that a Trump administration will engage in even more ferocious military aggression than its Democratic predecessor.

A registered Democrat from a middle-class family in Rhode Island, Flynn entered the military from an ROTC program, not from West Point, and specialized in military intelligence. He was associated particularly with the Special Forces assassination campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last 15 years.

Flynn clashed with the Obama administration in 2014 and was fired by the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper because of his insistence on portraying the conflict with Al Qaeda and later ISIS as a war against Muslims. According to press reports, his obsession led to espousing what subordinates called “Flynn facts,” assertions that bore no relation to reality but bolstered the concept that the US was engaged in a “world war” against Islamist militants.

Like Sessions, a major qualification for Flynn is unconditional loyalty to Trump. He signed on early as an adviser on national security issues, backing Trump throughout a campaign in which virtually the entire military-intelligence apparatus, including most Republican specialists in this area, supported Hillary Clinton.

He has since evinced a deepening obsession with the conflict with Islam, claiming that sharia, a form of Islamic law, is spreading across the United States, and that the Obama administration has failed to fight the spread of ISIS because it refuses to use the term “radical Islamic terrorism” to characterize the threat.

According to one press account, Flynn appeared before a right-wing group in Texas last summer and declared, “I don’t see Islam as a religion. I see it as a political ideology.” He continued, arguing that Islam will “mask itself as a religion globally, especially in the West and especially in the United States… Because it can hide itself and protect itself behind what we call freedom of religion.”

Flynn has backed Trump’s declarations in support of torture, including waterboarding, saying in one interview that he was a “believer in leaving as many options on the table right up until the last possible minute.” Most notoriously, he delivered an anti-Clinton, anti-Obama diatribe at the Republican National Convention, during which delegates began chanting, “Lock her up. Lock her up.” Flynn joined in.

For CIA director, Trump has chosen Republican Representative Mike Pompeo (left) of Kansas, a three-term congressman from Wichita with close ties to the billionaire Koch brothers, whose Koch Industries holding company is headquartered there.

A West Point graduate, Pompeo served in an armored unit of the Army from 1986 to 1991, but was not deployed in combat. After leaving the military, he launched an aerospace components manufacturer in southern California, which eventually relocated to Wichita, Kansas, a center of light aircraft manufacturing. There Pompeo began his political career in 2010, running to succeed an incumbent Republican who stepped down to run for US Senate.

His first campaign was notable because he baited his Democratic opponent, Raj Goyle, the US-born son of Indian immigrant doctors, with billboards urging, “Vote American, Vote Pompeo.” Supporters distributed scurrilous attacks on Goyle as a “turban topper” and non-Christian, in area that has long been a hotbed of religious right activity centered on attacks on local abortion providers.

Pompeo supported Senator Marco Rubio in the Republican presidential primaries, only endorsing Trump after Rubio withdrew. Unlike Sessions and Flynn, his political connection to the new administration is vice president-elect Mike Pence, not Trump himself. Pompeo and Pence served in Congress together from 2010 to 2014, and developed a political rapport as part of the most conservative faction of the House Republican majority.

Throughout his six years in the House, Pompeo has stood for the most militaristic and anti-democratic policies, backing the illegal bulk data collection by the National Security Agency when it was exposed by Edward Snowden. He is a member of the House Intelligence Committee and was also chosen to serve on the House Select Committee on Benghazi, set up by the House Republican leadership to undermine the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton.

After the Boston Marathon bombing in 2013, Pompeo denounced Muslim clerical leaders for encouraging such attacks. He also stridently denounced the six-nation Iran nuclear deal, claiming that the Obama administration had surrendered to “the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism.” On the eve of his nomination to head the CIA, he went on Twitter to declare his determination to terminate the agreement with Teheran.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Trump Begins Selecting Ultra-Right Cabinet

Hier, François Fillon et Alain Juppé ont remporté le premier tour de la primaire des Républicains (LR). Ils s’affronteront donc d’ici une semaine au second tour, dont le vainqueur deviendra candidat de LR aux élections présidentielles d’avril-mai 2017.

La remontée inattendue de Fillon, qui a été longtemps le troisième voire le quatrième candidat LR, a repoussé à la troisième place l’ancien Président Nicolas Sarkozy, qui est éliminé avec 20,6 pourcent des voix. Fillon a remporté environ 44,2 pour cent, dépassant largement Alain Juppé, qui a recueilli 28,6 pour cent.

Les autres candidats, Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet, Bruno Le Maire, Jean-Frédéric Poisson et Jean-François Copé ont remporté entre eux moins de 8 pourcent des voix.

Sarkozy a reconnu sa défaite depuis son quartier général de campagne, ainsi que Le Maire. Tous deux ont appelé à voter pour Fillon au second tour.

La participation au scrutin a été substantielle, car environ 4 millions d’électeurs s’étaient déplacés pour aller voter. Ce taux de participation a largement dépassé celui de la primaire du Parti Socialiste (PS) en 2011, où 2,6 millions d’électeurs étaient allés aux bureaux de vote afin de sélectionner le président actuel, François Hollande, en tant que candidat PS.

Le PS étant profondément affaibli par la vaste impopularité du programme d’austérité et de guerre de Hollande, les médias ont présenté les primaires LR comme le scrutin qui choisirait le candidat qui s’affrontera à Marine Le Pen du Front national (FN) au second tour des présidentielles en 2017. Ceci a sans doute joué pour beaucoup dans la hausse significative de la participation aux primaires.

En plus, les primaires LR se sont déroulées sous le coup de l’élection surprise de Donald Trump, un peu plus d’une semaine auparavant, en tant que président des Etats-Unis.

Après avoir été à la traîne par rapport à Juppé et Sarkozy pendant la plupart de la campagne, Fillon a peu à peu gagné du soutien au mois d’octobre, enregistrant une progression de 10 points en cinq semaines, de 12 pour cent d’intentions de vote à 22 pour cent au début de novembre. Après la victoire de Trump, un peu plus d’une semaine avant le scrutin en France, Fillon a fait un gros bond en avant dans les sondages, dépassant Juppé et Sarkozy avec 30 pourcent du vote prévu, comparé à 29 pourcent pour ces deux derniers, selon un sondage Ipsos.

Lors du dernier débat télévisé de la primaire de la droite, de jeudi 17 novembre, Fillon a été jugé « le plus convaincant » par deux sondages.

La progression de Fillon est venue principalement aux dépens d’Alain Juppé, qui les sondages donnaient systématiquement gagnant en octobre.

Juppé et Sarkozy sont tous les deux des candidats qui ont dirigé des gouvernements discrédités. Juppé est étroitement associé à la réforme ultralibérale qu’il a menée en tant de premier ministre sous le président Jacques Chirac, le « plan Juppé », qui a provoqué une vaste vague de grèves en 1995 pour défendre les retraites et la sécurité sociale.

Suite à l’élection de Trump, Juppé a rejeté toute affirmation selon laquelle il existe un « clivage » entre les peuples et les élites, expression qui avait servi de cri de ralliement à Sarkozy tout au long de sa campagne.

Dans une affirmation qui démontrait son hostilité aristocratique envers les masses, Juppé a dénoncé l’idée même qu’il existerait un gouffre sociale entre les masses laborieuses et les élites comme une «idiotie ». Il a ajouté : « On a besoin d’élites, c’est elles qui nous tirent vers le haut.»

Sarkozy, quant à lui, a vanté l’élection de Trump comme une validation de sa propre prétention à être le candidat de la « majorité silencieuse » et comme une victoire pour la démocratie et « l’écoute des peuples ». Trump n’est guère populaire en France, et ce soutien de Trump par Sarkozy a probablement contribué à l’élimination de ce dernier au premier tour.

Sarkozy a explicitement axé sa campagne sur la stigmatisation des musulmans, et aussi parfois en faisant des clins d’oeil à Moscou ; sa candidature était visiblement proche du FN.

Alors que le FN passera presque certainement au second tour des présidentielles, vu l’impopularité et le discrédit du PS, la tentative de sélectionner d’un candidat qui aura la meilleure chance de battre Marine Le Pen au second tour a sans doute pesé pour beaucoup dans les choix des électeurs LR. En tant que candidat moins ouvertement dédaigneux des électeurs que Juppé, et moins agressivement lié à la droite nationaliste que Sarkozy, Fillon a pu par son profil médiatique plus bas tirer profit des difficultés de ses rivaux.

Toutefois, le programme de Fillon démontre avant tout que tous les candidats LR et toute la classe dirigeante se préparent à mener une guerre sociale contre la classe ouvrière.

Le programme de Fillon n’a guère de différences significatives avec celui de Sarkozy. Il veut lancer des attaques massives contre les droits de la classe ouvrière, y compris des réductions d’emplois dans le secteur public, une diminution drastique des impôts pour les entreprises et les couches les plus riches et le renforcement de pouvoirs répressifs de la police.

La nature des mesures proposées par Fillon et Juppé doivent servir d’avertissement aux travailleurs. Après les guerres, les mesures d’austérité, et les politiques d’Etat policier sous Hollande, les milieux dirigeants préparent encore une série d’attaques profondes contre la classe ouvrière.

Fillon et Juppé soutiennent tous deux les attaques contre les droits sociaux des travailleurs et les mesures d’Etat policier, telles que l’état d’urgence actuel.

Face à l’opposition immense à l’austérité dans la population française, le fait que les candidats LR avancent un programme aussi ouvertement antiouvrier renforcera sans doute le FN et Le Pen.

Le FN cherchera à tirer profit de leur promotion unanime de politiques réactionnaires afin de présenter sa campagne démagogiquement comme étant la seule à mener une lutte contre les hommes politiques traditionnels et les élites dirigeantes.

Alice Laurençon

  • Posted in Francais @fr
  • Commentaires fermés sur Fillon et Juppé avancent au second tour de la primaire de la droite en France

Haiti held presidential and legislative elections again on Sunday, November 20, and this alone was a minor victory. To reach this point, Haitians had to boycott three fraudulent elections and replace Michel Martelly’s dictatorial rule in February 2016 with an interim administration.

This transition government has been sufficiently honest to verify the election results of October 2015. An Independent Committee for Electoral Evaluation and Verification (Commission Indépendante d’Evaluation et de Vérification Electorale, CIEVE) discovered that zombies had cast about 70 percent of the ballots.

In other words, in elections that were reported to have had a 25 percent turnout, the real participation was only 6 percent of the eligible 6.2 million voters, and the rest of the voters were fabricated! Ironically, our zombies were not the shuffling Haitian kind, but ballot-stuffing international observers.

rainyday-b

The interim government took to heart the recommendations of CIEVE to repeat the elections and remove foreign influence from them. Haiti raised $48 million on its own for these elections. The country seemed on a smooth path to a free-and-fair plebiscite until category-four Hurricane Matthew made landfall in southwest Haiti six days before the scheduled date of October 9. The elections had to be postponed.

rainyday-c

Contrary to predictions, the main problems of the post-hurricane elections have had little to do with the damage to the polling stations. The claims in the media of massive damage to these stations have been greatly exaggerated and used to pressure the government to seek more money for the elections. The United States has assisted Haiti’s elections again, through the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), for some unspecified sum, with rebuilding its polling stations. Other concerns include: an opaque new method of vote tabulation that was announced only on November 16 by Haiti’s Interim Electoral Council (Conseil Electoral Provisoire, CEP); claims from human rights organizations and political parties that foreigners will tabulate the election results; journalist reports that many citizens were not granted their national identification cards (Carte d’Identification Nationale,CIN), which were required for voting; police reports that some individuals possessed large sets of CINs; and finally, the rains that have battered Haiti, and caused floods especially in the north, throughout the month of November.

rainyday-d

Haitians are trying to mend the political unraveling of the country since the cholera elections of 2010-11 spewed out the vulgar musician Michel Martelly. According to Wikileaks Clinton e-mails, top aide Chery Mills advised her boss, United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, to go to Haiti to demand a change in the results of the first-round November 2010 elections, all the while publicly extolling the US partnership with Haiti.

To remove popular candidate Jude Celestin from the race, the Organization of American States (OAS) changed its vote-tabulation method to discard most of the votes that had been cast for him. Clinton and Mills got, as the second-round candidates, the “MMs” they wanted: Mirlande Manigat and Michel Martelly. Of course, Michel Martelly won.

A man walks past billboards calling on people to participate in elections in Port au Prince on March 20, 2011. Haitians headed to the polls for the final round of elections. Photo Victoria Hazou UN/MINUSTAH

With the full support of Bill and Hillary Clinton, by the fifth anniversary of the earthquake in January 2015, Haiti had become a cholera kleptocracy. About $13 billion of aid money had been laundered through the country, leaving Port-au-Prince unreconstructed. The parliament had dissolved from neglect, because no local or legislative elections had been held in four years.

All the mayors and other elected local officials had been replaced by so-called interim agents, many of them known criminals, who answered directly to Martelly. Public outcry and massive protests at the state of affairs forced Martelly in spring 2015 to organize legislative, local, and presidential elections in August and October 2015, but as we learned, these elections were rigged.

rainyday-f

On November 20, 2016 Haitians went to the polls to elect 16 out of 30 senators and considered 27 presidential candidates, the top four of whom are:

(1) Jude Celestin, a mechanical engineer and the former executive director of Haiti’s construction ministry, the National Center of Equipment. He is the man who was personally removed by Hillary Clinton from the election of March 2011, and who, in 2016, led the movement to boycott any new elections that did not first verify the results of October 2015.

searching-the-list-a

(2) Moise Jean Charles, previously Haiti’s Senator for the North Department. The North is the site of Haiti’s gold mines and an area in which Hillary Clinton’s brother Tony Rodham continues to have great financial interest. For years, Moise Jean Charles kept Martelly in check by his work in the Senate and by organizing countless protests against Martelly, the Clintons’ corrupt Interim Haiti Recovery Commission (IHRC), and the United Nations military occupation.

observer-diaspora-a

(3) Maryse Narcisse, a former minister of public health who is supported by former president Jean-Bertrand Aristide. In principle, she should have massive support because of her association with the Lavalas party, but in fact her support base is quite small, now that Lavalas has splintered into several parties and her part of it is the smallest. Narcisse has kept mostly silent during the Martelly administration except for occasional commemorations of Lavalas events.

martelly-vote-a

(4) Jovenel Moise, a rich banana farmer who was unknown until he ran for president. He is the candidate favored by Martelly and the international community. Coincidentally, he and his party, a personality cult called Haitian Party of the Bald Heads (Pati Haiti Tet Kale, PHTK) were also those that the fraudulent October 2015 elections had favored.

petionville-empty-a

The voter turnout was still low this time around, although a larger fraction of Haiti’s voters went to the polls. In the northern city of Cap Haitien, many people lined up under umbrellas in the rain. More than 4,200 accredited Haitian observers were deployed to monitor the voting centers, inside and out, and over 12,000 police officers provided security. Despite its tainted past, the OAS also had its own 130 observers, led by the Uruguayan Ambassador Juan Raul Pereira, and U.N. troops were there too. As the polls were closing, a suspicious electrical blackout blanketed the city of Port-au-Prince and most of the country in darkness. Nevertheless, the US, OAS, and UN immediately congratulated the country on its well-organized, peaceful elections.

This should be worrisome, because in the past such statements have always been coded language for “the fix is in.” One candidate for president, Jovenel Moise, is alleged to have distributed red roofing materials in exchange for votes. The pollsters have also been on his side, with some polls predicting that he will win more than 50 percent of the votes in the first round. Should this happen, Haiti will probably explode in massive riots when the election results are announced. On the other hand, if somehow the elections manage to be reasonably free and fair, the two top candidates will probably be Jude Celestin and Moise Jean Charles, but neither of them will get more than 50 percent of the votes, and the presidency will be decided in second-round elections on January 29, 2017.

rainyday-h

Dady Chery is the author of We Have Dared to Be Free: Haiti’s Struggle Against Occupation | Photographs seven to ten from @gaetantguevara.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Haiti’s Rainy-Day Presidential Elections Without Clinton Thunder

Citizens United, the nonprofit organization that brought the U.S. Supreme Court case that has unleashed unlimited corporate spending in elections, sent three of its top strategists to run the Donald Trump campaign in its floundering days of 2016. Here’s the timeline:

On July 11, 2016, the Trump campaign announced that it had “enlisted the services of Bryan Lanza, who will serve as the Deputy Communications Director for Surrogates. Mr. Lanza’s focus will be on organizing and mobilizing Trump supporters in an effective way that allows Mr. Trump’s America First message to resonate with voters.” Lanza came from Citizens United where he had been Communications Director.

On August 17, 2016, the New York Times reported that Steve Bannon would become Chief Executive of the Trump campaign. The article focused on Bannon’s role at Breitbart News but Bannon was the long-tenured filmmaker for Citizens United, making right-wing documentaries like “Fire from the Heartland,” a glowing tribute to Michele Bachmann; “The Undefeated,” about Sarah Palin; “Generation Zero,” blaming the 2008 financial crash on liberals; “Occupy Unmasked,” portraying the young people attempting to remove their democracy from the iron grip of the one percent as sinister criminals; and “The Hope and the Change,” showing Democrats’ disillusionment with the campaign promises of Barack Obama, which is certainly a valid concern for progressives. (Bannon has now been named Chief Strategist to Trump in the White House.)

Two weeks later, on September 1, 2016, the Washington Post announced that David Bossie, President of Citizens United, had been named Trump’s Deputy Campaign Manager.

Three men coming from a nonprofit that refuses to reveal its donors and effectively ushered in a corporate takeover of U.S. elections doesn’t seem to correlate with a President-elect who promised to “drain the swamp” in Washington and become the champion of the working class.

Another name set off alarms here at Wall Street On Parade. The “Occupy Unmasked” documentary shows in its credits that it was produced by David Bossie; that it is a “film by Stephen K. Bannon”; and then the name of David Horowitz is prominently displayed in the trailer credits without mention of his role. David Horowitz played a major role in promoting a propaganda film produced in 2008 to fan the flames of hate against Muslims – a film that was secretly funded by a Charles Koch affiliated group. 

Read complete Wall Street on Parade article

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur The Right Wing Group Behind Donald Trump’s Rise Aims to Keep Fear Alive

Ringing the freshly elected to congratulate them is the normal course of affairs for world leaders.  Donald Trump, as he has done with so much in the political parlour, upended that matter by baffling those who felt adding him to their phonebook would not be required.  Being the dangerous fool that he was made out to be, he was surely, in the oft used word of the Clintons and President Barack Obama, “unelectable”.

Having made a bet that the status quo would prevail with Hillary Clinton, Australian prime minister Malcolm Turnbull paid scant regard to making sure he had Trump’s contact details handy.  To do that would have shown acceptance of a black swan theory of US politics.

After November 8, a new state of affairs had come into play. How would this proud ally, and more appropriately servant, of US interests in the Asia-Pacific area and beyond contact the future US President?

The circumstances were pressing, and a delivering agent was sought.  Former Australian golfer Greg Norman became the interceding medium, suggesting that golf diplomacy would be the way to go. Fittingly, Australia’s own designated “Great White Shark”, Norman’s career title, would initiate contact with the Black Swan of US presidential politics.

Norman, Australia’s former golfing supremo and well acquainted with Trump, also an avid investor in the golf circuit, had suddenly become politically relevant. The other side of this was equally true: celebrity had become a politicised endeavour. In Trumpland, the value of celebrity as a political asset grows exponentially. The bookish expert, by way of comparison, diminishes.

The incident created a state of exaggerated importance on Turnbull’s part. According to Reuters (Nov 17), “The connection enabled Turnbull to jump the line of world leaders waiting to get the new US leader on the phone, well ahead of larger allies like Britain and Japan, after Trump’s surprise win”.

This turn towards the personal is interesting on one level. Trump’s cabinet and operations will be, as his business relations in the past, highly personalised endeavours, filled with the expected trust, rancour and overwhelming flavour of a dealing boardroom.

To have his ear will be significant; to be his acquaintance far more important than having a swag of degrees from an Ivy League college, or even be a prominent leader of another state. Theory will be avoided like the plague and abstractions deemed incomprehensible.

Turnbull’s response to this elevation of Norman to the unforeseen level of Trump whisperer barely hid the reality of his irrelevance as a politician. This was not Turnbull the politician talking as prime minister, but as a businessman thinking in the terms of a deal. He was, in short, behaving like Trump, channelling, reflecting, and mimicking accordingly.

“In diplomacy and policies, you use lots of networks,” he attempted to explain to the Australian press.  “All I can say is we have great networks, great connections and Greg Norman is a great Australian.”[1]

Norman also had the appropriate credentials.  He was “a great advocate for strengthening the Australian-American alliance. One of our greatest assets is the more than million Australians who live overseas.”

This is the age of the populist, personal leader, inevitable in the aftermath of the 2008 global financial crisis.  It had been some time in coming, and Russian President Vladimir Putin, who was one of the first in the modern era to be such, is relevant, less from the perspective of a fanatical patriot than one of a calculating CEO running a board of craving directors who need placating. Deals and networks are everything.

A later addition to this world of charismatic pugilists keen on unsettling directness is President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines, truly a figure after Trump’s code of brazenness. Out with the musty arrangements, long mouldering in the dark closet of assumed alliances shaped less by self-interest and imperial motivation; in with the unchartered, dangerous but independent new.

While catastrophic for such essentials as the rule of law (videhis anti-drug pushing death squads), Duterte has thrown punches at the traditional Manila-Washington relationship, while proving far more accommodating to China.

Academic reasoning and sober analysis fear the rise of such figures, and resort to the clichéd stables of theory about state behaviour, reason and managerial speak. These say little about the personal nature of the enterprise at hand: the charismatic leader has become the new norm of states, a condition that has seized the US with violent approval.

While golfing diplomacy has been a feature, and unstudied aspect of international relations theory, it is high time that it became one.  Trumpism does away with the traditional political playbook directed by experts of diplomacy and policy. The only one permitted in this house is Steve Bannon, Trump’s chief strategist.

The policy now is: await the next initiative, the next decision, and ditch the battle plans that might have been cooked up decades ago.  Better to play golf, or dine at an appropriate venue to meet contacts.  It is a situation both terrifying and fascinating for the deskbound, rendering the chit-chat element of a blinded punditry nigh irrelevant.

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

Notes

[1] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-australia-norman-idUSKBN13C0ED

 

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Trump and the « New Deal » of Modern Politics: Black Swans, White Sharks and Golf Diplomacy

Le texte introductif préfaçait les concepts généraux que l’auteur extrapolera plus loin dans la recherche. Maintenant que les bases de la recherche analytique globale et les contours de la carte de référence sont sur la table, il est temps de commencer à explorer l’influence de l’hégémonie et du régionalisme institutionnel sur la géopolitique africaine, en enquêtant largement sur les menaces asymétriques endémiques de chaque région et en commençant à élucider la vision globale de la Route de la Soie de la Chine pour le continent.

Les régions africaines, leurs leaders respectifs (et potentiels) et les scénarios de conflits interrégionaux

La méthode préférée de l’auteur pour expliquer la géopolitique de l’Afrique est de commencer aussi largement que possible et ensuite progressivement de devenir plus spécifique, avec un continuum complet de l’étude menant finalement le lecteur à la solide compréhension des plans visionnaires de la Chine. Pour commencer, il est nécessaire de diviser l’Afrique en cinq régions distinctes et d’identifier l’État au sein de chacune de ces régions qui détient le pouvoir démographique, économique et militaire le plus influent (qualifié de leadership) et possède le potentiel le plus prometteur à long terme (en termes opérationnels) pour devenir un poids lourd régional s’il n’en est pas déjà un :

afr01

  • Brun – Afrique du Nord – Égypte.
  • Jaune – Afrique de l’Ouest – Nigeria.
  • Orange – Corne et Afrique de l’Est – Éthiopie.
  • Bleu – Centre-Afrique du Sud – République démocratique du Congo (RDC).
  • Rouge – Cône Sud – Afrique du Sud.

Interprétation

On doit dire immédiatement que la carte ci-dessus est une représentation conceptualisée qui comprend à la fois les réalités actuelles et prospectives (ces dernières en référence à la RDC) et que les zones hachurées sont des estimations brutes de la répartition approximative de chaque région. Il y a certainement des limites à l’influence déterminée de chaque pays, et il est prévisible que des coalitions, en concurrence à la fois dans leur propre sphère et en dehors de celle-ci, se formeront pour contester le leadership de l’État donné sur ladite région. Par exemple, les anciennes colonies françaises d’Afrique de l’Ouest ont leur propre monnaie contrôlée par Paris et considèrent collectivement l’ascendant régional du Nigeria avec suspicion. Cela a été particulièrement évident quand il s’est agit du Tchad et de son implication militaire contre les terroristes dans le nord-est du Nigeria, sans invitation (mais sans opposition). Certainement imparfaite à certains égards, la carte simplifiée présente un instantané relativement précis des processus géopolitiques plus larges qui sont actuellement en cours en Afrique et permet aux observateurs d’extrapoler assez précisément leur trajectoire prévisible. La carte ne doit donc être considérée que comme un modèle simple de travail par lequel le lecteur peut acquérir une idée généralisée sur le continent et un prisme de perspective à travers lequel il peut ainsi interpréter le reste de l’analyse de la guerre hybride qui s’y déroule.

Points focaux de chevauchement

L’introduction a parlé d’une partie du potentiel de chevauchement entre les régions précédemment identifiées de l’étude sur la guerre hybride, mais vu que la carte la plus récente est quelque peu différente pour catégoriser l’ensemble du continent en blocs géographiques, il est nécessaire d’évoquer succinctement certains des domaines de chevauchement qui n’ont peut-être pas été abordés auparavant.

Liaison centre-nord

Cette poudrière est définie comme la zone de convergence entre le Tchad, la République centrafricaine (RCA), le Soudan et le Sud-Soudan, et elle est marquée par un éventail d’interrelations entre les acteurs étatiques et non étatiques dans leurs affaires respectives. Le Tchad et le Soudan avaient précédemment plaidé en faveur d’une influence dans la région du Darfour, et N’djamena [capitale du Tchad, NdT] exerçait également une influence dans les régions musulmanes du nord de la RCA. Khartoum est impliqué dans une guerre par procuration provoquant des allés et venues avec Djouba[capitale du Sud Soudan, NdT] le long de leur frontière partagée qui voit les deux côtés soutenir un mélange d’acteurs non étatiques rebelles (dont certains sont définis par les gouvernements ciblés respectifs en tant que terroristes). Il est notoire que le croque-mitaine est Joseph Kony, avec son Armée de résistance du Seigneur, qui opère entre la RCA et le Sud Soudan. La carte ci-dessous conceptualise l’interaction dangereuse entre les forces dans cette région totalement déstabilisée et montre que les seuls facteurs manquants sont l’implication de la «diagonale géographique» du Tchad vers le Sud-Soudan et du Soudan vers la RCA ainsi qu’une possible influence humanitaire / militante depuis la RCA jusqu’au Tchad (ce qui n’est pas improbable si les tensions confessionnelles redoublent).

afr02

Grabuge montagnard

La zone montagneuse qui chevauche les frontières de la RDC et de l’Ouganda, du Rwanda et du Burundi est la zone de chevauchement régional la plus propice aux conflits. Après la fin de la Seconde Guerre du Congo ( «Guerre mondiale de l’Afrique»), des milices pro et anti-gouvernementales ougandaises et rwandaises ont fini par contrôler cette partie de la RDC et par s’emparer des gisements rentables situés ici. Il y a beaucoup de trafics transfrontaliers légaux et illégaux entre les deux parties, et il est bien connu que les conflits d’un côté des montagnes pourraient facilement se répandre de l’autre en raison des liens économiques et démographiques bien établis qui les relient. Le Burundi figure dans l’équation parce que c’est le maillon «faible de l’Afrique de l’Est», un État en guerre civile récemment remise sur le métier dans le cadre du programme américain de guerre hybride contre la Chine (qui sera abordé plus tard dans la section appropriée). La déstabilisation dans ce pays pourrait facilement se déplacer vers l’ouest et le nord vers la RDC et le Rwanda, créant ainsi une conflagration ethno-régionale tri-étatique qui en viendrait inévitablement à impliquer aussi l’Ouganda.

Pour le moment, cependant, l’influence dominante entre les deux régions africaines identifiées est assez unilatérale, le Rwanda et l’Ouganda exerçant un contrôle sur la RDC et non l’inverse. Cela s’explique principalement par le fait que leurs ressortissants respectifs et leurs milices affiliées (à la fois pro et anti-gouvernementales) créent une sorte de «profondeur stratégique» qui a profondément pénétré à peu près dans tous les niveaux de la vie dans l’est de la RDC. Cependant, si la RDC est revenue sur les rails après avoir été spectaculairement mise à l’écart par la guerre clandestine de l’Occident contre elle au début des années 1960 et affaiblie par la Première et la Seconde Guerre du Congo, il est prévisible que le flux d’influence transfrontalier s’égalise ou même s’inverse si les facteurs démographiques appropriés sont exploités dans des bonnes conditions géopolitiques.

Quel que soit le mouvement d’influence positif dans l’un ou l’autre sens, si les déclencheurs de guerre hybride transfrontalière sont activés, il est probable que la déstabilisation générale peut également impliquer la Tanzanie et peut-être même la Zambie. La dernière possibilité est plus vraisemblable si une nouvelle campagne séparatiste ou anti-gouvernementale est lancée dans la région du Katanga, ce qui pourrait être le cas si l’ancien gouverneur populaire et le chef de l’opposition Moisi Katumbi agitait le potentiel de régionalisme au cas où le président Kabila entrerait en lice pour ce qui serait un troisième mandat inconstitutionnel, en retardant les élections, ou en l’accusant (à tort ou à raison) de commettre des fraudes électorales pour l’aider, lui ou un successeur politique adoubé, à gagner dans les urnes.

afr03

Terreur dans le Sahara

Le prochain conflit inter-régional en gestation en Afrique va faire intervenir des groupes terroristes au Sahara, en particulier l’interaction entre les organisations militantes transnationales opérant dans les vastes étendues entre le Mali, la Mauritanie, l’Algérie, le Niger et la Libye. La guerre de l’OTAN contre la Libye a détruit l’État le plus prospère et le plus stable d’Afrique et a été le catalyseur de la déstabilisation du reste des États susmentionnés en aval par le canal nouvellement ouvert d’armes et de militants qui a été créé dans l’ancienne Jamahiriya. Ce vaste espace est peu peuplé, mais il est riche en gisements de pétrole, de gaz naturel et d’uranium. Pour cette raison, le terrorisme sahraoui affecte directement le commerce mondial de ces produits de base et les intérêts de certaines grandes puissances et de leurs principales sociétés transnationales.

À titre d’exemple, le leader nucléaire Areva contrôle les mines d’uranium au Niger, et le contingent militaire français à l’intérieur du pays est également chargé de les protéger, entre autres responsabilités. En outre, le mélange de déstabilisation de la région, de faibles prix de l’énergie et l’évolution rapide de l’industrie du GNL [gaz naturel liquéfié] ont conduit à l’abandon définitif de la proposition d’un gazoduc transsaharien partant du Nigeria vers le sud de l’Europe via le Niger et l’Algérie. Mais l’idée qui n’est pas dépourvue de sens demeure une possibilité susceptible d’être un jour relancée.

L’élargissement du périmètre inter-régional de la déstabilisation libyenne qui sévit actuellement au Sahara, le détournement terroriste du mouvement d’autodétermination «Azawad» des Touaregs en 2011-2012 au Mali a également entraîné un effet de retombée de la violence islamique / salafiste au Burkina Faso et en Côte d’Ivoire, des pays hors de la zone du Sahara qui font partie de la grande région de l’Afrique de l’Ouest. Par conséquent, les deux plates-formes de lancement de la déstabilisation inter et intra-régionale peuvent être identifiées comme la Libye et le Mali, ce dernier n’ayant été totalement déséquilibré qu’après l’effondrement de la Libye, suite à la guerre menée par l’OTAN, dirigée par les USA contre ce pays.

afr04

Le Malawi enclavé

Autrefois partie de l’Empire britannique et administré conjointement avec la Zambie et le Zimbabwe en tant que membre de la «Fédération centrafricaine» au cours des derniers jours du colonialisme, le Malawi est classé dans la sphère d’influence régionale du Cône Sud parce que la plupart de ses échanges internationaux se font à travers le Mozambique. Le pays enclavé est l’un des pays les plus pauvres et parmi les moins développés du monde et la pauvreté extrême de l’État a créé une situation où le sentiment anti-gouvernemental peut être facilement manipulé.

Bien que le Malawi ne fasse pas directement partie du grand réseau intégré de la Route de la Soie de la Chine en Afrique, les deux pays se sont rapidement rapprochéssur le plan économique au cours des deux dernières années, après que l’État africain a désavoué ses relations d’une dizaine d’années avec Taiwan, suscitant une consternation discrète des États-Unis et poussant Washington à ordonner à son plus haut diplomate dans le pays de se préparer à un coup d’État et à une éventuelle tentative de guerre hybride.

La position géopolitique du Malawi est telle que toute déstabilisation à grande échelle à l’intérieur des frontières du pays pourrait facilement se propager au Mozambique, mais le plus important pour l’intérêt de la recherche, c’est qu’elle pourrait aussi probablement se déplacer vers le nord en Zambie et en Tanzanie, deux pays pivots impliqués dans la Route de la Soie transcontinentale de la Chine. En raison du potentiel de débordement de ce conflit qui pourrait venir d’un État apparemment minime et supposé géopolitiquement non pertinent comme le Malawi, il est exact de l’appeler «deuxième Burundi» en termes de probabilité qu’il puisse être utilisé pour déclencher une conflagration régionale qui pourrait ensuite compenser la vision intégratrice de la Chine pour le continent.

afr05

Si elle devait coïncider avec une guerre hybride au Burundi, une guerre prospective planifiée au Malawi offrirait une double dose de déstabilisation à la Tanzanie et pourrait être utilisée pour déclencher une plus grande zone de conflit transrégionale entre l’Ouganda et le Mozambique.

afr06

En outre, il existe un potentiel (qui sera discuté à un stade ultérieur de la recherche) qui pourrait soit déclencher une crise sécessionniste du Katanga ou un mouvement antigouvernemental comme mentionné précédemment, soit être programmé pour coïncider avec lui pendant les élections qui sont provisoirement prévues pour la fin de 2016. Si ce scénario se produit, alors une série de conflits latents éclatant simultanément marquerait certainement la fin de tous les plans d’intégration transcontinentaux de la Chine, bien qu’il puisse encore être possible de sauver ceux qui ne traitent qu’avec l’Est Africain (et qui seront également décrits plus loin en détail).

afr07

La vraie guerre mondiale africaine

Le scénario cauchemardesque qui pourrait un jour éclore en Afrique serait de voir les zones de conflit équatoriales et sous-équatoriales actives et potentielles trouver un moyen de se relier les unes aux autres et transformer tout le continent en un champ de bataille de guerre hybride massive. Bien qu’un peu farfelue à l’heure actuelle et tactiquement entravée par le pare-feu géographique de l’immense jungle en RDC, si une autre «guerre mondiale africaine» se déroulait au Congo, la déstabilisation qui en résulterait pourrait suffire à surmonter cette difficulté physique et à engendrer un trou noir de chaos qui déclencherait une véritable «Guerre mondiale africaine» finissant par relier les terroristes sahariens aux militants du lac Malawi. Cela pourrait être réalisé d’une manière assez réaliste par une épidémie de troubles à grande échelle dans la zone tampon entre le Niger et le Tchad et les infrastructures de la Route de la Soie dans la région de la Zambie, de la Tanzanie et du Katanga.

afr08

afr09

BASES MILITAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES NON AFRICAINES

En phase avec le thème actuel de la sécurité, les forces armées étrangères non africaines ont laissé une empreinte remarquable sur le continent. Pour la plupart, ce sont principalement les États-Unis et la France qui ont étendu leurs unités sur la totalité de ce continent, même si Washington prétend «officiellement» qu’il n’a qu’une seule installation militaire à Djibouti. Malgré le «jargon» technique des déclarations du Pentagone, le journaliste d’investigation Nick Turse a déterré des tas de preuves montrant que des bases de drones, des hubs logistiques, et d’autres avant-postes cachés facilitant la guerre, sont subrepticement utilisés partout en Afrique. Le lecteur est fortement encouragé à lire les œuvres de cet auteur et à se familiariser avec ses découvertes, car elles détaillent les contours de la guerre de l’ombre que les États-Unis ont menée en Afrique depuis le 11 septembre. Pour résumer le rôle des États-Unis en Afrique de la manière la plus concise possible, le Pentagone effectue régulièrement des exercices d’entraînement avec pratiquement toutes les forces armées africaines d’une manière ou d’une autre et garde une présence plus durable dans la zone contiguë du Sahara et du Sahel qui s’étend de l’Atlantique à l’océan Indien et a été appelée «La nouvelle route des épices». Comme on peut le voir à partir du dernier lien, voici une carte montrant à quoi ressemble ce réseau, surnommé aussi «la tranchée de l’hippopotame», d’un point de vue continental, mais il faut garder à l’esprit que l’Éthiopie ne fait plus formellement partie de ces arrangements après avoir demandé aux États-Unis de retirer leur base de drone au début de 2016 dans les mois suivant la publication de l’article original.

afr10

L’autre puissance militaire la plus activement impliquée en Afrique est la France, qui avait colonisé un gros morceau du continent à la fin du XIXe siècle et au début du XXesiècle. La partie la plus active de sa force est déployée dans la région du Sahel dans le cadre de l’«Opération Barkhane» qui s’étend sur ce que l’on appelle les pays du «G5 Sahel» de la Mauritanie, du Mali, du Burkina Faso, du Niger et du Tchad. Par ailleurs, Paris entretient également des troupes au Sénégal, en Côte d’Ivoire, au Gabon, en République centrafricaine (RCA) et à Djibouti. Voici à quoi ressemblent les déploiements militaires de la France quand ils sont tracés.

afr11

  • Rouge: G5 Sahel.
  • Rose tous les autres.

En comparant les deux cartes, on peut observer un chevauchement militaire entre les États-Unis et la France au Sénégal, au Mali, au Burkina Faso, au Niger, au Tchad, en RCA et à Djibouti.

afr12

Alors que la majeure partie de la double concentration des bases militaires étrangères se trouve en Afrique de l’Ouest et en Afrique centrale, le fait qu’elle soit également présente à Djibouti ne doit pas être négligé. En fait, la minuscule nation de l’Afrique de l’Est a une importance militaire disproportionnée car elle accueille simultanément des bases américaine, française, japonaisechinoise et bientôt même saoudienne, ce qui en fait une anomalie militaire globale à cet égard. Avec l’accent mis maintenant sur l’Afrique de l’Est, il est opportun d’affirmer que cette partie du continent au-delà de Djibouti est également fortement militarisée par les forces étrangères. Les Émirats arabes unis sont soupçonnés d’avoir une base navale en Érythrée et de projeter des installations dans la région autonome de Somalie, le Somaliland, alors que la Turquie est également en train de construire une base militaire dans le pays déchiré par la guerre civile. En plus de cela, le Qatar maintient une petite quantité de «casques bleus» en Érythrée et à Djibouti depuis 2010, dans le cadre de la responsabilité de l’ONU, supposée être une «médiation» entre les deux parties après un conflit frontalier tendu en 2008. Cette concentration stratégique des forces laisse croire que l’Éthiopie, enclavée mais économiquement prometteuse, est encerclée, en particulier par les États du golfe, l’Arabie saoudite, le Qatar et les EAU, ce fait important sera abordé plus tard lorsque la recherche se focalisera sur la région de la Corne de l’Afrique.

afr13

  • Rouge : États de la Corne de l’Afrique avec des bases militaires étrangères.
  • Orange : Éthiopie.

BLOCS MILITAIRES AFRICAINS

Bien qu’il y ait une présence militaire non-africaine diversifiée sur tout le continent, l’Afrique a cependant pu rassembler un réseau de blocs de sécurité militaire régionaux qui fonctionnent sous l’égide de l’Union africaine (UA). Les Forces africaines en attente, telles qu’elles sont nommées, sont divisées en fonction des communautés économiques régionales (CER) et des régions et des domaines de responsabilité définis. Les limites économiques de la plupart de ces blocs géographiques se chevauchent avec celles des militaires et seront décrites plus en détail dans la section suivante, mais pour l’instant, voici l’allocation des bases de l’UA.

afr14

  • Marron : Capacité régionale de l’Afrique du Nord.
  • Jaune : CEDEAO.
  • Pourpre : Communauté économique des États de l’Afrique centrale (CEEAC).
  • Orange : Force de réserve de l’Afrique de l’Est (EASF).
  • Rouge : Communauté de développement de l’Afrique australe (SADC).

Note : Le Soudan du Sud n’est pas encore un membre à part entière de la Force de réserve de l’Afrique de l’Est, tandis que l’Angola et le Burundi sont énumérés comme ayant des responsabilités partagées au sein de leur CEEAC, de la SADC et de l’EASF, respectivement. De plus, il est important de souligner que la communauté de l’Afrique de l’Est est partagée entre le Soudan du Sud, le Kenya, l’Ouganda, le Rwanda et l’engagement du Burundi envers le FASA, les responsabilités supplémentaires du Burundi envers la CEEAC et l’intégration de la Tanzanie dans la zone de responsabilité de la SADC. Étant donné que le Maroc ne fait pas partie de l’UA en vertu du différend concernant le Sahara occidental, il ne fait partie d’aucun accord sur des forces africaines à quelque titre que ce soit.

La dernière chose à souligner sur les blocs militaires africains est que le Nigeria, le Niger, le Cameroun et le Tchad ont aligné leurs forces pour combattre la menace Boko Haram qui afflige leur bassin commun autour du lac Tchad. Si on replace cela sur une carte, cela ressemble superficiellement à une formidable alliance militaire, mais c’est en fait une force mal coordonnée et en compétition interne dominée par le Nigeria et le Tchad se suspectant mutuellement.

afr15

Andrew Korybko

Article original en anglais :

the-grand-chess-board1

Hybrid Wars: Strategies against Africa

Traduit par Hervé, vérifié par jj, relu par Catherine pour le Saker Francophone

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

  • Posted in Francais @fr
  • Commentaires fermés sur Guerre Hybride. Stratégies de guerre hybride contre l’Afrique

Swedish Corporate Interests Linked to Clinton Foundation Haiti Operations

novembre 21st, 2016 by Prof. Marcello Ferrada de Noli

This article reports the link found between the Swedish company Tetrapak (also know as Tetra Pak) with the Clinton Foundation, as it is indicated in a document newly released by the US State Department to the organization Judicial Watch, after a federal order (details down below). I am also reporting, based in document I found at the Freedom of Information Act, on the economic consequences for Haiti due to expanded credits given to the giant Swedish company Ericsson.

I More on Ericsson and Sida money to the Clinton Foundation

I will start by presenting further evidence regarding two exposures in my previous article “Sweden’s Business with Clinton Foundation in a Geopolitical ContextI provided there a list of state institutions as well as private-owned Swedish companies that have contributed with substantial amounts to the Clinton Foundation. In some cases, these contributions have resulted in favours provided to Sweden by the US State Department. In one of the reported events, the giant company Ericsson had ‘allegedly’ contributed, according to the Sida-financed publication Omvärlden  six million dollars [närmare sex miljoner dollar] in terms of ‘speech fees’ to Bill Clinton [Sida = Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency –a governmental organization under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs].

However, according to Sweden’s main newspaper DN, the real sum would have been substantially different. DN reports that the speech-fees paid by Ericsson to Clinton were over six million SEK [drygt sex miljoner kronor]. The estimated sum reported in the US, given in US dollars was $750,000. Nevertheless, the payment resulted in the US State Department removing Ericsson from the list of banned companies doing business with Iran.

And about this, we find another deceiving segment in the  reporting of the Swedish media on the affair Ericsson/Clinton. Dagens Nyheter (DN) writes that the State Department list had been released a couple of weeks prior to Bill Clinton delivering his speech paid by Ericsson. They do not say that the list was published nine days after the arrangement with Ericsson, as was documented by the author of Clinton Cash, Peter Schweitzer.

Furthermore, I have now found the State Department document that brings proof to the allegations about the speech paid by the Swedish company Ericsson. The declassified document is dated 04-08-2014 and reveals that Ericsson ‘sponsored’ the speech and Clinton’s 5-days stay, however it does not specify the sum received by Clinton. It was among the declassified documents regarding the case number “F-2011-03401”, which deal with the “State Department Conflict of Interest Review”. I found this document at the U.S. Department of State – FOI site.

ericcson-cover-docericcson-clinton-speech

Another scandalous example which I have highlighted is the ongoing contribution provided by the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida) to CHAI. CHAI is a subsidiary of the Clinton Foundation, where both Bill and Chelsea Clinton have seats on the board of directors.

Days after I published (in transit through Germany) the above-mentioned article, I found in our own article-archives at The Professor’s Blog a confidential cable released by WikiLeaks where Hillary Clinton orders her subordinates at the US-delegation in UN to work for the endorsement of the Swedish Foreign Ministry’s candidate to UNIFEM.

unifem-cable-in-professorsblogg

II The Haiti operations. Ericsson receives “undisciplined expansion of credit”

The search for documents at the above mentioned Department of State archive can be extended using a direct link to the FOA-searching provided in the site. Here I have found the document, “Unclassified U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2015-01847 Doc No. C05790538 Date: 05/11/2016”, containing  a memorandum from the US Embassy in Haiti to the State Department.

ericsson-in-haiti

The message states in page 2 of the memorandum:

“A. HAITI’S CURENT ECONOMIC PERFORMANCES
(I)
THOUGH HAITI’S BALANCE OF PAYMENTS IS SEASONABLY
IMPROVING WITH INCREASED EARNINGS FROM COFFEE, BAUXITE, AND
SOME OTHER PRODUCTS (FOREIGN EXCHANGE RESERVES HAVE TEMPORARILY
RISEN TO $16 MILLION), THE GOH’S BALANCE-OF-PAYMENTS MANAGEMENT
FELL BELOW PREVIOUS STANDARDS IN 1975, MAINLY BECAUSE OF
UNDISCIPLINED EXPANSION OF CREDIT TO ERICSSON FOR HAITI’S

COELLY TELECOMMUNICATIONS PROJECT.”

III The Haiti operations. Tetrapak and Clinton

The Washington based organization Judicial Watch (established 1994) filed a  Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit vs. the US State Department for Documents about Possible Clinton Conflicts of Interest. In these days, almost four years later –and after Donald Trump was elected US president– a federal court order resulted in the release by the State Department of 550-pages documents.

Among the documents released there was a revealing poiece of information suggesting the linking of Tetrapak to the Clinton Foundation operating in Haiti. The mention, and description, of Tetrapak follows the heading: “Private Sector Opportunities for WJC“. According to The Indicter source, “WJC” refers to William Jefferson Clinton in his personal capacity. This memo forms part of the Series “Case No. F-2011-03401” referred to Clinton’s Conflict of Interest Issue.

The document takes up three companies, with Tetrapak being positioned in the first place:

first-page-on-decassified-doc-ref-tetrpak-clinton

According to a personal communication by Charles Ortel –a retired banker who has been specializing in exposing complex frauds since 2006– one plausible interpretation in the document reading (the 3-pages document here below) would be, in his words: “The idea seems to be be that Aid Funds would be used to purchase Tetrapak cartons and that the Tetrapak “affiliate” Delaval would have some role in selling/installing a packaging plant inside Haiti.” He adds that in page 3 of the document, indications would be found that Haiti is instrumented as a test case [See the document clicking the thumbnail below].

memo-ref-tetrapak-clinton

The Programa Mundial de Alimentos de las Naciones Unidas, PMA (the Latin American version of WFP, the United Nations Food program) listed in a press release [Spanish] of 3 February 2010 the companies and institutions contributing with private donations to Haiti:

Adobe, ADM, Agrium, American Express, Banco de Brasil, Bloomberg, Brinks, British Airways, Bunge, Caixa Economia Federal Brasil, Cargill, Chefs for Humanity, Citi Global Transaction, Chevron, Clinton Foundation, Clinton Bush Haiti Fund, DAC Aviation International, Danone, Doubletree Hotels, The Dow Chemical Co, DSM, Eurasian Minerals, Exxon, GAIN, Global Business Coalition, Goldman Sachs, Google CheckOut, Hasbro, Heinz , IDEXX Laboratories, Iridium Satellite Phones, Jones Lang LaSalle, Kookmin Bank, Kraft Foods Foundation, LG Electronics, LimeWire, Maersk, Mars, Mayor’s Fund to Advance NY City, McRyan, MS&L, NC Soft, Pepsi, Prem Rwat Foundation, SAP, Shell, Sodexo, Students for Haiti, TAQA North, Telecom Italia, TetraPak, Thievery Corporation, TNT, Unilever, United Airlines, United Natural Foods, UTIBA, VISA, Vodafone, Yum! Brands.

Many of the companies on the list above are Clinton Foundation donors.

At the moment I am writing this report, Tetrapak is on the international news due to an anti-trust probe, for which Chinese authorities have fined Tetrapak $95 million. The Swedish company “was found to have used its ‘dominant market position’ to force suppliers to use its services and restrict their cooperation with rivals”, reads the statementfrom the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC).

Acknowledgments

The memorandum referring Tetrapak linked with with “Private Sector Opportunities for WJC” corresponds to unclassified material originally obtained by Judicial Watch (President Tom Fitton). I thank Charles Ortel, Haitian-born author Dady Chery and radio host Utrice Leid, who started back in May 2016 a systemically exposures of the money-laundering scheme that is the Clinton Foundation. I also thank Gilbert Mercier, editor-in-chief of Junkie News Post, who introduced me to Charles Ortel while been in Italy.

Besides exposures done by WikiLeaks, a context regarding the collaboration between the Swedish government and prominent Swedish companies with the Clinton Foundation is given in the article “Sweden’s Business with Clinton Foundation in a Geopolitical Context“, published recently in The Indicter and in Global Research.

 Professor Dr med Marcello Ferrada de Noli is the founder and chairman of Swedish Doctors for Human Rights and Editor-in-Chief of The Indicter. Also publisher of The Professors’ Blog, and CEO of Libertarian Books – Sweden. Author of Sweden VS. Assange – Human Rights Issues. His op-ed articles have been published in Dagens Nyheter (DN), Svenska Dagbladet (Svd), Aftonbladet, Västerbotten Kuriren, Dagens Medicin,  Läkartidningen and other Swedish media. He also have had exclusive interviews in DN, Expressen, SvD and Aftonbladet, and in Swedish as well as international TV and media.

Reachable via email at [email protected][email protected]

Follow the professor on Twitter at @Professorsblogg

 

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Swedish Corporate Interests Linked to Clinton Foundation Haiti Operations

In 1854, Canada entered its first free trade (or Reciprocity) treaty with the United States and by 1866 it was clear the Canadian colonies were being absorbed into the US. A bill was introduced in Congress for their admission as « States and Territories of the United States of America. »

In that year, however, the US unilaterally abrogated the agreement. In shock, the Canadian colonies decided to unite and create their own economy — « a northern power. » On July 1, 1867, the Dominion of Canada was born.

In the following decades, under John A. Macdonald’s National Policy, an east-west Canadian economy was fostered, and it prospered. There was no income tax; Georges-Ètienne Cartier, co-founder of Confederation with Macdonald, opposed taxing the population and insisted that government revenue come from duties on imported goods. In 1911, however, Wilfrid Laurier’s Liberals proposed free trade with the US. and Conservative finance critic George Foster warned of « deep danger » ahead. « The best kick that Canada ever had, » Foster said, was abrogation of the 1854 Reciprocity Treaty. « Canadian nationality » began to develop, using « Canadian resources for Canadian developments » and « Canadian routes for Canadian trade. » Then « new blood pulsed in our veins, new hopes… new horizons and new visions. » Canadians voted against the free trade proposal.

However, in 1988 Canada entered a free trade agreement with the US (FTA) giving sweeping rights to US corporations to buy up most of the Canadian economy and a clause allowing the US a majority of Canada’s total energy supplies even if Canada itself goes short. Canada also committed to never, through any government action, charge Americans more for “any good” exported to the US, than it charges Canadians! In the 1988 election, a majority of Canadians voted for parties opposed to the FTA in what then Prime Minister Brian Mulroney called a referendum on free trade. The people’s verdict was not honoured.

Author David Orchard (right)

In 1992, the FTA was expanded into the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which contained a provision allowing US and Mexican corporations to sue Canada for any law or regulation which they think causes them « loss or damage, » and which they feel breaches the spirit of NAFTA.

These disputes are not heard by Canadian judges in Canadian courts, but by special tribunals operating behind closed doors, using not Canadian law, but NAFTA rules. There is no right of appeal. In the 1993 election an even larger majority voted for parties committed to renegotiate or abrogate NAFTA; they got neither. Instead, Canada has been sued thirty-five times by US corporations, reversed several of its laws, paid out $200 million in NAFTA fines — and faces claims for $6 billion more.

Under the FTA/NAFTA, Canada is literally giving away a huge, and increasing, volume of resources across the border, including a record amount of oil at slightly over half world price – and some of the world’s lowest royalties. (One government forecast predicted gambling revenues in Alberta will exceed those from oil royalties, and Ontario, world capital of the mining industry, takes a pitiable mineral royalty of about 1.5%. Reportedly the city of Toronto takes in more from parking tickets than the province does from a swath of mining companies and Newfoundland collects as much from fines and fees on its citizens as from oil royalties.) Meanwhile our standard of living, and real wages, have declined and almost a million Canadians use food banks.

Norway, with less oil than Alberta, voted to stay out of the European Union, had its vote respected — and charges a fair price for its exports. It now has a trillion dollar surplus, while Canada and its provinces, including mineral and oil rich Ontario, Alberta and Saskatchewan, have record debt (over $1.2 trillion) and are desperately offering to sell off profitable public corporations to pay basic bills.

At the same time low interest rates and a low dollar are accelerating the wholesale takeover of iconic Canadian institutions, including our railways, grain, retail, manufacturing and resource companies, into foreign, mostly US, corporate hands.

For 150 years great Canadian leaders have warned that without an economic border, Canada soon wouldn’t have a political border. John A. Macdonald called free trade « veiled treason. » A century later, Pierre Elliott Trudeau called the Canada-US FTA « a monstrous swindle. »

Today a new US president has said he wants to renegotiate or cancel NAFTA. In response, Canadians are being treated to a great wailing and gnashing of teeth by shortsighted leaders, and an alarmist media, about the possibility of « losing NAFTA. » Thoughtful leadership would recognize an opportunity for Canada to stand on its own two feet, step out of the straitjacket of foreign control and build the only economy that offers security and independence — one that is domestically controlled.

Imagine what Canada could be following Norway’s example; no veterans sleeping on our streets, in fact no homelessness, no government debt, free university tuition, money for free dental and child care, and decent old age pensions! And a government that will not allow itself to be sued and ordered about by foreign corporations, but is accountable to the citizens of a sovereign nation.

David Orchard is a farmer and the author of The Fight for Canada: Four Centuries of Resistance to American Expansionism. He can be reached at [email protected]

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Canada: « A Northern Power » Once Again? NAFTA, « A Monstrous Swindle »

Myanmar’s New « Democratic Dictator »: Aung San Suu Kyi

novembre 21st, 2016 by Tony Cartalucci

The Western media is portraying Myanmar’s recent elections as historic. One commentator described Myanmar as an “exuberant nation prepared for a new era of democracy and political freedom.” But one wonders what sort of democracy and political freedom can be borne of elections in which nearly a million voters were banned from casting their ballots and with the apparent victor already declaring herself above the law.

Sidestepping these inconvenient facts, the West is nonetheless excited about the prospect of Aung San Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy (NLD) taking power in Myanmar.

This is in part due to the fact that Suu Kyi herself, along with the NLD she leads and a vast network of supporting “civil society” nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have all been created and sustained annually by billions of dollars worth of backing from the United States and United Kingdom for years. In exchange for this support, Suu Kyi’s long-standing proclivity toward “foreign investment” will lead to the wholesale feeding of Myanmar’s nationalized resources, industry, and infrastructure into the maw of the Wall Street corporations and institutions that have long underwritten Suu Kyi’s rise to power.

“Democracy” and “political freedom,” in this context, appear only to be convenient facades to hide a more obvious and logical explanation for the West’s current post-election exuberance.

“Democracy,” But Only When Convenient 

In reality, Suu Kyi and her NLD’s supporters helped disenfranchise nearly a million Rohingya from voting even before the elections took place.  Through widespread protests and threats of violence if their demands that the Rohingya remain stripped of their voting rights were not met, the ruling military-led government backed down from a scheme to grant the Rohingya minority long-sought after rights, including the ability to vote.

The BBC reported in their article, “Myanmar revokes Rohingya voting rights after protests,” that:

Hundreds of Buddhists took to the streets following the passage of a law that would allow temporary residents who hold “white papers” to vote.

More than one million Rohingya live in Myanmar, but they are not regarded as citizens by the government.

The BBC fails to mention that these “Buddhists” who “took to the streets” are in fact the cornerstone of Suu Kyi’s political movement, leading every major pro-NLD protest over the years including the infamous “Saffron Revolution” in 2007.

They and the violence they have demonstrated throughout the years, were instrumental in ensuring Suu Kyi’s uncontested victory in recent elections by ensuring demographic blocs were either barred from voting entirely, or intimidated sufficiently from voting against the NLD.

Suu Kyi Declares Herself Above the Law 

Additionally, in the wake of Suu Kyi’s apparent victory, she has literally declared herself above Myanmar’s constitution, vowing to make all decisions regardless of who is actually made president under the law.

The Guardian’s report, “Aung San Suu Kyi vows to make all the decisions in Myanmar’s new government,” stated that (emphasis added):

Under the constitution anyone with foreign children is barred from becoming president, in a clause seen as the military’s attempt to stop her taking power. But Suu Kyi, who has two British sons, suggested she would still be Myanmar’s leader.

Asked what she meant by stating last week that she would be “above the president”, Suu Kyi said: “If I’m required to field a president who meets the requirements of section F of the constitution, alright then we’ll find one. But that won’t stop me making all the decisions as the leader of the winning party.” 

Asked if she planned to be president in all but name, she said “It’s a name only,” and after laughing added: “A rose by any other name.”

Suu Kyi’s disenfranchisement of the Rohingya and flagrant disregard for the rule of law demonstrates the very dictatorial traits she has long accused the ruling establishment of for decades.

Whether Suu Kyi agrees with Myanmar’s current laws or not, her choice to arbitrarily and selectively observe some while disregarding others entirely – instead of pursuing change through proper, legal procedures – makes her indistinguishable from the alleged “dictatorship” she claims to be replacing.

In the coming weeks and months, if Suu Kyi’s victory materializes in her NLD’s firm grip on power, one wonders what other laws she will selectively observe or disregard. For Myanmar’s Rohingya minority, the military-led government at times formed the only protection preventing genocide at the hands of Suu Kyi’s ultra-violent saffron mobs.

With the diminished role of the military in government and Suu Kyi’s self-serving and selective adherence to the rule of law, her supporters likely anticipate a free hand in actualizing their genocidal ambitions versus not only the Rohingya, but all of their political and sociocultural enemies.

Not only is the prospect of wider violence a concern for the people of Myanmar, but the rise of political order in Myanmar unwilling or incapable of stemming genocide spells chaos for its neighbors, particularly Thailand.

Myanmar’s Age of Disillusionment Has Begun 

Suu Kyi’s “promising victory” will inevitably deteriorate not unlike the initially promising victory of Thaksin Shinawatra in neighboring Thailand in 2001. Shinawatra’s initial tidal wave of naive support and progressive expectations yielded to a reality of unprecedented abuses of power, the privatization and selling-off to foreign corporations of Thailand’s nationalized resources and infrastructure, humiliating geopolitical concessions to the United States, and unprecedented human rights abuses including the mass murder of some 3,000 innocent people during a 90-day police crackdown in 2003.

After over a decade of clinging to power owed mainly to substantial Western support, Shinawatra and his various proxies were finally ousted from power by a military coup. Thailand’s painful but necessary decade-long national nightmare helped disillusion the majority of Thais regarding the empty promises of “globalization” and Western notions of “democracy.” Today, there stands little chance of Shinawatra or a Shinawatra-like character ever again seizing so much power in the near to intermediate future.

If and when a similar awakening occurs in Myanmar is anyone’s guess. However, the paradox of Suu Kyi’s pro-democracy facade versus her undemocratic, inhumane reality, particularly her and her supporters’ abuse of Myanmar’s Rohingya minority, has become so apparent even the West is having a difficult time glossing over it.

Increasingly frequent articles like the London Guardian’s, “Why is Aung San Suu Kyi silent on the plight of the Rohingya people?,” attempt to claim Suu Kyi’s role in what is essentially ethnically-motivated genocide is mere silence. In reality, Suu Kyi’s silence is complicity, and those carrying out atrocities form the cornerstone of her support base, representing millions of votes.

Suu Kyi’s trading in of her clearly disingenuous principles and the basic human rights of the Rohingya people in exchange for votes has raised concern even among some of the most indoctrinated rank and file across the West’s vast network of NGOs.

It will only become increasingly difficult to continue rationalizing Suu Kyi’s actions to fit her empty rhetoric and manufactured image.

As Suu Kyi and her NLD get their hands dirty leading – or rather misleading – the country, wider disillusionment will follow. Should the military or other opposition parties prepare themselves sufficiently, the opportunity to successfully and permanently dismantle the NLD and all its US-UK funded supporting networks, will reveal itself sooner than later.

Real progress in Myanmar will happen when the people of Myanmar themselves – all of them including ethnic minorities like the Rohingya – are able to more equitably utilize its vast natural and human resources for their own future, not that of a handful of special interests in the capital of Naypyidaw, and not that of a handful of special interests on Wall Street or in London.

Myanmar may believe it has shed dictatorship in recent elections, but it is clear they have only replaced one of local and very limited means, with one backed by immense foreign interests bringing with them centuries of experience in emptying out the wealth of other nations – including at one point in the past, Myanmar itself.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazineNew Eastern Outlook”.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Myanmar’s New « Democratic Dictator »: Aung San Suu Kyi

Serbia’s Proposed Srebrenica « Genocide Denial » Law

novembre 21st, 2016 by Istorijski projekat Srebrenica

1.   A process of revision of Serbia’s Criminal Code has been going on for quite a while. A task force was apparently set up for the purpose.  Nothing is publicly known about the composition of this committee or its brief.

2.  One of the task force’s goals (or directives) is apparently to introduce a change in the Criminal Code that would make “genocide denial” a crime in Serbia. Accordingly, the existing article 387 of the Criminal Code was revised and supplemented with a new clause (5) that would make such denial prosecutable with a maximum punishment of five years in prison.

3.  The proposed article 387 (5), which will be up for a vote in Parliament sometime this week, reads:

“Whoever publicly approves, denies, or significantly diminishes the gravity of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes committed against groups of persons or individual members of a group based on their race, skin color, religion, origin, or state, national, or ethnic affiliation, in a manner that could lead to violence or incitement to hate toward such a group or group-member, if such criminal acts have been adjudicated in a final judgment of a court in Serbia or the International Criminal Court, will be subject to imprisonment for a term from six months to five years.”

4.  Information about the proposed revision of the Criminal Code became known to limited segments of the Serbian public only on Wednesday of last week, when the text was circulated on the internet. The media did not report a single word about this significant legal development up to that point.

5.  On Wednesday, we called Milos Jovanovic, a professor of law and also vice-president of the Serbian Democratic Party, a small parliamentary group with three deputies in Parliament, to ask him what his party was planning to do about this. His response was that he had no idea of what we were talking about and had not heard that such a thing was afoot at all. Once we informed him and sent him the text of the proposed new legislation, he called a press conference and expressed his party’s vehement opposition to this plan.

6.  The following day, something resembling a debate took place in parliament with various parties taking positions in favor and against the “genocide denial” law. The ruling Serbian Progressive Party, which has a majority in parliament, was studiously mum, leaving advocacy for this obnoxious law to its junior coalition members.

7.  However, probably taken aback by the uproar, the minister of justice, Nela Kuburovic, finally made a public statement  on this issue. She said that adoption of a “genocide denial law” was Serbia’s “European obligation.” She did not cite a specific source for her claim.

8.  With a bit of internet research later that evening on Thursday last week, we discovered the convoluted origin of this attempt to criminalize an important aspect of free speech in Serbia. It is the Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia adopted by the Council of Europe on 28 November 2008 (see full text and further references in footnote).[1] It deals with genocide denial only in passing, focusing instead on the topics indicated in its title. But more importantly, it clearly states that whatever the directive requires is applicable only to EU member-countries, which Serbia is not. Therefore, minister Kuburovic’s assertion that the new law is a “European obligation” is false.

9.  Additionally, the Framework Decision contains wording with reference to genocide denial which obviously was taken over by the Serbian Task Force practically without revision or adaptation,  i.e. simply translated, and incorporated as such into their proposal. A more striking example of slavishness is difficult to imagine.

10.  According to the 2015 Council of Europe compliance report, of 29 EU member countries thirteen did not follow the directive in the Framework Decision of 2008 and as of last year did not introduce the required legislation. No punishment for such countries was indicated or envisioned. That makes Serbia’s rush to comply with a non-binding directive all the more bizarre.

11.  Also relevant is a 2015 judgment of the European Court of Human Rights which held that a Turkish public figure could not be prosecuted for denying the Armenian genocide in Switzerland because he had a right to articulate his position to that effect as an exercise in free speech.[2] That raises the question of whether the Serbian regime’s legal advisers are aware that their proposed genocide denial law may be subject to nullification once it is brought on appeal before the European court?

12.  There is also a distinct possibility that the proposed Serbian law is not only contrary to the provisions of the European Convention of Human Rights, but is unconstitutional in Serbia as well. Articles 18 and 43 of the Serbian Constitution guarantee freedoms of conscience and public expression.

If you have concerns about this repressive legislation, please address them to the following institutions:

(1) Parliament of Serbia Department of Public Relations:

[email protected]

(2) Serbia’s Human Right Ombudsman:

[email protected]

Thank you for supporting the rule of law in Serbia.

[1] http://ec.europa.eu/justice/fundamental-rights/racism-xenophobia/framework-decision/index_en.htm 

[2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/armenia/11933115/Right-to-deny-Armenian-genocide-upheld-by-European-court-in-blow-to-Amal-Clooney.html

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Serbia’s Proposed Srebrenica « Genocide Denial » Law

While the word was focused in rapt attention on the outcome of the US Presidential election, Vladimir Putin did something quite amazing – he arrested Alexei Uliukaev, Minister of the Economy of the Medvedev government, on charges of extortion and corruption. Uliukaev, whose telephone had been tapped by the Russian Security Services since this summer, was arrested in the middle of the night in possession of 2 million US dollars. Putin officially fired him the next morning.

Russian official sources say that Uliukaev extorted a $2 million bribe for an assessment that led to the acquisition by Rosneft (a state run Russian oil giant) of a 50% stake in Bashneft (another oil giant). Apparently, Uliukaev tried to threaten Igor Sechin, the President of Rosneft and a person considered close to Vladimir Putin and the Russian security and intelligence services.

Yes, you read that right: according to the official version, a state-owned company gave a bribe to a member of the government. Does that make sense to you? How about a senior member of the government who had his telephone tapped and who has been under close surveillance by the Federal Security Service for over a year – does that make sense to you?

This makes no sense at all and the Russian authorities fully realize that. But that is the official version. So what is going on here? Do you think that there is a message from Putin here?

Of course there is!

Remember the corrupt Minister of Defense Anatolii Serdiukov? He was first fired from his position and only then arrested. But this time around, it is a member of the government which is arrested in the middle of the night. For a few hours, his subordinates could not even reach him – they had no idea what had happened to him. Was that a mistake? Hardly.

The way Uliukaev was detained was carefully choreographed to instill the strongest sense of fear possible in all the other 5 th columnists still in power because in so many ways Uliukaev was a symbol for all the the “Atlantic Integrationists” (those in the Kremlin who want to integrate Russia into the US controlled international security system): Uliukaev was a known liberal, just like Nikita Belykh, governor of Kirov Region, who was detained in a high-publicity arrest in June for taking a 400’000 Euros bribe.

I would even say that Uliukaev could be considered the ultimate symbol of the Atlantic Integrationists and a faithful member of the Russian “liberal” (meaning the “Washington consensus” type) sect who, in the past had worked with Egor Gaidar and Alexei Kudrin and who now has been brought down by the Russian “siloviki”, the top officials of the so-called “power ministries” (defense, state security, intelligence).

Sergei Korolev, the Head of the Economic Security service of the FSB

This was immediately recognized by everybody and the main headline of the popular website Gazeta.ru could not be clearer, it read: “The Siloviki brought down Uliukaev” and featured a photo of the key actors of this drama, including the tough-looking man thought to have brought Uliukaev down, Sergei Korolev, the Head of the Economic Security service of the FSB (shown on photo here).

In April, I predicted that a government purge was in the making. I have to admit that I thought that this would have happened earlier. Apparently Putin decided to take action while Uncle Sam was busy with his own, internal, problems. If that is indeed the reason for the late timing, that says a lot about the power of the USA still wields in Russia. Some observers noticed that the arrest of Uliukaev took place after the telephone conversation between Trump and Putin, hinting that Trump might have given Putin the go ahead for the arrest. That is, of course, utter nonsense, but if that can make Putin look bad – it’s good enough for the 5th columnists.

The list of potential ‘candidates’ to be purged next is still long and includes names like the Deputy Prime Minister Arkadii Dvorkovich, the First Deputy Prime Minister Igor Shuvalov, the Governor of the Russian Central Bank Elvira Nabiullina, the Minister of Finance Anton Siluanov and, of course, Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev. Uliukaev was only one amongst many more. Still, he was definitely a top-level target and the manner in which he was arrested must have sent a chill down the spine of all the other 5thcolumnists in the Kremlin. Just the fact that his phone was tapped for so long is quite unthinkable and clearly points to the fact that nobody is safe from Putin’s purges. And that, by itself, is truly a most welcome change: every member of the Medvedev government now has been put on notice that his/her life is now spent under the close scrutiny of the FSB.

It really matters little what will happen to Uliukaev next. He has be formally arraigned, now his case will be further investigated and then Uliukaev will have his day in court (right now he has only be detained and he will be kept under house arrest for the next two months). Potentially, he faces 15 years in jail and a fine equivalent to 70 times the amount of the bribe he took. Judging by the case of Serdyukov, who is managed to escape any prison time thanks to a Presidential Amnesty for the 20 years of the Russian Constitution, Putin seem to be reluctant to inflict any form of retribution upon his enemies. But even if Uliukaev does not get to enjoy the fresh air of the Siberian taiga, he is already finished as a power broker, and that is all that really matters to Putin.

What matters here is that in the course of one night, a top level Russian Minister went from his Ministerial Offices to a holding cell and that absolutely nobody saw it coming or could prevent this. Yet again we have a case of 100% Putin style: no warnings of any kind, no hints even, just sudden dramatic action with an immediate result. His “handwriting” is clearly all over the case.

The reaction to this arrest in Russia was predictable, especially after sources in the security services told the Russian media that Arkadii Dvorkovich and Andrei Belousov were also under investigation. Anatolii Chubais, for example, declared that he was in “total shock”. Even better was the reaction of Prime Minister Medvedev who said that this development was at the “edge of his understanding”.

It will be interesting to observe the inevitable reaction from the Atlantic Integrationists: if they really feel defeated, they will pay lip-service to the need to “fight corruption on all levels” and generally keep a low profile. If they still have some fight in them, they will denounce a “Stalinist” crackdown, the return to “1930’s -like purges” and a “new campaign of terror” against democracy. The western corporate media, whose only “value” is money, will write about how the Russian “secret police” is cracking down on “business entrepreneurs” and how that will end up damaging the Russian economy. Basically, a repeat of the whining which we all heard when Putin dismantled the infamous semibankirshchina. As Elton John would say, we “have seen that movie too…”

As for the rabid Putin-hating nationalists, they will say that this is too little too late. For years they have been complaining about corruption and how top level officials were never investigated, and now that they seem to have gotten their wish, it’s “too little, too late”. But that doesn’t really matter, since they have almost as little credibility with the Russian general public as the pro-western parties like Iabloko or Parnass.

The main media outlets and political commentators are all giving Putin a standing ovation right now. That is hardly surprising since they are the ones who for many months now have been loudly and constantly complaining about the “economic bloc of the government”, meaning the pro-US 5th columnists inside the Medvedev government. Quite literally all the main political commentators have been begging and demanding a purge of this “economic bloc” and a radical change in the economic policies of Russia. Well, they got one villain purged, which is a good start, but there are no signs that more heads will roll or that the economic course of Russia will finally break from the Washington consensus kind of policies and be replaced it with much needed policy of internal growth. But then, knowing Putin, we should not expect any signs – only action.

In Russia, just as in the USA, changing the people is far easier than changing the system while the only way to achieve real change is, precisely, to change the system, not the people. So far, Putin has only succeeded in kicking some of the worst people out and, to his credit, getting some very good people in. Now that a threat of war with the USA is very substantially reduced and that Uncle Sam will be busy with his own, internal, struggles, I hope that Putin will finally take some very strong action to liberate Russia from the Washington consensus types and replace them with real patriots who will finally make it possible for Russia to become a truly sovereign country, even in the economic sense

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Government Purge in the Russian Federation? Putin Orders Arrest of Minister of Economy on Corruption Charges

None of Them Has Ever Been My President

novembre 21st, 2016 by Glen Ford

Tens of thousands have demonstrated against the election of Donald Trump. Some are activists, continuing the struggle. Others are Democrats that are just “mad.” “The Black movement against police terror didn’t need a Donald Trump waiting in the vestibule of the White House to get “mad.” For those who fear Trump’s “fascism,” the threat level “depends on how he uses the arsenal of repressive tools bequeathed to him by the Obama administration.”

You can’t scare people with a specter if they have already been in combat with the real thing.

As a revolutionary Black nationalist whose socialism predates my facial hairs, I have no problem saying Donald Trump is not my president. Neither is the current occupant of the White House, nor were any of the Democrats, Republicans and Whigs that preceded him.

On a chilly November day in 2009 a newly-created coalition, of which I was a co-founder, marched on the White House to denounce and renounce Barack Obama as a tool of white supremacy and the imperial war machine.  “Obama, Obama, you can’t hide – We charge you with genocide,” we shouted, indicting the First Black President for the crimes he was busily committing in service to his masters on Wall Street. The Black is Back Coalition for Social Justice, Peace and Reparations had been formed less than two months before, largely to demonstrate that not all Black people were bamboozled by the slick corporate politician from Chicago, elected one year earlier in the nation’s first billion dollar presidential campaign. As the Coalition’s founding press release stated:

Black and Brown people continue to suffer the brunt of un/under-employment and predatory loan scandal crises. Military spending under Obama has increased as have the warfare this nation continues to export to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Venezuela and Colombia. Mass incarceration, police brutality and political imprisonment remain rampant…

The Black is Back Coalition warned of the “traps set by Obama’s so-called ‘post-racial’ politics that perpetuates the same oppressive militarist agenda well known during the Bush regime.”

To paraphrase Fidel Castro, history has vindicated us.

Obama joined George Bush and Bill Clinton in perpetuating the 20 year-long slaughter in the Democratic Republic of Congo that has claimed more than six million lives.

Obama mobilized NATO air forces and jihadist proxies to destroy Libya, which had previously enjoyed the highest living standard in Africa. He redeployed these same al Qaida terrorists to Syria, killing 400,000 people, displacing half the surviving population and bringing the U.S. to the very brink of nuclear war with Russia. This so-called “Son of Africa” has effectively occupied most of the continent through a U.S. Military Command (AFRICOM) that was less than a year old when Obama was sworn into office. The African Union provides diplomatic cover for the CIA-run “peace keeping” mission in Somalia, while U.S. conventional forces have infiltrated the militaries of all but two African nations. The holdouts, Eritrea and Zimbabwe, are under constant threat of regime change. Obama joined George Bush and Bill Clinton in perpetuating the 20 year-long slaughter in the Democratic Republic of Congo that has claimed more than six million lives, the worst genocide since World War Two (“Obama, Obama, you can’t hide, We charge you with genocide!”)

With the eager assistance of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Obama baldly abetted a Nazi-spearheaded coup against the elected government in Ukraine — and then blamed Moscow when Russian-speaking Ukrainians resisted, provoking a “New Cold War” that could turn hot in an instant. At the same time, Obama “pivoted” to militarily confront China, whose economy is already, by some measures, larger than the U.S. The jihadist war in Syria should also be seen as a theater of imperialism’s last ditch offensive to encircle “Eurasia” in hopes of preserving U.S.-based multinational corporate domination of a “rigged” system of dollar-based world trade.

Just as the Black is Back Coalition warned, Barack Obama was the Black face of imperialism — a change of color without a difference. He tried to hand off the controls to Hillary Clinton, who got six million votes less than he did, and lost.

Back in 2007, when Obama and Clinton were pretending to be ideological opponents — as cookie-cutter corporate Democrats often do — we at Black Agenda Report wrote that “There’s not a dime’s worth of difference” between the two. Every decent, peace-loving person on Earth should be glad to be rid of both of them. Humanity would probably not survive another year of either one.

Barack Obama was the Black face of imperialism — a change of color without a difference.

Donald Trump is also a danger to humanity, like every other U.S. chief executive since Truman nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If words mean anything, Trump starts off posing less of a doomsday international menace, since he claims to want to establish talking, rather than shouting, threatening, nuke-rattling relations with Russia and China, while Clinton’s version of “reset” was an armed confrontation with Russia over the skies of Syria. Of course, all that could quickly change. Trump may be a “party of one” among Republicans in Congress and even in his own cabinet.

For those who fear Trump’s “fascism,” the threat level depends on how he uses the arsenal of repressive tools bequeathed to him by the Obama administration. These legal, infrastructural and technological instruments of the national security state are fascist in their intent; they were made for the purpose of tracking, disorganizing, neutralizing and locking up dissidents, and disinforming the public at large. Thus, President Obama and his predecessors were fascist-minded, whether you call their administrations operatively fascist or not. The Obama administration would not have pushed a bill through Congress allowing the U.S. military to detain American citizens without trial or charge if he had not anticipating using it. He would not have feverishly upgraded an omnipresent national and global surveillance apparatus if he did not anticipate putting it to the task of martial rule. Fascist-minded is all that can be said of Trump, at this point, as well.

Black Lives Matter activists have been under FBI surveillance since day one. Ever since Ferguson, the federal government has taken the lead in over-charging “rioters” in rebellious cities. New York City cops have used social media surveillance as the basis for conspiracy charges against groups of more than 100 young Black people in separate sweeps in Manhattan and The Bronx. The “fascism” that correctly described Jim Crow rule in the pre-Civil Rights South lives on at the core of the mass Black incarceration regime put in place with the crushing of the Black Liberation Movement, two generations ago. The current movement against police terror, which ultimately demands Black community control of the police, put activists in direct confrontation with the coercive arm of the State. There is no retreat from this response to the demands of Black people “on the street,” who bear the daily brunt of repression and are also among the most effective organizers.

Obama would not have feverishly upgraded an omnipresent national and global surveillance apparatus if he did not anticipate putting it to the task of martial rule.

The Black movement against police terror didn’t need a Donald Trump waiting in the vestibule of the White House to get “mad.” The movement has already crossed the Rubicon of confrontation with the State. The moment occurred in the second term of the First Black President, when a new generation learned that liberation cannot be vicariously experienced. The 21st century Black movement emerged with the knowledge that Black corporate Democrats are not their allies, nor are Black police chiefs, or Black preachers whose real loyalties are to the Democratic Party and its Wall Street patrons.

If the Black movement were afraid of the likes of Donald Trump, it never would have gone up against the militarized police that occupy Black communities. You can’t scare people with a specter if they have already been in combat with the real thing.

To the extent that electoral activity is useful to the movement, it should be employed with special vigilance close at hand, against misleaders like the 32 members of the Congressional Black Caucus who failed to support the Grayson Amendment that would have halted Pentagon transfers of weapons and equipment to local police departments. These “Treasonous 32”, comprising 80 percent of full-voting Black Democrats in the House, cast their shameful votes in June, 2014, just two months before Michael Brown was shot down in Ferguson, Missouri. (Rep. William “Lacy” Clay, representing Michael Brown’s district, was among the 32.) If the movement is to have any special targets for electoral vengeance, it is these homegrown enemies, who turn Black people’s votes against themselves.

Trump or no Trump, the Black movement must continue to press and refine its demands — or Power will concede nothing. On November 6, after their annual march on the White House, the organizations of the Black is Back Coalition ratified a 19-point document that puts self-determination at the heart of the broadest range of issues confronting Black America: “Every central demand, every strategy of struggle, must be formulated with the goal of self-determination in mind. Otherwise, the movement will allow itself to be drowned in reformist schemes and projects that bind Black people even more tightly to structures of outside control.” The points range from “Black Community Control of Police,” to “Halting Gentrification,” to “Nationalization of the Banks.”

The points were compiled during Barack Obama’s time in the White House, and they will remain relevant under a President Donald Trump.

We’ve been mad. Let’s get organized, and get free.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur None of Them Has Ever Been My President

US Federal Reserve Set to Lift Key Interest Rate

novembre 21st, 2016 by Nick Beams

Financial markets have priced in as a virtual certainty that the US Federal Reserve will raise its base interest rate when it next meets on December 13–14. Fed chair Janet Yellen lifted expectations of a rate rise when she told a congressional hearing this week that such a move could “become appropriate relatively soon.”

Yellen told Congress’s Joint Economic Committee that if the policy-setting Federal Open Market Committee were to delay for too long “it could end up having to tighten policy relatively abruptly.”

The Fed last increased rates by 0.25 percentage points in December 2015. At that time it was projected that there could have been as many as four rate increases over the course of this year. But at each of its meetings the Fed has decided to keep its base rate on hold.

However the turnaround in bond markets in the last ten days, following the election of Donald Trump to the US presidency, has seen the probability of a rate rise, as reflected in futures markets, escalate rapidly.

The yield on 10-year US treasury bonds reached 2.33 percent yesterday, its highest level for the year. The bond sell-off (the price of bonds and their yield bear an inverse relationship to each other) is on the expectation that inflation in the US will start to rise and that any infrastructure program under Trump will increase government debt—both of which tend to lower bond prices.

The stock markets have been hitting record or near-record highs on the back of expectations that tax cuts, including a reduction in the corporate tax rate from 35 to 15 percent, and a winding back of business regulations, will boost the bottom line.

While it is not anticipated that a Fed rate rise will have a major effect in the US, the international consequences may be significant, with the effects of a rate rise transmitted through a movement of money out of emerging markets to seek higher returns in the US and a rise in the value of the dollar.

The dollar index, which measures the value of the US currency against basket of other currencies, reached a 13-year high at one point yesterday after recording 10 straight days of gains. And it could climb further in the expectation of an increase in official rates next month.

The increase by the Fed last December had a significant effect on emerging markets, which then resulted in major stock markets having one of their worst openings to a year on record. What kind of impact a rate rise will have is not completely clear, but the past weeks have seen major falls in the currencies of emerging market economies and in their stock markets.

According to a report in Bloomberg, emerging market bond markets are poised for their biggest losses since the so-called “taper tantrum” of 2013 when there was a rush for the exits after Fed chairman Ben Bernanke had indicated the central bank would ease back on its purchases of bonds.

Bond prices are falling across the board—it is estimated that the global paper losses so far total around $1.5 trillion—but there are significant divergences. While there is a ready market for the bonds of the major economies, the situation is different for emerging markets.

Every increase in the value of the dollar increases the real debt burden of dollar denominated loans and impacts on the balance sheet of the companies that issued them. If investors withdraw cash, then companies and financial institutions will have difficulties in paying back debt.

In other words, emerging markets, which had previously enjoyed dollar liquidity as investors searched for yield in an environment of near-zero and even negative interest rates, could face a dollar shortage as interest rates and bond yields start to rise.

It is also far from clear what will be the impact on the two most important central banks after the US Fed—the European Central Bank (ECB) and the Bank of Japan (BoJ). The governing council of the ECB will next month set out the future of the asset purchasing program which is due to end in its current form in March 2017. ECB president Mario Draghi has indicated that there would be some form of extension, but that was before the rapid rise in bond yields that followed the Trump victory.

Similarly the Bank of Japan faces new conditions. In September, the central bank committed itself to lock in the interest rate on 10-year government bonds at zero as a central plank of its monetary policy. This week the yield went above zero for the first time since the policy was announced. If it now implements its “yield curve control” policy, a situation may well develop where Japanese government bond yields are under international pressure to rise while the BoJ is working to suppress them.

While US markets are enjoying a Trump boost, there are concerns among fiscal and monetary conservatives about the state of the international financial system and the consequences of a sharp rise in the value of the dollar.

In a statement headlined “Trouble Ahead for the Global Economy,” directed to the incoming administration, the right-wing free-market American Enterprise Institute warned that while the balance sheet expansion of the world’s central banks may have helped the recovery from the Great Recession of 2008–2009 it did so by setting the stage for the next global downturn.

“Sadly, that downturn could very well be on a similar scale to the one that followed the September 2008 Lehman bankruptcy,” it said.

It warned that debt had risen to record levels, financial market bubbles had been created, and the position of troubled banks, especially in Europe, had been worsened by the low interest rate regime.

The statement noted the recent International Monetary Fund study which disclosed that global debt has risen to an all-time high of 225 percent of global GDP over the past eight years, with two-thirds of the growth involving private debt.

It pointed to two causes of concern. European governments with high levels of debt, including Greece, Italy and Portugal, are vulnerable to any tightening of monetary conditions. And what it called “excessive borrowing” by emerging market corporations in dollar denominated loans made them “particularly vulnerable to any further dollar appreciation.”

But with the Fed set to lift interest rates next month, such a rise may be already in train.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur US Federal Reserve Set to Lift Key Interest Rate

Japan’s Commission on the Constitution under the House of Councillors restarted its substantive discussion on a constitutional amendment on November 16 after a nine-month hiatus. It is the first formal multi-party discussion of its kind after the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and its allies secured a supermajority in the election of the House of Councillors this July.

Despite the disagreement of opposition parties, the ambitious LDP, whose members dominate the current government, have maintained their efforts to amend Japan’s pacifist constitution.

Shinzo Abe’s government has further stoked the flames by pushing new security laws that have been accused of violating the country’s constitution. In a « Keen Sword » military drill staged this month by Japanese and US forces, the two countries have for the first time put on joint exercises related to the new security laws.

In addition, the Japanese government also approved a plan for its troops to conduct rescue missions in South Sudan on UN peacekeeping operations. Such actions have aroused strong opposition across the country, while the new security laws have been characterized as paving the way to war.

« Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. » This historic renunciation of war in the pacifist constitution is what the Abe government has long been trying to abolish since he took office.

If constitutional change is a move taken by Abe in the public sphere, then the attempts to enact the new security laws are brazen violations of Japan’s pacifist pledge. Since the laws allow the country to fully exercise its right to collective defense, it’s just a matter of time before Japan’s Self-Defense Forces (SDF) engage in aggressive military action, which directly violates its pacifist constitution.

However, the Japanese government, infamous for saying one thing and doing another, holds greater ambitions. The true intention of the conservative Abe government is to legalize its engagement in wars.

To advance its underhanded agenda, it has carried out a series of actions both domestically and internationally. It rejected and amended the domestic and diplomatic policies adopted by successive cabinets, overturned its introspection and repentance over aggression in World War II, fomented tensions over the Diaoyu Islands and South China Sea, made “new allies” and drove a wedge between China and its neighbors.

The world has expressed severe concerns over these actions that may lead Japan off the path of peaceful development.

Since Japan passed the new security bills last September, more than 300 protests have taken place across the country, calling for the government to abolish the new laws. In addition, many Japanese citizens have filed lawsuits against the Japanese government for its violation of the constitution and the mental torment caused by the possibility of future wars or terrorist attacks.

These voices have criticized the endorsement of the new security bills as a savage act, described the amendment of the constitution as a regression of history, and voiced their opposition to sending their children to battle.

Just recently, US magazine Foreign Policy remarked, “Abe did pass the legislation but never managed to dispel public concerns … that sometime, somewhere at Washington’s behest, Tokyo will get dragged into a conflict that has nothing to do with the defense of Japan.”

The debate over the constitutional amendment will surely bring chaos to Japanese society, but the victims will not be limited to the Japanese people. The new security laws allow Japanese troops to operate across the world, provide military support to its allies, and strike first in a military capacity, thus further destabilizing the Asia-Pacific region.

Japan is trying to shake off the final restraint on its diplomatic, military and overseas actions through its constitutional amendment, new security laws and abolishment of its renunciation of war, so as to escape its post-war pacifist system. The international community should stay alert to such actions.

Hitoshi Ashida, former chairman of Japan’s Committee on the Bill for Revision of the Imperial Constitution, said 70 years ago that the renunciation of war is the common desire of the people who suffered from the war that caused hundreds of thousands of casualties, comparing it to a broad path to world peace.

Though seven decades have passed, the significance of the pacifist constitution should not be undermined or forgotten. It serves as an assurance of peace to the Japanese people and the countries once invaded by Japan, as well as a crucial step to eliminating a potential threat to the peace of East Asia.

It is the responsibility and mission of every member of the international community to safeguard and play a constructive role in regional and world peace. Only by drawing lessons from history, adhering to a peaceful development trajectory, treading cautiously when it comes to military action and boosting mutual trust with neighbors, can Japan return to the right path.

Though Japanese citizens know this well, a handful of extreme and stubborn right-wing politicians are leading Japan astray by walking down the old path of expansionism.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Asia on Alert as Japan Slides Towards Renouncing Pacifist Pledge

A group of 89 MEPs have tabled a motion that the proposed Investor Court System (ICS) in CETA, the EU Canada trade deal, should be subjected to full and proper legal scrutiny by the European Court of Justice before coming into force.

The ICS would enable corporations to sue participating governments for passing laws or regulations that could harm their profits, for example by imposing new restrictions on pesticides, or raising labour standards.

The 89 ‘rebel’ MEPs say the controversial provisions need to be scrutinised to ensure that they are compatible with existing EU treaties and laws. But parliamentary leaders are attempting to block their initiative.

In their latest move, the European Parliament’s Committee of Presidents have pushed forward the vote on the motion to Wednesday 23rd November, and are refusing to allow any debate about it to take place in parliament.

It’s also been reported that the some of the MEPs who tabled the motion have been ordered by party leaders to remove their names from it.

‘A chilling effect on governments seeking to improve social and environmental standards’

However the 89 MEPs who tabled the motion say that unless MEPs are allowed time to debate the proposal and articulate their concerns about the legality of ICS, the proposal is much less likely to succeed. A previous report on the proposed Investor Court Systemalso warned that it « could dangerously thwart government efforts to protect citizens and the environment. »

« The system of secret, corporate courts proposed within the CETA trade treaty represents a massive power grab and it is particularly shocking that our democratic representatives at Westminster are being prevented from debating or voting on this trade treaty », said Molly Scott Cato, Green MEP for South West England and Gibraltar, one of those who tabled the motion.

« The courts are likely to have a chilling effect on governments seeking to improve social and environmental standards, whether this is about controlling the use of antibiotic use on farms or ensuring that we have worker representatives on boards. The slogan ‘Take back control’ is still ringing in our ears but we need to pay close attention to the question of who is taking back control from whom? »

Specific criticisms of the proposed system include:

  • Under a comparable treaty, Canada has been sued 26 times, mostly for trying to introducing better environmental regulation. Billions of dollars are currently sought from Canada. In many ways, CETA gives corporations even clearer powers to sue.
  • Canadian corporations have launched 42 cases against other governments, primarily by extractive firms, and currently have $20 billion in outstanding claims against governments including the US.
  • Financial regulation is particularly under threat under CETA which hands big banks more power to challenge financial regulation they don’t like
  • European states also risk being sued by thousands of the biggest US multinationals through their subsidiaries in Canada.

Nothing Green about CETA!

Meanwhile a new study by green group Transport & Environment (T&E) and the  legal NGO ClientEarth points out that CETA’s ‘environment chapter’ – unlike the ICS provisions – is not legally binding on Europe and Canada. Moreover there are no enforcement mechanisms for its already-weak provisions.

« CETA is often sold as a gold standard for all future EU trade deals, yet it sets the bar for environmental protections very low », according to Cecile Toubeau, T&E director of better trade and regulation. « MEPs and national parliaments must demand more from a trade deal that was negotiated in secret. To even think about calling CETA a gold standard, we need to see a legally binding environment chapter that can be enforced with sanctions. »

She added that the ‘regulatory cooperation’ section focuses on trade barriers alone and not improving social and environmental policy, according to the analysis. As such, if a country attempts to raise the level of environmental regulation, it could be subjet to legal action trade grounds by a country that has chosen not to cooperate, Toubeau explained.

The report also slams CETA’s ICS provisions because it would « only hear cases brought by corporations, not by citizens or their governments ». As an example of its detrimental effect, it cites the possibility that measures such as policies favouring renewable energy or laws to decarbonise transport fuel could create emormous liabilities to corporate litigants.

« The EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement is not a progressive deal », stated Laurens Ankersmit, EU trade and environment lawyer at ClientEarth. « For the first time in EU-Canada relations, the whole of Europe will be exposed to claims by Canadian investors before investment tribunals. A few weak provisions on environmental commitments cannot mask that this agreement will serve business, not the planet. »

Underhand and anti-democratic

« The fact that political leaders in the EU are trying to prevent that from taking place shows how desperate they are to inflict this toxic trade deal on the people of Europe », said Guy Taylor, trade campaigner at Global Justice Now and a prominent critic of CETA and other ‘free trade’ deals.

« It’s an underhand move that is sadly entirely in tune with the lack of transparency, accountability and democratic process that has characterised these negotiations. This is not democracy, this is politicians pushing toxic trade deals through at breakneck speed with no debate and at great risk to our legal systems. We need all our MEPs to support the very sensible demand that the corporate court system should be scrutinized by legal experts.

He added that the corporate court system embodied in CETA would « have enormous ramifications for current legal systems across Europe ». It’s therefore « an entirely sensible and appropriate proposal that it should be subject to thorough scrutiny from legal experts at the European Courts of Justice. »

« CETA would open up our government to a deluge of court cases by North American multinational corporations and investors. It presents a threat to our ability to protect the environment, to protect the public and to limit the power of big banks. It’s thoroughly undemocratic and must be stopped. »

And he warned that the UK would continue to be bound by the terms of CETA even if it leaves the EU for years to come. « If CETA is pushed through like this it will still impact the UK regardless of when Brexit happens. »

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur European Parliament Demands Legal Scrutiny of CETA’s ‘Corporate Court’ System. Nothing Green about CETA!

The incoming administration of President-elect Donald Trump already includes a long and growing list of controversial characters, controversial not because they represent a major departure from the policies of US President Barack Obama, but precisely because they represent uninterrupted continuity of agenda instead.

Other reports have mentioned the inclusion of highly problematic figures from among Washington’s Neo-Conservative establishment, but President-elect Trump’s national security adviser, retired US Army general, Michael Flynn is perhaps the most symbolic of all in signaling a continuity of agenda regarding US foreign policy.

Flynn was appointed in April of 2012 by US President Barack Obama as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). It was during this time the US was already deeply involved in semi-covert intervention in the Syrian conflict, after having decimated Libya in 2011 with direct US military intervention.

It was also during Flynn’s time at the DIA, August 2012 in fact, that a now notorious memo was circulated (PDF) regarding the anticipated rise of what it called a “Salafist principality” in eastern Syria, and how it could be used as a strategic asset against what it called the “Syrian regime.”  The DIA’s anticipated “Salafist principality” would later be named the “Islamic State” (IS) and did indeed seize territory in eastern Syria where it remains dug-in to this day.

Flynn’s Plan on Terror Resembles the Perpetual War Bush and Obama Fought 

It is indeed troubling that incoming President-elect Trump has chosen an Obama-era DIA director to serve in a more senior position still, and that this DIA director presided over the organization when it not only knew of IS’ impending arrival on the geopolitical stage, but sought to encourage its arrival and use it as a strategic asset with which to fight the secular government in Damascus.

Flynn either didn’t know just how literal US policymakers were in using IS as a strategic asset, or was complicit in the US’ doing so.

What’s perhaps more troubling is Flynn’s alleged plans to fight and defeat terrorism.

In a recent Business Insider article titled, “Trump’s new national security adviser outlines his controversial plan to defeat terrorism,” it states:

President-elect Donald Trump’s newly appointed national security adviser, retired Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn, has outlined his plan to defeat terrorism extensively in recent months.

Business Insider continues, reporting:

“If we cannot criticize the radical Muslims in our own country, we cannot fight them either in America or overseas,” Flynn wrote in the book’s conclusion. “Unless we can wage an effective ideological campaign in the United States, we will not be able to defeat the jihadis on foreign battlefields, because we will not understand the true nature of our enemy.”

The article also reports:

Flynn has also emphasized the need for looser rules of engagement for US soldiers in the Middle East and for a new intelligence-driven strategy. He wrote about “attacking the enemy alliance” — Russia and Iran — and strengthening the US’ own alliances.

Flynn fails to make any mention of state sponsors of terrorism, namely Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, which might in fact fall under Flynn’s plans for “strengthening the US’ own alliances.” Indeed, Flynn’s new plan to defeat terrorism, is neither new, nor an actual plan to defeat terrorism.

Instead, it is a plan to further perpetuate an artificial clash of civilizations between the West and what is called “radical Islam,” but which is actually ideological indoctrination sponsored by America’s closet Persian Gulf allies as a means of building an almost inexhaustible army of militants deployed against governments the US itself seeks to overthrow and replace.

Perhaps the only thing that will change with President-elect Trump’s arrival in the White House is the narrative used to explain why the United States continues to ignore Saudi Arabia and Qatar’s role in perpetuating terrorism, completely side-step the role the US plays in exploiting militant organizations as strategic assets and why the Trump administration fully plans to continue wars designed and initiated under both Bush and Obama’s administrations.

With Flynn’s inclusion in a suspiciously familiar-looking administration congealing around Trump, it appears that the American people didn’t truly vote for a new executive in the White House, but rather a new narrative used to sell the same old policy as before, a policy merely emanating from the White House but clearly devised and dictated from well beyond it.

Ulson Gunnar, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Incoming US National Security Adviser to Fuel, not Fight Terrorism

At the first stage of what is likely to be a lengthy appeals process, the Information Commissioner has upheld the Ministry of Defence’s refusal to reveal to Drone Wars UK the number of Britain’s armed drones currently deployed.

Despite the fact that the MoD are happy to give such details about other surveillance and attack aircraft taking part in operations against ISIS, the MoD insists that the number of drones deployed nor their location can be released for reasons of operational security.

Our appeal, submitted to the Information Commissioner in June 2016, sought to overturn the MoD’s refusal to release the information.  It argued that:

In response to our complaint, the Information Commissioner asked the MOD for further submissions on exactly why the information should be exempt from disclosure.  Following these extra submissions – which we are not allowed to see – the Information Commissioner decided to uphold the MoD’s decision.  The ICO Decision Notice states:

Although the Commissioner cannot set out in any detail in this notice why she has reached this decision, she wishes to emphasise that she has considered, and paid particular attention to, the specific points advanced by the complainant.

We are now preparing to appeal to an Information Tribunal.

Keeping it covert

Despite regularly arguing that armed drones are no different from its other military aircraft, in refusing to release this information to campaigners and MPs, the MoD are clearly treating them differently.  While it is happy to name and number other aircraft deployed on overseas operations, the MoD want to keep the number and location of its armed drones secret. This appears to be because the MoD wants to use them – or at the very least have the option to use them – on covert operations.

We know some of Britain’s fleet of ten armed Reapers have been deployed to the Middle East as part of Operation Shader, as the UK military deployment against ISIS in Iraq and Syria is named.  However we are not allowed to know if they have all been deployed there, or if some remain in storage in the UK, or if some have been deployed on operations elsewhere.  Press reports name Kuwait as the base for UK Reaper operations in Iraq and Syria.

Since the withdrawal from Afghanistan at the end of 2014, Britain’s Reapers have been used at least once outside of Operation Shader – to undertake the targeted strike against Reyaad Khan in Syria in August 2015 – a strike that the MoD has insisted was conducted separately from Shader.  It is also certainly possible that some of Britain’s Reapers have been deployed elsewhere on surveillance or even strike missions. Without the release of further basic information, we simply cannot know.  MP’s like Richard Burden, who have raised this issue in parliament, have simply been rebuffed.

UK Responsibility and opportunity 

The MoD’s perspective appears to be that they should be able to operate these systems outside of public view and without the need for public accountability. From a wider international security perspective however, it is crucial, as more and more nations acquire armed drones, that there is a strong expectation and culture of transparency and public oversight of the deployment of armed drones.  As one of the few countries operating these systems beyond its own borders, the UK should recognise that it has both the responsibility and also the opportunity to set high standards internationally for such transparency. However if the UK refuses such basic details as the number of armed drones that have been deployed, other nations acquiring such systems are likely to follow this lead.

The deployment of armed drones in particular needs to be carefully monitored as they have become the preferred means of undertaking extra-judicial targeted killings. Indeed it can be argued that the technology has hugely expanded the use of targeted killing. This reason alone should make public oversight of armed drones critically important.  However there is also growing evidence that armed drones are lowering the threshold for use of force. In relation to Iraq and Syria for example, although parliament limited the deployment of military force against ISIS strictly to Iraq in its September 2014 resolution, within weeks British armed drones, in defiance of that restriction, were crossing the border into Syria.  Just over 12 months later in December 2015 the fact that British drones were already operating in Syria was then used, in part, to persuade Parliament into undertaking strikes there.

It has long been argued that there should be parliamentary authorisation for the British use of military force overseas.  Currently it is a prerogative of the Crown within the hands of the PM.  However in 2011 the Government acknowledged that a convention had emerged whereby the House of Commons should have the opportunity to debate the deployment of military forces except in the event of an emergency.  It has been argued by all the main parties (when in opposition!) that this convention should be enshrined in a War Powers Act, though such calls are regularly dropped when parties get into power.

However it seems that the current Government are clear that the deployment of armed drones – despite their increasing use to cross borders in defiance of international law norms – are exempt from such parliamentary oversight. Asked by Tom Watson MP whether the government would seek approval for the deployment of armed drones, the then MoD Minister Mark Francois replied sarcastically that there was “no intention for parliamentary approval to be sought before decisions on deployment or redeployment of individual items of equipment are made.”

Eighteen months later in January 2016 amid discussion of UK military intervention in Libya, Vice Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Drones, David Anderson MP, again asked the MoD if they would ensure that parliament had an opportunity to debate the deployment of UK Reapers outside of Syria and Iraq.  Michael Fallon gave a dismissive, one word answer: “No”.

If following the lead of the United States, multiple nations begin to undertake strikes from remotely controlled drones without detailing, or even acknowledging such deployments, there will be a significant and damaging decrease in international security. The UK needs to recognise it has a global responsibility on this issue and take an important lead. It should set an important benchmark for transparency on this issue by releasing the number of its armed drones deployed overseas together with their general location, and commit to bringing the deployment of armed drones within the convention that parliament approves the deployment and use of military force overseas.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Where are Britain’s Armed Drones? Deployed in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan

Amid the continued support given to the fascist politicians and military of Ukraine by western governments, many people are asking how such a betrayal of the sacrifices of the Allies in World War Two could take place. However, what most people are unaware of, in large part due to an ever-more corrupted media, is that these governments have a shocking history of protecting the perpetrators of some of the most terrible crimes of that war. One of the most egregious examples of this practice of shielding war-criminals from justice was confirmed in 2005 with the declassification of British Home Office papers showing that the British government protected at least 8,000 members of the Waffen-SS Galitsia Division from the justice that awaited them in the Soviet Union.

When Nazi Germany surrendered to the Allied Powers in May 1945, the 14th Waffen-SS ‘Galitsia’ Division, made up of Ukrainian volunteers, continued to retreat westward from their positions in Austria in order to avoid capture and punishment by the advancing Red Army. The Division—approximately 10,000 soldiers—ultimately chose to surrender to British and American forces and was briefly sent to an internment camp in Spittal an der Drau, Austria. The British government, in contravention of the agreements made at the Yalta Conference, refused to repatriate the Galitsia Division to the Soviet Union, instead transferring them to another internment camp in Bellaria-Igea Marina, in northern Italy. It was here that a troika of prominent Ukrainian fascists—Mykola Lebed, Father Ivan Hry’okh and Bishop Ivan Buchko—persuaded the Vatican to intercede on behalf of the soldiers, whom Bishop Buchko described as “good Catholics and fervent anti-communists.”

Galitsia Division troops interned at Rimini, Italy

As a result of this intercession, the British and American authorities overseeing the internment camp remained steadfast in their refusal to abide by their obligation to repatriate the soldiers to the Soviet Union. One of the principal British proponents of the decision not to repatriate the Galitsia Division was Major Denis Hills. Major Hills was keen on protecting these soldiers, and despite admitting that he “knew about the SS”, he said the army “was not interested in war crimes.”

According to British academic, Stephen Dorril, in his book M16: Inside the Covert World of Her Majesty’s Secret Service, Major Hills was a self-described fascist and a staunch anti-communist who took it upon himself to ensure that the Galitsia Division would be transferred to Britain. Hills personally advised the head of the Division, Major Yaskevycz, to instruct his men that when questioned by the Soviet repatriation commission they must lie and insist that they were forced to serve alongside the Nazis and were not by any means volunteers. As a result of this, and due to British fears that improved relations between Italy and the Soviet Union could result in repatriation, the decision was made on April 1st, 1947, to relocate at least 8,000 members of the Galitsia Division to Britain.

Troops of Galitsia Division being transported to Britain

Documents from the British Home Office that were declassified in 2005 reveal in great detail the lengths to which government officials went to grant citizenship and employment to the members of the Galitsia Division. This was a process that was greatly encouraged by politicians of Ukrainian origin like Gordon Bohdan Panchuk, a Canadian MP who put significant pressure on the British Home Office to extend “kind and sympathetic understanding and favourable action” towards the Division. Panchuk further threatened Home Office officials that any discussions of repatriation or ill-treatment of the soldiers would result in a negative political reaction from the Ukrainian communities of Canada and Britain.

The Home Office documents also show a general awareness of the background of the men of the Galitsia Division. It was well known that the war record of these soldiers was “bad and difficulties are likely to arise if they are employed with Poles.” Despite this, the tendency within these correspondences was to overlook the recent history of the Galitsia Division and its role within the Waffen-SS. There were, however, notable objections from Home Office employees assigned to this matter, including that of Beryl Hughes, who found it:

difficult to understand the Ministry of Labour attitude over these POWs. To strain at the gnat of the PLF while appearing to be prepared to face with equanimity the prospect of swallowing a large-sized camel in the shape of upwards of 4,000 undisputed volunteers of the Wehrmacht seems to me the height of absurdity…I cannot help having serious misgivings about their attempt to foist the Ukrainian POWs on the labour market as just another batch of EVWs. [European Volunteer Workers].

Another Home Office official by the name of F.L.F Devey referred to the ‘Surrendered Enemy Personnel’ (SEP) status given to the Galitsia Division as a “pleasant fiction” that was originally enabled during their internment in Italy and overshadowed their true status as prisoners of war.

An interesting component to these documents, and particularly to the solicitations of the Canadian MP Panchuk, was the appeal to sympathy for the men of the Galitsia Division due to their fighting against Russians and communists rather than against “the western allies”. This logic would also be utilized by the CIA in later years, with high ranking operatives such as Harry Rositzke explaining that leading up to, and during, the Cold War anyone could be considered an ally “as long as he was anti-communist…you didn’t look at their credentials too closely.”

Even if there was an inclination to take a closer look at the credentials of the soldiers who made up the Galitsia Division, the British government had taken steps to obscure the dark history of these men. Dr. Stephen Ankier, a pharmacologist turned Holocaust researcher, brought to light the importance of the ‘Rimini list’. This was a classified document that disallowed the ability to track the members of the Division that were transferred to Britain and furthermore blocked efforts to “do anything about them, despite the suspicion that there were war criminals among that group, who were living in Britain.” One of the advantages of the Rimini list was that the British government would be able to better hide the identities of those former SS-Galitsia Division soldiers who would eventually join M16 and the British military in order to aid the anti-Soviet campaign.

An inquiry conducted by the former British MP, Rupert Allason, found that a significant number of the Division was taken to RNAS [Royal Naval Air Station ‒ed.] Crail in Scotland in order to aid with the teaching of the Russian language to British intelligence recruits. Furthermore Allason told the British parliament in 1990 that he had:

obtained evidence from people who served there [RNAS Crail] and were taught Russian by people who openly boasted about the atrocities they had committed…Those boasts were known to British national service men going into the Intelligence Corps and they must have been known to the British government in subsequent years.

Despite this evidence, that by many accounts was available to the British government for decades, no meaningful action was taken and there has been no official recognition of the British role in shielding thousands of war-criminals from justice. Even more shocking than this is the fact that the acceptance of WWII-era war criminals into Britain was not limited to these 8,000 Ukrainian fascists, but also allowed for the protection of a significant number of Axis soldiers. British historians Andrew Thompson and David Cesarani have in their research shown that “war criminals of a range of nationalities did enter Britain” through avenues such as post-war workers’ programs and resettlement initiatives that sought to prevent repatriation to Soviet territories.

In light of this information the logic of contemporary western support for fascism in Ukraine becomes clearer, especially in the context of the contemporary Russophobic hysteria which relies so heavily on post-WWII anti-Soviet rhetoric. Images of British and American politicians embracing the defenders of Ukraine’s fascist past were shocking at first, but now can be seen as the continuation of a decades-long political tradition that betrays the true heroes and victims of the Second World War.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur History: How Britain Protected Ukraine’s Waffen-SS Galitsia Division in the Wake of World War II

Following the liberation of Tal Afar Airbase, the Iraqi Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) have launched an operation to liberate the key town of Tal Afar from the ISIS terrorist group.

With the liberation of Tal Afar, ISIS terrorists will be completely cut off from all aid, support and reinforcement from its allies in Syria.

SouthFront is releasing documentary footage from this operation with help from the Popular Mobilization units Media Team 

 

(https://twitter.com/teamsmediawar).

Thanks to Islamic World News (https://twitter.com/A7_Mirza)

and TAHA.K (https://twitter.com/HKarimi1991) for the Mosul operation map used in the first part of the video.

 

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Video, Breaking: Towards the Defeat of ISIS and Liberation of Mosul by the Iraqi Popular Mobilization Units (PMU)

In the multipolar world of the 21st century, the locus of economic attention is shifting toward Eurasia.

And as journalist and author Nomi Prins notes, in this changing economic landscape, the dominance of the Federal Reserve and the Washington consensus is coming into question for the first time since the end of the Second World War.

This is the GRTV Feature Interview with your host, James Corbett, and our special guest, Nomi Prins.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Video: Crisis at the US Federal Reserve, End of the Washington Consensus?

L’«effet Trump» divise l’opinion européenne

novembre 20th, 2016 by M. K. Bhadrakumar

Les résultats des deux élections présidentielles tenues dimanche en Bulgarie et en Moldavie mettent en évidence que les vents du changement soufflent sur les flancs ouest de l’Eurasie. Dans une certaine mesure, ils peuvent être nommés les signes précoces de l’«effet Trump». Dans les deux élections, des candidats «pro-russes» l’ont emporté de manière convaincante (voir ici et ).

Dans les deux cas, le débat se résumait principalement à la question de savoir si le sort de la Bulgarie et de la Moldavie serait meilleur avec l’Union européenne ou si elles devaient se réaligner avec la Russie. La réponse est claire.

La quête ouverte pour l’adhésion à l’UE n’a plus d’attrait pour la Moldavie, tandis que la Bulgarie semble découragée par son statut de membre de l’Union. D’autre part, la Russie est réelle et elle est à côté. Les résultats de l’élection d’hier constituent un coup pour le prestige de l’UE. En effet, l’influence de Moscou se répand en Europe de l’Est.

C’est aussi un mouvement de balancier à gauche en termes politiques. Il y a beaucoup de mécontentement avec les «réformes», la corruption rampante, etc., dans les deux pays. Le sentiment russophile est très important, et il y a un désir de stimuler le commerce avec la Russie pour surmonter les difficultés économiques. Il y a également le fait que les partisans locaux de l’Ouest sont discrédités dans les deux pays.

En Moldavie, seulement environ 30% de la population trouvent l’UE attirante, tandis que 44% soutiendraient leur pays s’il rejoignait l’Union économique eurasiatique dirigée par Moscou. Curieusement, 66% des Moldaves ont confiance en Vladimir Poutine ; en comparaison seulement 22% font confiance aux paroles de Barack Obama.

Dans le contexte de la victoire électorale de Donald Trump aux États-Unis, il sera intéressant d’observer ce que ces tendances vont donner. Le président élu en Bulgarie, Rumen Radev, a appelé à mettre fin aux sanctions de l’Union européenne contre la Russie. Il argumente que Sofia pourrait être pragmatique dans son approche de l’annexion de la Crimée par la Russie. (Ceci nonobstant la longue histoire des loyautés divisées de la Bulgarie entre la Russie et l’Europe.)

Dans sa phase de «canard boiteux» [fin de mandat, NdT], l’administration Obama cherchera à faire pression sur l’UE pour étendre les sanctions contre la Russie pendant une nouvelle période de six mois après décembre. Mais Trump marchera-t-il dans les pas d’Obama lorsque le problème resurgira au milieu de l’année prochaine ? Il est peu susceptible de manifester le zèle «messianique» d’Obama pour «contenir» la Russie. Voilà comment le consensus européen sur les sanctions contre la Russie peut éclater, parce que de nombreux pays en Europe ressentent la pression américaine et préfèrent rétablir les liens économiques et commerciaux avec la Russie.

C’est intéressant, Trump peut également avoir de la résonance dans la Vieille Europe. Le dirigeant du Parti travailliste britannique, Jeremy Corbyn, a adressé en fin de semaine un étonnant appel aux dirigeants occidentaux à «démilitariser»  la frontière entre l’Europe de l’Est et la Russie ou à risquer une nouvelle Guerre froide. Il a dit que l’Ouest ne devait pas accumuler des forces aux frontières de la Russie. Corbyn a déclaré sur la BBC :

«J’ai beaucoup, beaucoup de critiques à faire à Poutine, sur les violations des droits de l’homme en Russie, sur la militarisation de la société. Mais je pense vraiment qu’il devrait y avoir un processus… Démilitariser la frontière entre les actuels pays membres de l’OTAN et la Russie, donc que l’on éloigne ces forces et qu’on les garde éloignées afin d’arriver à une sorte d’arrangement. Nous ne pouvons pas retomber dans une nouvelle Guerre froide.»

Corbyn a aussi fait une suggestion réfléchie, celle que l’Organisation pour la sécurité et la coopération en Europe (OSCE), dont la Russie fait partie, pourrait remplacer l’OTAN en tant que forum pour résoudre les problèmes dans la région.

En effet, un certain emballement a déjà commencé par rapport à la sécurité en Europe même avant que Trump ne prenne le relais dans le bureau ovale. D’ailleurs, le Premier ministre tchèque Bohuslav Sobotka a dit dimanche que les déclarations américaines sur l’installation possible en République tchèque d’un radar fonctionnant en relation avec le bouclier antimissile états-unien étaient de la pure fiction.

Il a dit : «Un radar sur le territoire de la République tchèque représenterait une nouvelle escalade dans les relations avec la Russie. Nous devons utiliser la fenêtre qui s’ouvre après l’élection de Donald Trump pour avoir les États-Unis et la Russie assis à la même table.» Sobotka a souligné que le principal problème de sécurité de l’Europe de l’Est aujourd’hui est de mettre fin à la guerre en Syrie.

«Les États-Unis ont une influence considérable sur la situation en Syrie, la Russie a une influence considérable. Donc il est nécessaire d’utiliser ces éléments», a-t-il dit, ajoutant que Donald Trump peut instaurer une coopération plus efficace avec la Russie en Syrie.

La question, cependant, est que Trump n’a pas encore pris position sur l’OTAN et que ce ne sera pas facile pour lui de chercher à séparer l’Amérique de l’alliance occidentale. Pour le dire simplement, l’Europe n’est pas prête à un avenir post-OTAN. Il y a une crainte palpable dans de nombreux milieux (tant aux États-Unis qu’en Europe) que si les États-Unis se retiraient d’Europe, la Russie avancerait et manifesterait un comportement plus affirmé en Europe de l’Est.

Dans un article paru ce week-end, le secrétaire général de l’OTAN Jens Stoltenberg a lancé un appel passionné à Trump, indiquant que ce n’est pas le moment pour les États-Unis d’abandonner l’OTAN. Il a invoqué ostensiblement les perceptions de la menace que constituerait une Russie «plus affirmée». L’article est ici.

Le résultat est que l’opinion européenne est divisée. La Grande-Bretagne, la France et la Hongrie ont refusé d’assister à une réunion controversée des ministres européens la nuit dernière à Bruxelles, réunion soutenue par l’Allemagne, pour définir l’approche du bloc européen par rapport à l’élection de Trump. Le désaccord au sein de l’UE sur le vote américain est patent. Le bouillonnant secrétaire britannique aux Affaires étrangères Boris Johnson a publiquement réprimandé les politiciens de l’UE pour qu’ils mettent fin à leurs lamentations à propos de Trump. (Daily Mail)

Fait intéressant, le premier politicien étranger que Trump a rencontré après son élection était Nigel Farage, le militant populiste qui a fait campagne pour le Brexit.

MK Badhrakumar

Article original en anglais : ‘Trump effect’ divides European opinion, Indian Punchline, 14 novembre 2016

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

  • Posted in Francais @fr
  • Commentaires fermés sur L’«effet Trump» divise l’opinion européenne

La dernière tournée européenne du président américain Barack Obama est marquée par des tentatives d’apaisement politique et de limitation des dégâts. Le président américain sortant s’efforce de calmer les craintes face à son successeur Donald Trump en promouvant une étroite collaboration avec lui dans le but de préserver sur cette base une OTAN dominée par les États-Unis comme l’alliance militaire la plus importante.

Pour ce faire, il compte sur la chancelière Angela Merkel qu’il espère rallier comme dirigeante d’une Europe forte sous domination de l’Allemagne. La promotion qu’Obama fait de son successeur est telle que le quotidien allemand Süddeutsche Zeitung le qualifie de « porte-parole » de Donald Trump.

Après un bref séjour en Grèce, où il a apporté son soutien au premier ministre grec Alexis Tsipras qui est fortement méprisé pour sa politique d’austérité, Obama a tenu un discours dans un centre culturel appartenant à l’armateur milliardaire grec Stavros Niarchos. Il s’est ensuite rendu mercredi soir à Berlin pour un dîner de trois heures avec Merkel.

Obama consacra également entièrement la journée de jeudi à son hôtesse allemande. Une réunion officielle à la chancellerie fut suivie d’une conférence de presse commune et d’entretiens accordés à Der Spiegel et à la chaîne de télévision publique ARD. Le président François Hollande, la Première ministre britannique, Theresa May, le premier ministre italien, Matteo Renzi et le premier ministre espagnol Mariano Rajoy ne furent invités à rejoindre la réunion que vendredi matin avant qu’Obama reprenne l’avion tôt vendredi après-midi.

Un article co-écrit par Obama et Merkel et intitulé « De l’avenir des relations transatlantiques » est paru jeudi dans le journal Wirtschaftswoche. Le lien étroit entre l’Allemagne et les Etats-Unis y était sollicité avec insistance. Cette amitié « s’appuie sur notre engagement pour la liberté personnelle et la dignité de chaque citoyen, que seule une démocratie vivante, dans un État de droit, peut garantir ».

L’article invoque la reconnaissance mondiale du droit international comme étant « la condition préalable à la stabilité et à la prospérité », ainsi que « notre profond respect de la dignité de l’être humain », « la protection de la planète » et d’autres « valeurs communes ». Il proclame ensuite, « C’est la manière dont nous traitons les personnes les plus vulnérables qui détermine la véritable force de nos valeurs ».

Ce verbiage aussi mielleux qu’hypocrite vise à défendre l’OTAN et les guerres aux Moyen-Orient. « Nos pays se sont engagés à une défense collective au sein de l’Alliance nord-atlantique (OTAN) parce que nous voulons préserver la sécurité de la région Atlantique-Nord dans son ensemble. Nous coopérons étroitement dans la lutte contre le terrorisme, y compris au sein de la Coalition internationale contre le l’État islamique (EI) parce que nous devons protéger nos citoyens et parce que nous ne voulons pas sacrifier notre mode de vie pour la liberté de nos ennemis, » a poursuivi l’article.

À Berlin, Obama a inlassablement souligné que son successeur appuyait aussi cette ligne. À une question qui lui fut adressée lors d’une conférence de presse pour savoir si la désignation par Trump de l’extrémiste de droite Stephen Bannon au poste de premier conseiller et chef de la stratégie, ainsi que son choix de Nigel Farage, le dirigeant de l’UKIP, pour sa première réunion avec un politicien européen, ne prouvait pas exactement le contraire, Obama a répondu, « Je suis toujours optimiste », que c’était là ce que la vie lui avait enseigné. « Le cadre de la fonction présidentielle » devrait modifier Trump, a-t-il affirmé. Obama a dit vouloir faire tout son possible pour l’aider en cela.

Obama a gratifié la chancelière Merkel d’éloges et de compliments. Il a loué sa forte capacité de direction et a indiqué qu’elle avait étroitement coopérer avec les Etats-Unis durant la crise en Ukraine et en ce qui concerne la Syrie. À la question de savoir s’il soutenait un quatrième mandat de Merkel, Obama a dit ne pas vouloir intervenir dans la politique d’un autre pays – mais si Merkel décidait de se représenter, elle obteindrait sa voix s’il pouvait voter.

Obama a toutefois eu du mal à même convaincre les médias pro-américains comme quoi Trump suivrait en fait un tel cap. Le Süddeutsche Zeitung a raillé le discours d’Obama à Athènes en écrivant jeudi, « Voilà le discours de quelqu’un qui ne semble pas avoir compris ce qui s’est passé ces derniers jours », Le journal l’a décrit comme « une jolie démarche » qu’un président américain qui s’est révélé incapable d’empêcher la montée de Trump, « se retrouve précisément lors de sa tournée d’adieu aux côtés du plus grand trompeur d’Europe, le premier ministre [grec] Alexis Tsipras ».

Ce même journal a publié un article d’opinion par James W. Davis qui enseigne la politique internationale à St Gall en Suisse et qui fut un membre de l’équipe de conseillers de Hillary Clinton. Il a décrit la crainte omniprésente en Europe « que quelque chose de fondamental de l’ordre mondial d’ores et déjà affaibli s’était effondré ». Dans le passé, tous les « gouvernements américains dirigés par les Démocrates ou les Républicains avaient reconnu les principes fondamentaux du libre marché et de la défense collective ». Les présidents à la Maison Blanche n’avaient jamais « ouvertement remis en cause les piliers fondamentaux de l’ordre mené par l’Amérique […] Donald Trump, qui a été élu président, le fait ».

Lors de la conférence de presse commune, Obama et Merkel ont aussi affirmé l’importance de l’Union européenne dont la dissolution sera accélérée par la victoire de Trump. Les forces nationalistes de droite qui ont célébré le succès du Brexit en Grande-Bretagne sont en progression partout en Europe.

En Italie, le gouvernement de Matteo Renzi lutte actuellement pour sa survie en amont du référendum constitutionnel prévu début décembre. Si de nouvelles élections avaient lieu, les adversaires de l’UE auraient de bonnes chances de l’emporter. En Autriche, l’élection présidentielle se déroulera au même moment et Norbert Hofer, le candidat de l’extrême-droite FPÖ a de fortes chances de gagner. En France, Marine Le Pen du Front National est créditée de fortes chances aux élections présidentielles au printemps prochain.

Tout comme aux États-Unis, la montée de ces forces populistes de droite est la conséquence de la colère grandissante à l’égard des partis de l’establishment d’une part et de l’absence d’une alternative progressiste de l’autre. Les élites dirigeantes redoutent de plus en plus une opposition sociale se développant et s’orientant vers une voie indépendante et anticapitaliste que les partis d’extrême-droite qui dirigeront la colère sociale vers une impasse réactionnaire. C’est la raison pour laquelle Obama préconise une coopération avec Trump en Europe.

Peter Schwarz

Article original, WSWS, paru le 18 novembre 2016

  • Posted in Francais @fr
  • Commentaires fermés sur Pour sa dernière tournée en Europe, Obama s’efforce de rassurer les inquiétudes liées à Trump

La France du présent face à la Russie du futur.

novembre 20th, 2016 by Antoine Charpentier

La Droite, comme la Gauche française, demeure fondamentalement divisée sur la forme et la nature des relations à entretenir avec la Russie et son président Vladimir Poutine. Il est irrécusable que la Russie impose son retour sur la scène internationale avec une vision différente du Monde que celle ordonnée jusque-là par le camp occidental, avec à sa tête les Etats-Unis. Multiples sont les discours des politiques français à propos de la Russie. Cependant, ces discours politiques dénotent davantage de politiquement correct, et ce dans un but strictement électoral.

François Fillon, candidat à la présidence de la République Française, participant à la primaire de droite, souhaite mettre la Russie face à ses responsabilités, mais ne définit pas clairement de quelles responsabilités il s’agit. M. Fillon s’exprime ainsi : « La Russie est le plus grand pays au monde en superficie, mais c’est un pays dangereux et instable puisqu’il n’a jamais connu la démocratie. »1 La question qui mérite d’être posée sans pour autant vouloir défendre la Russie est la suivante : les pays qui ont connu la démocratie tels que les Etats-Unis ou encore la France sont-ils moins dangereux ? N’est-ce pas à cause de certaines démocraties occidentales que le monde est actuellement à feu et à sang ? Peut-être que le temps est venu de redéfinir le concept de la Démocratie.

Quant à Jean-Frédéric Poisson, candidat du Parti Centre à l’élection présidentielle française et participant également à la primaire de droite, il a pris le contre-pied de tous les candidats en allant en Russie à la rencontre du président Poutine et du peuple russe.

Tandis que M. Bruno Lemaire n’hésite pas à affirmer que la France est devenue la supplétive des Américains, ce qui signifie précisément que la France a perdu son indépendance face aux États-Unis, voire sa souveraineté dans l’état actuel.

L’ancien président de la république, Nicolas Sarkozy, semble clairement devenir russophile, notamment depuis son retour sur la scène publique et suite à sa rencontre avec le Président russe en octobre 2015 à Moscou.

Pour Jean-François Copé, participant également à la primaire de droite en vue des élections présidentielles, le pacte de confiance avec la Russie a été détruit à cause de l’intervention française en Libye, aggravé par la suite par la présidence de François Hollande et sa gestion des relations avec la Russie. Il convient aussi de préciser que le déroulement des événements en Libye a quelque part durci la position russe en Syrie.

Alain Juppé n’hésite pas à critiquer une certaine russophilie française. Sa compréhension des relations avec la Russie se réduit à châtier la Russie pour son action mondiale par plus de sanctions économiques. Ce qui semble être actuellement une forme dépassée et nullement efficace. D’autant plus que les sanctions économiques n’entravent en rien l’ascension de la Russie.

La position d’Alain Juppé est en quelque sorte similaire à celle de l’actuel président français François Hollande et une partie de la gauche socialiste. Le président Hollande s’oppose farouchement au président Poutine, son excès de zèle dépasse largement l’action des vrais ennemis de la Russie tels que les Etats-Unis, au point de refuser récemment de recevoir son homologue russe en France. Cela reste dans les annales diplomatiques comme une première dans les relations franco-russes. Cependant, cette politique antirusse n’est ni dans l’intérêt de la France ni dans celui du peuple français, mais qui est apparemment une préoccupation majeure de tous les candidats de gauche ou de droite. Enfin, le président Hollande semble plonger la France, au moins pour le temps qui lui reste à gouverner, dans un type de guerre froide avec la Russie.

La gauche française n’est pas épargnée par les divisions au sujet des relations à entretenir avec la Russie. Certaines personnalités politiques de gauche telles que Jean-Luc Mélenchon ont de la sympathie pour la Russie, en opposition à l’hégémonie américaine sur la France et l’Europe. D’autres comme Hubert Védrine, ancien ministre des affaires étrangères, ou Jean-Pierre Chevènement, ancien ministre de la défense, ont d’autres conceptions des relations internationales réfutant toutes formes d’opposition et de rupture totale avec la Russie.

Dans l’ensemble la classe politique française paraît favorable à un dialogue avec la Russie, mais dans les faits cela manque de sincérité. Les différents candidats à l’élection présidentielle française motivent leur idée d’un dialogue ou d’un rapprochement avec la Russie à travers la notion de l’intérêt de la France et des Français, mais l’idée réelle est davantage électoraliste. Cependant, les candidats à l’élection présidentielle de droite ou de gauche semblent beaucoup évoquer la Russie pour éviter d’être obligés de s’exprimer sur l’alignement total de la France sur la politique étrangère étatsunienne.

Quant à l’extrême-droite française, elle adule le président Poutine voyant en lui une incarnation de l’autorité, ainsi qu’un chef politique capable d’éradiquer l’Islam radical qui sévit de nos jours dans le monde. De surcroît, les Gaullistes français sont séduits par le concept de la Nation développée par le Président Vladimir Poutine.

Enfin, le constat est indéniable, la France est alignée sans condition, dans une posture quasi vassalique sur la politique étrangère américaine, au détriment de ses relations avec la Russie. La défaillance chronique de la politique française a poussé les deux pays à s’éloigner l’un de l’autre, ce qui n’est pas bénéfique ni pour la France ni pour les intérêts du peuple français que chérissent tant les politiciens.

Antoine Charpentier 

 

  • Posted in Francais @fr
  • Commentaires fermés sur La France du présent face à la Russie du futur.

Le gouvernement syrien et son principal allié, la Russie, ont lancé une nouvelle offensive contre les milices islamistes appuyées par les États-Unis et ses alliés régionaux dans le secteur assiégé d’Alep-Est et dans les gouvernorats d’Idlib et d’Hama dans le nord-ouest de la Syrie.

Des avions et hélicoptères syriens ont effectué des attaques aériennes contre Alep-Est, où la Russie avait suspendu toutes ses opérations aériennes le mois dernier. Pendant ce temps, la Russie a confirmé qu’elle avait effectué des bombardements et des frappes de missiles pour la première fois depuis la flotte de guerre qu’elle a positionnée le long des côtes syriennes dans la partie est de la Méditerranée. Le ministère de la Défense russe a affirmé que ses forces avaient frappé l’État islamique (ÉI) et le Front Al-Nusra, qui est affilié à Al-Qaïda, dans les campagnes d’Idlib et d’Hama.

Le département d’État des États-Unis a réagi de manière hystérique à la reprise de l’offensive, accusant la Russie d’effectuer des frappes aériennes en «violation du droit international», dans des conditions où les États-Unis effectuent des frappes similaires, sans l’autorisation des Nations Unies ou du gouvernement syrien, pour sa campagne anti-ÉI en Syrie, ainsi que pour son offensive en Irak contre la ville de Mossoul. La porte-parole du département d’État a également accusé les Russes «de bloquer les secours et l’approvisionnement de nourriture dans Alep-Est». Lorsqu’elle a été questionnée, elle a toutefois été incapable de nommer un quelconque acte de la part de la Russie qui aurait bloqué une telle aide.

De nombreux reportages provenant d’Alep-Est indiquent qu’il y a eu des manifestations citoyennes dénonçant les milices islamistes qui accaparent les réserves de nourriture, et revendiquant qu’elles quittent la ville. Dans certains cas, il y a eu des confrontations violentes quand des civils ont tenté d’accéder aux entrepôts de nourriture des «rebelles». La monopolisation de la nourriture et de l’équipement pour les vendre aux habitants des zones qu’elles occupent à des prix exorbitants est une pratique courante des milices islamistes appuyées par les États-Unis. On a aussi rapporté que des combattants ayant des liens à Al-Qaïda auraient abattu des civils qui tentaient de fuir la zone assiégée d’Alep. Il va sans dire qu’aucun de ces crimes n’a suscité de protestation de la part du département d’État américain.

La nature incendiaire de la rhétorique des États-Unis est un reflet de la situation de plus en plus désespérée à laquelle font face les milices islamistes qui ont servi de force par procuration à Washington pendant les cinq années de guerre de changement de régime qui ont laissé la Syrie en ruines. La défaite des éléments affiliés à Al-Qaïda à Alep priverait les rebelles de leur dernier bastion urbain en Syrie.

Un même niveau d’hystérie politique a été dirigé contre la possibilité d’un rapprochement entre une administration Trump et le gouvernement russe du président Vladimir Poutine, y compris au niveau des opérations militaires contre l’ÉI en Syrie et en Irak.

En réponse au rapport de la conversation téléphonique entre Trump et Poutine, qui, d’après une déclaration du Kremlin, incluait une entente sur la «nécessité de collaborer dans la lutte contre l’ennemi numéro 1 ; le terrorisme international et l’extrémisme», il y eut de multiples condamnations de Trump de la part des principaux médias et des républicains.

Le Washington Post a publié un éditorial mercredi accusant Trump d’avoir «presque donné le feu vert à Poutine pour des atrocités». Cette ligne éditoriale a répété plusieurs critiques similaires faites dans un éditorial du 13 novembre dans le New York Times intitulé «Le danger de la complaisance envers la Russie» qui accusait le président élu républicain «de montrer trop peu de soucis par rapport au défi stratégique majeur que pose la Russie» et l’accusait d’avoir «été jusqu’à maintenant l’apologiste de M. Poutine».

De façon similaire, le sénateur républicain de l’Arizona John McCain, également président de la Commission des services armés du Sénat américain, a publié une déclaration mardi dénonçant toute amélioration des relations avec Moscou. «Au minimum, le prix d’une autre “remise à zéro” serait une complicité dans le massacre du peuple syrien commis par Poutine et Assad», a dit McCain.

Pendant ce temps, la Chambre des représentants a adopté mardi par acclamation de nouvelles sanctions importantes contre la Syrie et quiconque entretiendrait des relations commerciales avec le pays. De plus, la loi requiert que le président américain présente un rapport sur la possibilité d’établir une «zone d’exclusion aérienne ou une zone sécurisée sur une partie ou la totalité de la Syrie», un acte qui, d’après les commandants de l’armée des États-Unis, entrainerait une confrontation armée avec la Russie.

Le même jour, la Chambre a voté à 419 contre 1 pour une nouvelle autorisation d’une durée de 10 années de la Loi sur les sanctions contre l’Iran, ou ISA, une loi d’abord adoptée en 1996 pour punir ceux qui entretiendraient des relations commerciales avec l’industrie énergétique de l’Iran, supposément pour bloquer le programme de développement d’armes nucléaires dont est accusé Téhéran. La volonté de réimposer cette mesure, même après négociations d’une entente internationale sur le programme nucléaire de l’Iran, est conforme aux dénonciations que faisait Trump de cette entente et les indications durant sa campagne présidentielle qu’il s’y opposerait.

Les inquiétudes dont fait part l’élite dirigeante américaine concernant le supposé danger de «complaisance» envers la Russie posé par la rhétorique lors de la campagne de Trump ou l’abandon de la guerre de changement de régime de Washington en Syrie est réfuté par la politique de ceux qu’il a recruté pour sa transition et qui pourraient occuper des postes importants de son administration.

L’ancien maire de New York, Rudy Giuliani, qui a été nommé le choix numéro un comme secrétaire d’État, a suggéré lors d’un discours devant une audience patronale lundi que toute «remise à zéro» avec Moscou serait atteinte par la confrontation militaire. «La Russie pense qu’elle est un compétiteur militaire, quand elle ne l’est vraiment pas», a dit Giuliani. «C’est notre manque de volonté sous Obama de même menacer d’utiliser notre armée qui rend la Russie si puissante.»

Stephen Hadley, l’ancien conseiller en matière de sécurité nationale pour George W. Bush, qui serait actuellement considéré au poste de secrétaire de la Défense, a plusieurs fois réclamé des frappes de missiles Tomahawk contre la Syrie, une arme produite par l’entreprise d’armement Raytheon, où il a siégé au conseil d’administration.

Plusieurs sources proches du Pentagone ont exprimé un optimisme par rapport à l’entrée de l’administration Trump qui va entreprendre de développer massivement l’armée américaine.

Le Navy Times soulignait mardi que la promesse du président élu de construire une flotte navale de 350 navires dans un article intitulé «Donald Trump souhaite entreprendre la plus importante construction navale militaire depuis des décennies». La flotte de la Marine est constituée actuellement de 272 navires.

L’Army Times, pour sa part, a publié un article mardi intitulé «On peut anticiper une armée plus grosse et agressive sous Trump».

L’article citait l’ancien général quatre étoiles Barry McCaffrey prédisant que malgré les critiques de l’OTAN faites par Trump, il s’attendait à voir une mobilisation majeure des forces américaines, pas seulement dans le Pacifique, mais également en Europe de l’Est.

«Il faut avoir une capacité de combat militaire qui est perçue par les Russes et les Coréens du Nord, entre autres, comme étant en mesure et ayant la volonté de les confronter dans une bataille aérienne, terrestre et maritime», a-t-il dit.

McCaffrey a ajouté qu’il y avait un «appui majeur pour Trump pendant la campagne de la part des forces armées de la base», en partie à cause de ses critiques des «règles d’engagement» restrictives.

Cet article a également cité le sénateur républicain de l’Alabama Jeff Sessions, un partisan réputé de Trump qui est également cité comme étant parmi les premiers choix au poste de secrétaire de la Défense, disant que Trump «propose une augmentation de l’armée».

«Nous avons environ 480.000 soldats. Il propose que l’armée soit maintenue à 540.000 soldats», a dit Sessions.

En bref, peu importe ce que prétendait la rhétorique de campagne de Trump sur un rapprochement avec la Russie ou la cessation de l’intervention américaine en Syrie, tout indique que la nouvelle administration se prépare à une campagne encore plus agressive et dangereuse d’agression militaire américaine mondiale.

Bill Van Auken

Article paru d’abord en anglais, WSWS, le 17 novembre 2016

  • Posted in Francais @fr
  • Commentaires fermés sur Les combats en Syrie s’intensifient alors qu’une escalade militaire se dessine de plus en plus sous Trump

Trump Inauguration Day Protests Planned

novembre 20th, 2016 by Stephen Lendman

Protesting Trump’s inauguration misses the point.  America’s establishment is bipartisan, democracy pure fantasy. 

Deep state duopoly power runs things – one-party state governance with two right wings, independents entirely shut out. Mainstream media are press agents for wealth, power and privilege exclusively.

Election-rigging made Trump president. Power brokers decided Hillary was too scandal-ridden to serve effectively. Her deplorable public record defeated her.

Will Trump continue dirty business as usual or go his own way?

Likely more of the former, less of the latter – with at least three reasons to be relieved he won.

Hillary in power risked unthinkable nuclear war on Russia. Trump wants more normalized bipartisan relations, both countries cooperating in waging war on terrorism.

Hillary is a longstanding Wall Street/war-profiteers’ tool. Billionaire Trump IS a monied interest, less beholden to other ones, hopefully more able to operate outside the box in some respects.

He calls NATO “obsolete…costing us a fortune.” He won’t end America’s dominant role, wants other nations sharing a greater burden, perhaps changing the alliance’s role.

Hopefully he means less war, focusing mainly on defeating the scourge of terrorism. A good thing, using his language.

Inauguration day and other anti-Trump protests are planned, orchestrated and implemented by elements not wanting their involvement revealed – Machiavellian dark forces infamous for dirty tricks, tactics serving their interests.

The hashtag #DisruptJ20 is being used as a rallying cry to protest Trump’s January 20 inauguration. Are paid demonstrators involved? Controlling elements called for blocking his “peaceful transition.”

People nationwide are being asked to get involved, a #DisruptJ20 statement saying:

Friday, January 20, 2017, Donald Trump will be inaugurated as President of the United States. We call on all people of good conscience to join in disrupting the ceremonies.

If Trump is to be inaugurated at all, let it happen behind closed doors, showing the true face of the security state Trump will preside over. It must be made clear to the whole world that the vast majority of people in the United States do not support his presidency or consent to his rule.

Trump stands for tyranny, greed, and misogyny. He is the champion of neo-nazis and white Nationalists, of the police who kill the Black, Brown and poor on a daily basis, of racist border agents and sadistic prison guards, of the FBI and NSA who tap your phone and read your email.

He is the harbinger of even more climate catastrophe, deportation, discrimination, and endless war. He continues to deny the existence of climate change, in spite of all the evidence, putting the future of the whole human race at stake.

The KKK, Vladimir Putin, Golden Dawn, and the Islamic State all cheered his victory. If we let his inauguration go unchallenged, we are opening the door to the future they envision.

Trump’s success confirms the bankruptcy of representative democracy. Rather than using the democratic process as an alibi for inaction, we must show that no election could legitimize his agenda.

Neither the Democrats nor any other political party or politician will save us – they just offer a weaker version of the same thing. If there is going to be positive change in this society, we have to make it ourselves, together, through direct action.

From day one, the Trump presidency will be a disaster. #DisruptJ20 will be the start of the resistance. We must take to the streets and protest, blockade, disrupt, intervene, sit in, walk out, rise up, and make more noise and good trouble than the establishment can bear.

The parade must be stopped. We must delegitimize Trump and all he represents. It’s time to defend ourselves, our loved ones, and the world that sustains us as if our lives depend on it -because they do.

(Washington) DC will not be hospitable to the Trump administration. Every corporation must openly declare whether they side with him or with the people who will suffer at his hands. Thousands will converge and demonstrate resistance to the Trump regime. Save the date. A website will appear shortly with more details. #DisruptJ20

Around the US

If you can’t make it to Washington, DC on January 20, take to the streets wherever you are. We call on our comrades to organize demonstrations and other actions for the night of January 20. There is also a call for a general strike to take place.

Organize a walkout at your school now. Workers: call out sick and take the day off. No work, no school, no shopping, no housework. #DisruptJ20

Around the World

If you are living outside the US, you can take action at US embassies, borders, or other symbols of neocolonial power. Our allegiance is not to ‘making America great again,’ but to all of humanity and the planet. #DisruptJ20

Spread the word. Join the fight. #DisruptJ20

Facebook: http://tinyurl.com/disruptj20

Signed,

Agency

CrimethInc. Workers’ Collective

It’s Going Down

subMedia

Earth First! Journal

AK Press

PM Press

Indigenous Action

New York Anarchist Action

The Base

NYC Anarchist Black Cross

Pittsburgh Autonomous Student Network

Pittsburgh Student Solidarity Coalition

NightShade Pittsburgh

Pitt Against Debt

Pitt Students for a Democratic Society

Steel City (A) Team

UNControllables

Antifa Seven Hills

WNC Antifa

Asheville Anti-Racism

Black Rose Book Distro St. Louis

Resonance: An anarchist audio distro

Rose City Antifa

Torch Antifa Network

Central Oklahoma Black/Red Alliance (COBRA)

Sprout Distro

New Wave Army

Puget Sound Anarchist Black Cross

Four Corners Antifa

killedbypolice.net

Chicago Anarchist Black Cross

NYC Anarchist Book Fair

NYC ANARKOARTLAB

Autonomous Actions Against Prisons—Seattle

Antifa United

Denver Anarchist Black Cross

Loughborough Labour Party

Words as Weapons

Hackerñol

Stinney Distro

The Roosevelt Group

LeftSec/AnonAnarchistAction – i2p Darknet anarchohacker collective

Hispagatos – International hacking collective

Maryland Food Collective

Shades of Silence

Wildfire Anarchist Prison Newsletter

Students Without Borders

Solidarity Houston

South Florida Smash HLS

Students Against State Violence

Bloomington Solidarity Network

Anarquismo en PDF

Burning River Anarchist Distro

Lehigh Valley Vanguard

UNIDOS POR LA REFORMA

Rocky Mountain Antifa

Hudson Valley Anarchist Network

Proletarian Liberation Front

Agência de Notícias Anarquistas-ANA (Brazil)

Morgantown Ultra Left Network

New Brunswickers against Fracking

Art Haus of Albany

Black Powder Press

WorkersAssemble

Stand Up Fight Back

CopWatch Patrol Unit

Revolutionary Security Corps

L.I.F.E.E. Organization

Anonymous NYC

Mutiny Antarsya Tempe

Flatirons Anarchist Alliance

Redneck Revolt

Anarchist Initiative Ljubljana (Slovenia)

Presidential inaugurations are usually dull affairs. Not January 20 in Washington if mass disruption happens like dark forces intend.

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

His new book as editor and contributor is titled « Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the 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 Trump Inauguration Day Protests Planned

Andres Sepulveda hacked and spied in elections in Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, and Venezuela.

A highly sophisticated Colombian hacker rigged elections across Latin America in favor of right-wing candidates for almost eight years, pulling in hefty paychecks for highly-coveted dirty work in at least nine different countries’ elections, including for Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto’s rise to power.

A Bloomberg Business article published Thursday told his story for the first time, forcing the Mexican government to deny on Friday that Peña Nieto’s campaign spied on rivals.

Andres Sepulveda, now in jail in Colombia, was in the business of the “whole dark side of politics that nobody knows exists but everyone can see,” he told Bloomberg Business.

He started with small jobs in 2005, but quickly ramped up to helping presidential campaigns in Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, and Venezuela smear, hack, and spy on their left-wing rivals for a bill of at least US$12,000 per month, and often more.

His first gig was for the re-election campaign of former right-wing Colombian President Alfaro Uribe in the lead-up to the 2006 election, which Uribe won. Sepulveda hacked a rival’s website and campaign database.

« They killed our democracy, » Mexico City, Aug. 31, 2012.

But the jobs grew in budget and scope over the years. In the lead-up to Mexico’s 2012 presidential election, Sepulveda hacked, spied, and manipulated social media for President Enrique Peña Nieto’s campaign with a US$600,000 budget as the PRI aimed to regain power after losing it in 2000 for the first time in over 70 years.

Peña Nieto, who was shown ahead in the polls early in the campaign, won the election amid widespread allegations of electoral fraud. His main rival, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, then of the PRD, demanded a full vote recount.

Sepulveda also had a role in the 2009 campaign of Honduras’ right-wing post-coup National Party President Porfirio Lobo, and spearheaded malicious campaigns against Nicaragua’s socialist President Daniel Ortega in 2011 and Venezuela’s former President Hugo Chavez in 2012.

All the while, Sepulveda told Bloomberg Business that he was working for Miami-based political consultant Juan Jose Rendon, who former Salvadoran leftist President Carlos Mauricio Funes accused in 2014 of running dirty campaigns across the region. Rendon denied to Bloomberg Business of having collaborated with Sepulveda on illegal jobs.

Sepulveda is now serving 10 years behind bars for various crimes including espionage and conspiracy to commit crime linked to hacking during Colombia’s 2014 election.

He told his story to Bloomberg Business in hopes of getting a lighter sentence by showing he’s owned up his dark past.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur This Hacker Rigged Elections in Nine Latin American Countries

India: Is There an Undeclared National Emergency?

novembre 20th, 2016 by Ram Puniyani

The decision to put a one day ban on Hindi NDTV, since withheld, came as a big jolt to the country. A major channel was asked to stop the broadcast. The charge was that its broadcast on Pathannkot revealed sensitive information regarding national security. On the same Pathankot issue this Government had allowed the Pakistan authorities to come to the same airport. The channel (Hindi NDTV) pleaded that its program was very balanced and nothing related to national security was relayed which was not on the public domain through other media.

It is clear that NDTV Hindi in particular has been debating issues which are uncomfortable to this Government. Apparently the pressure of all round protests forced the Government to hold its decision for time being. The issue of Bharat mata ki jai, nationalism, the issues related to JNU and Hyderabad Central University (HCU), Una in particular, were debated in ways which critical of the ruling party.

Since this dispensation, Modi Sarkar, has come to power there is a qualitative change in the political scenario. Right at the beginning we witnessed many attacks on Churches. We saw the interference in the institutions of national importance like FTII, IITs, JNU and HCU among others. The incompetent persons with ‘right wing’ leaning were installed and have been brought in at most of these.

The places of learning are a special target. The JNU was targeted labeling it as the den of anti nationals. A cooked up video was used to defame the student leaders of JNU, in HCU Rohith Vemula had to commit suicide. The growing intolerance led to returning of awards by luminaries of our society. The issue of beef was blown up to the sky; the emotive hysterical projections were propped up leading to the death of Mohammad Akhlaq, many other traders and later the dastardly attack on the dalits in Una in Gujarat. Many sections of media have been brow beating the liberals and secular elements while giving a free run to Hindu nationalists.

It is in this backdrop that the Bhopal encounter has taken place where eight Muslim youth alleged to be terrorists were killed in an extra judicial manner. The incident as it has been presented clearly shows that the version of the police has lots of holes in it. In JNU again one student Najeeb has been missing for last three weeks and his mother was manhandled by the police. Is it mere emergency, where such blatant violations of human and democratic rights are taking place? Emergency was a condemnable authoritarian regime where from the top a dictatorship was imposed. press censorship was brought in. Surely the present times are having lot of difference.

To begin with the dominance of corporate and doing away of the rights of workers and farmers along with undermining the schemes like MNREGA, Right to Food, Right to Health and Right to education show that the orientation of this Government is to ally with the big capital. The complimentary part of this phenomenon is the promotion of Hindu nationalism. Right from the word go; the sentence, ‘I am nationalist and I am born in a Hindu family’ by Modi set the tone of shape of things to come. With this the targeting of minorities, on the issue of Uniform Civil Code and beef is there. The ultra-nationalism is manifest in the handling of Kashmir and relations with Pakistan in particular.

The use of Uri and consequent surgical strike to bloat the chest of this political dispensation is very much in the air. The permission of thousands of NGOs working in the social sector has been stopped on frivolous grounds. The attack on Pakistani artists is another instance where the sectarian nationalism is having an unrepentant march. It is to be remembered that we have a bilateral trade to the tune of thousands of crores with Pakistan. With China similar sentiments have been flashed by talking about boycott of Chinese goods, despite the fact that the contract of proposed Saradar Patel statue running in to thousands of crores has been given to China. The popular sentiments are being guided into negativity and hate towards neighboring countries, religious minorities and the human rights activists.

The stifling of democratic freedoms, welfare of the poor, the intimidation of minorities and human rights defenders is running parallel to the creation of mass hysteria and mobilization of masses to uphold the agenda of ruling party.

Those questioning the state are being put in the dock. In a democracy it the state which is answerable to the people. Now this formula is being reversed. In democracy questioning the authorities is the bedrock of the Constitution. So something is seriously amiss, something which is more sinister than the emergency. Something which has deeper portents for the democracy is being legitimized and glorified by the ruling party and the parent organization of the ruling party.

So how does one characterize it is the matter not of mere academic concern. Recently CPM leader Prakash Karat had stated that the present dispensation is mere authoritarian and not fascist. The distinction between two has been a matter of historical debate. The main features of fascism has been centrality of state over people, overarching Leader, dominance of Corporate, doing away with rights of poor, targeting of minorities, ultra nationalism and aggressive policies towards the neighbors. The crucial point for those wanting to preserve the democracy and Indian Constitution is to build up social and political alliances, irrespective of some differences, to fight this raging politics of Hate, politics of sectarian nationalism.

During 1990s, BJP did project itself as a ‘Party with a Difference’, and that is so much true. It is the only party whose agenda is guided by the Hindu nationalist RSS, which rejects democracy and secularism as Western imports and wants to stick to the laws of Hindu Holy Scriptures. These scriptures are the same, one of which was burnt by Ambedkar as a mark of protest against its values of caste and gender hierarchy, values of Brahminism. Debates can continue but politics to defend Indian Constitution cannot wait!

 

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur India: Is There an Undeclared National Emergency?

Because Donald Trump has zero foreign policy chops, he will delegate that job to his new secretary of state. With every passing day, it appears the person to fill that job will be John Bolton, a diehard neocon.

On Saturday Bolton spelled out what he considers to be the foreign policy priorities of the new administration.

Bolton writes the top concern for America on the foreign policy front are “the closely related threats of radical Islamic terrorism and the Middle East’s spreading chaos.”

 

This is followed by “nuclear proliferation” by Iran, a country that does not have a nuclear weapons program.

Trump may say he wants to make peace with Russia, but this is not on Bolton’s agenda. “Vladimir Putin’s Russia is on the prowl in Eastern Europe and the Middle East in ways unprecedented since the Cold War,” he writes.

Trump’s VP, Mike Pence, has similar thoughts on Russia.

Bolton forgets Russia was not “on the prowl” prior to the US placing missile batteries on the border in Poland, or before the State Department engineered the takedown of the government in Ukraine.

He also wants Trump to confront China in the South and East China Seas. “Continued failure to deal firmly with Chinese adventurism and intransigence will result in more Asian states falling under Beijing’s sway, as the Philippines appears to be doing, simply accepting their fate as Middle Kingdom vassals.”

On Sunday, Bolton took to the pages of the New York Post. “Iran is now on a path to deliverable nuclear weapons, legitimized by Obama’s wretched deal, which is providing untold economic benefits to Tehran through unfrozen assets and renewed trade and investment, especially from Europe. Iran’s support for terrorism continues unabated, and its provocative international behavior has only worsened since the nuclear deal. Russia’s influence in the region is higher than at any time since the 1970s,” he writes.

 

Bolton pushed creative destruction and order out of chaos, the favored approach of neocons. “Either a new state must be created out of the wreckage of Syria and Iraq, or some other durable approach must be found,” he writes.

“I still think the decision to overthrow Saddam was correct,” Bolton said last year during a failed effort to run for the nomination. “I think decisions made after that decision were wrong, although I think the worst decision made after that was the 2011 decision to withdraw U.S. and coalition forces.”

He also wants to force Russia out of Syria. “Moreover, the new Russian airbase in Latakia, Syria, has dramatically changed the strategic environment in the eastern Mediterranean and beyond.

“Unfortunately, the base cannot be made to disappear simply by reversing Obama’s erroneous policies.”

According to Bolton, “Israel and America’s Arab friends are desperately waiting for a strong American president who understands who his friends are.”

Israel and its well-organized and financed lobbying effort in the United States has long determined US foreign policy in the Middle East.

As for our “Arab friends,” this is a reference to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the Gulf Emirates, the very folks who are responsible for fanatical Wahhabi Islam embraced by al-Qaeda, al-Nusra, and the Islamic State.

None of these psychopathic groups would even exist if the CIA had not built up the Mujahideen in Afghanistan during its covert war against the Soviets. The Saudis, the CIA, and the Pentagon are directly responsible for the cancer now growing in the Middle East, not Iran.

On Tuesday, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul pointed out the hypocrisy of a Trump administration selecting Bolton as secretary of state.

 

“Bolton is a longtime member of the failed Washington elite that Trump vowed to oppose, hell-bent on repeating virtually every foreign policy mistake the U.S. has made in the last 15 years—particularly those Trump promised to avoid as president,” Paul writes.

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani is also being considered as Trump’s secretary of state. He also embraces the neocon ethos.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur John Bolton: Trump Needs to Confront Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and Embrace Forever War

Can the industrial manufacturers of lies and fake reality help us determine what is “fake news”?

That, apparently, is what the system’s shills are after in raising the alarm about the spread of “fake news” throughout the Internet. For starters this is transparently dishonest. Unrestricted opinion, including insane and very biased items, have long circulated on the Net.

But in the free for all of mass communications which is the Internet, there’s also a rising trend: honest truth-tellers with a widening audience. An audience whose expansion is a threat to the guardians of the national brainwash, of benefit only to the plutocratic 0.00001% fronted by the Duopoly politicians and their associated presstitutes crawling all over the MSM.

fightingfakes

The video below is a harbinger of probably more to come. A thinly-veiled attempt at demonising opinion the establishment finds dangerous to their own hold on the public mind. Paving the way for a more frontal attack on dissenters on the web. Choking free speech. This is something that everyone should realize and stand firm to oppose and resist. For whenever the system managers demonise something, worse attacks follow.

An analysis of this development is presented on a separate post introducing our new section, SPOTLIGHT, so there is no need to repeat it here. Meantime, just watch this video below and start learning how to read the truth between the lines, or under the top layer of sanctimonious posturing offered by the system’s front men, women, the official mouthpieces. It’s the kind of instruction that you have been missing all along but no longer can afford to neglect. If you think we exaggerate you are not paying attention. And if you keep reading the New York Times, watching mainstream TV, or listening to the faux left voices, you’ll simply be blindsided by events. It’s really up to you. For no one else can ultimately control what you believe.

This is the way CBS presents this toxic piece of pseudo news trash:

The battle to stop the spread of fake news online

CBS This Morning  | Nov. 18, 2016

Published on Nov 19, 2016

There’s growing concern about fake stories online to draw in readers and possibly mislead voters. Dan Ackerman, senior editor at CNET, and Jeff Jarvis, a journalism professor at the City University of New York, join “CBS This Morning: Saturday” to discuss the motivation behind the fake headlines, and the role websites and social media platforms should play to inform users.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Establishment’s Fight against « Fake News »: A Covert War on Free Speech

Was the US Election Stolen …Yet Again?

novembre 20th, 2016 by Eric Draitser

A look at the data reveals a much different story than the one the corporate media is telling.

Amid all the media prattle about the white working class, the rejection of the status quo, and the great divide in the US, there remains one simple, but exceedingly dangerous, truth which none dare speak: the US election was stolen.

Now, before temporal arteries start bulging with rage, allow me to make clear that this assertion is in no way an attempt to promote the criminal warmonger Hillary Clinton or make a case for her taking a seat in the Oval Office.  Indeed, were one to need evidence of my loathing for Clinton, see any of the more than dozen articles I wrote this election season slamming her for a laundry list of crimes ranging from corruption to wholesale mass murder (hereherehereherehereherehere, and many others).

Instead, bringing into the open the fact that the election was stolen is an attempt to highlight the illegitimacy of the incoming Trump Administration which, like the Bush Administration before it, will have taken power based on a massive fraud perpetrated against the American people, and will pursue an extreme right wing agenda with no legal right to govern.

This is directly relevant to immigrants and other minority groups that will be targeted by Trump who, in recent days, vowed to deport 2-3 million immigrants, many of whom are legal residents. It is directly relevant to the poor who, despite being hoodwinked into following the Mussolini of Midtown, will pay the price for his economic policies which amount to extreme trickle-down economics that make Reagan look like Mother Teresa (Trump’s tax plan would give nearly $3 trillion in tax cuts to the top one percent).  It is directly relevant to the entire planet as Trump moves to reinvigorate the coal and fracking industries, two of the dirtiest technologies which will poison the water, pollute the air, and accelerate climate change.

And, on an intangible level, the stealing of the election is relevant because the claim to democracy is, in essence, America’s claim to global leadership, to the righteousness of its own hegemony.  To call the democratic façade into question is to undermine the very notion of “American Exceptionalism” which both Wall Street parties so ignominiously proselytize as gospel.

The Data Screams Fraud, But No One is Listening

It is interesting to note how many people dismiss the notion of election fraud out of hand, without ever having even scrutinized the data. This sort of blind spurning of the claim of fraud is akin to the scornful rejection of anything labeled as “conspiracy theory.” Indeed, this is precisely the argumentation many have used to reject the thesis of a stolen election. But sound analysis and investigation requires an examination of data and facts, not the feelings and emotions so raw in these post-election days. And a look at the data reveals a much different story than the one the corporate media is telling.

Jonathan Simon, author of CODE RED: Computerized Election Theft and the New American Century  and co-founder and executive director of Election Defense Alliance, compiles the exit poll data and final vote data for US elections.  According to the exit poll data compiled from 28 states where data was available, nearly every single race where there was a discrepancy between exit poll and final vote data went to Trump.

Especially noteworthy are the following states: Ohio (8.5 percent discrepancy), North Carolina (5.9 percent discrepancy), Pennsylvania (5.6 percent discrepancy), Wisconsin (4.9 percent discrepancy), Florida (2.6 percent discrepancy). In these states, each of which was considered essential for Trump to win the election, the discrepancies between exit poll data and final counts were enough to flip the state to Trump. In other words, had the final results  roughly approximated the exit poll data, Clinton would have won each of these states (Ohio was essentially tied).  Put simply, the variance in the final counts gave the election to Trump.

With that in mind, consider the fact that exit polls are by far the most reliable barometer of election outcomes because, unlike predictive polling, they measure what has already happened – a vote cast a minute earlier – rather than voter opinions about what they will do in the future.  And while there has long been a corporate media campaign to discredit exit polling as inaccurate and invalid as a measure of election results, this baseless assertion is at odds with many experts whose PhDs and experience with polling and election integrity issues certainly carry more weight than the ravings of mainstream liberal media hacks.

And of course, if exit poll data were so wildly inaccurate, perhaps then the US Government should answer for why it uses precisely such data to verify and validate elections in the developing world. As attorney and professor of political science, Bob Fitrakis, astutely noted in an interview with CounterPunch Radio, “If this election occurred outside the United States, our government would not recognize it as legitimate.” Indeed, considering the enormous discrepancies between the exit polls and final vote counts, had this election been in Latin America or the Middle East, the State Department would not accept the results, thereby resulting in a political crisis.  And yet, not a peep here in the U.S. Why?

When one researches the issue of exit polling and its reliability as a measure of final vote counts, one often encounters interviews with Joe Lenski, executive vice president of Edison Research, the company contracted by major media outlets to conduct exit polling on US elections.  Leaving aside the obviously biased nature of the source – a real journalist would not simply rely on the word of energy company executives in a story about the negative environmental impact of fracking – one must carefully scrutinize exactly what Lenski says.

For example, in an interview after the New York primaries (they too showed a statistically improbable discrepancy in exit polls versus final vote counts  in favor of Hillary Clinton against Bernie Sanders), Lenski stated, “In emerging democracies … the exit polls are designed specifically to catch any manipulations of the vote count, and also to bring some transparency so voters can trust the vote count.” Interesting indeed.

And yet, when discussing U.S. elections, Lenski conveniently explains “[our polls are] just not designed for that type of precision. They’re surveys, and like any other survey, they have a margin of error. The precision that a lot of these people are talking about just doesn’t exist with our polls.”

Perhaps Mr. Lenski should elaborate on why Edison exit polls “catch manipulations” in foreign countries, but simply cannot do so in the US?  It’s unlikely Lenski would be able to answer the question truthfully because in doing so he’d reveal that this assertion is based on political considerations and complexities rather than methodological ones. Perhaps Lenski could also explain why he invokes the “margin of error” argument when he knows perfectly well that the results in Ohio, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Florida are well beyond the margin of error.  Is this deliberate obfuscation? It certainly seems that way.

And then, of course, there’s the burning question of why exit poll data is “adjusted” ex post facto.  In other words, Edison massages its exit poll data once the official vote counts have been released to align the exit poll numbers with the electronic vote totals.  Naturally, this should rightly not be called an exit poll as it is simply not a poll, but rather a final number calculated in a totally opaque, and blatantly dishonest way.

And isn’t it interesting that Edison’s Leski, and the corporate media McCarthyites who vigorously denounce any questioning of US election results as “conspiracy theory,” seem to not pay attention to any of the experts who assert that exit polls are, in fact, the most reliable method of detecting electoral fraud short of complete audits which are impossible in the US given the private and proprietary nature of the voting machines.

Maybe these sniveling media ghouls should take a look at Eric Bjornlund and Glenn Cowan’s critical report Vote Count Verification: A User’s Guide for Funders, Implementers, and Stakeholders prepared for Democracy International.  In the report, Bjornlund and Cowan correctly state that, “Exit polls have long been employed in developed countries to quickly predict the outcome of elections. If conducted in countries with a history of democratic elections and in which citizens have reasonable confidence in their own safety and security, then well-designed exit polls can serve as an effective method for projecting election results.”

And despite Lenski’s protestations that exit poll data become “more complete” as time goes on, the reality is that the opposite is true: exit polls are most reliable when unaltered and in the short time during and immediately after polls close. As Alan Gilbert, professor of International Studies correctly noted:

In all cases, the exit polls are complete and set a range of fair results, once the pollers have spoken with randomly selected voters and the polls close. In their place, Edison wrongly substitutes machine “results,” often without a paper trail, and…often with sloppy arithmetic. What Edison and the media consortium do is not exit polling as a test; instead, what is [sic] misnames “polling” is a manipulation by officials to sanctify machine “results.”

Are Bjornlund, Cowan, Fitrakis, and many other experts unafraid to tell the truth rightly point out, exit polls are indeed the most accurate method of determining election integrity.  And, without any means of effectively auditing the results of U.S. elections, exit polls remain the ONLY method.

What Does This Mean and What Do We Do?

First and foremost, it should be made clear that the electoral fraud that has taken place MUST NOT be used as a vehicle for attempting to remove Trump from the presidency or for installing Hillary Clinton.  She too benefited from massive electoral fraud in the primaries and is as implicated as anyone else in this criminal endeavor.  And despite the weeping and wailing from liberal Democratic Party loyalists – I throw up a little just typing that phrase – Clinton is just as illegitimate as Trump.

Instead, the people of the United States need to use this information to achieve five important goals that would go a long way to (sorry Donald) actually making America great.  These include:

  1. Opposing the illegitimate Trump Administration and undermining its attempts to impose its extreme right wing agenda. Proving that the presidency was, yet again, stolen for the Republican would provide an important foundation for organizing and mobilizing against the regime.  Moreover, in a perfect world, it would provide a legal framework for nullifying presidential actions on things like immigration, energy policy, etc.

  2. Providing a basis for a full investigation and auditing of the entire infrastructure of U.S. elections, from the voting machines to the rampant voter suppression and much more. Such an investigation should also target the individuals in charge of the companies manufacturing and “servicing” the voting machines in the U.S.  Just the mere possibility of being arrested and thrown in prison for tampering with elections might have a chilling effect on the small clique that manipulates the results. Moreover, it would expose the level of corruption at the heart of our voting system.

  3. Nationalization of the voting infrastructure.  Proving the election was once again stolen would bolster the argument that it is a threat to democracy to allow private, for-profit companies to be in charge of our voting system.  Instead, the system should be in the hands of public officials, with full transparency, including the ability to audit all election results. While not without problems, such a reform would go a long way to eliminating, or at least reducing, the potential for tampering.

  4. Building progressive political and social movements. Had the Democratic primaries not been rigged in favor of Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders would have been the nominee, and in all likelihood, President of the United States. As such, the movement for which he was the figurehead would have grown into a massive progressive political bloc that would fundamentally and irrevocably alter U.S. politics for the better.  By removing the obstacle of rigged elections, the true will of the people might finally be heard.

  5. Bring the United States in line with the rest of the developed world (and much of the developing world) as it relates to elections.  As the Electoral Integrity Project’s 2015 Year in Elections report noted, U.S. elections are less transparent, and less democratic, than those in South Africa, Rwanda, Tunisia, Brazil and Argentina. The U.S. system is considered worse than that in the UK, and much worse than Denmark, Sweden, and other European countries.  In short, the U.S. has the worst electoral system in the developed world.  Perhaps this might also convince millions of Americans that the notion of “spreading democracy around the world” is as hollow and meaningless as when the President-elect says “We’re going to make America great, believe me!”

Trump is a fraud, as was Clinton. The point is not to replace one fraud with another, but rather to transform a system that makes fraud into an essential component rather than a rare anomaly.  In doing so, we might begin to transform the political system as much as is possible through elections.

I’m the last person in the world to argue that elections are the optimal vehicle for bringing political and social change, only people-centered movements and revolutionary politics can truly do that.

Still, having fair elections certainly wouldn’t hurt.

Eric Draitser is an independent geopolitical analyst based in New York City. He is the editor of StopImperialism.org and host of CounterPunch Radio. You can reach him at [email protected]

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Was the US Election Stolen …Yet Again?

How the IMF Contributed to Destabilizing the Greek Economy

novembre 20th, 2016 by Daniel Munevar

The Independent Evaluation Office (IEO) of the IMF recently published its report on the response of the organization to the European crisis. The analysis focuses on the performance of the IMF in the context of the programs for Greece, Portugal and Ireland. It provides a valuable insight into the conflicts within the IMF itself, and especially between the executive board of the organization and its management and staff. At the hearth of this conflict was the decision making process, which led to the disregard of technical judgments and internal procedures in favor of choices of political nature that were adopted in European capitals. As such, the work of the IEO offers a more nuanced understanding of the role of the IMF in the crisis than previously available. Furthermore, it provides additional arguments to condemn the structure and outcomes of the programs that led to the bailout of private creditors while simultaneously burdening public finances with debts to the tune of billions of Euros.

In this regard, most of the criticism of the IEO focuses on the involvement of the IMF in Greece starting in 2010. The Greek program is highly relevant, not only given the large sums of money involved, as Greece became the largest debtor in the history of the organization, but also because it set the tone for the interventions that were to follow in other Euro zone countries. The IEO is specially critic of the political intervention by European countries in the decision making process of the organization regarding the Greek program. Even though the report rejects the notion that the IMF was behaving as a junior partner to its European counterparts in the Troika, namely the EU Commission and the ECB, a careful reading of the supporting material show that in many instances the IMF limited itself to follow decisions and criteria being set by Euro area governments. In theory, Greek and Euro zone interests should have been aligned. However, in practice this was not the case. As a result, the design of the Greek program followed priorities being set according to the strategic interests of those governments, setting aside concerns regarding its harmful impact on Greece.

The clearest example of this internal contradiction was the decision not to restructure Greek debt in 2010. The IEO shows the significant division among IMF staff regarding the sustainability of Greek debt that existed at the time. On the one hand, some staff members argued that “in the absence of restructuring, debt was unsustainable” |1|. On the other, some held the view that with the right policies and sufficient financial support the country would be able to ensure debt sustainability without a restructuring. For the purposes of the involvement of the IMF in Greece, this was a key distinction to make as the rules of the organization mandated that large scale financial assistance could only be provided if debt was determined to be sustainable with high probability. Given that the staff was unable to reach an agreement on this issue, the participation of the IMF could only have taken place in the context of a debt restructuring. In any other case this would have been a rather uncontroversial decision. However, in Greece, other factors were at play.

In effect, European officials had made the decision that any financial assistance provided to Greece would exclude debt restructuring long before the IMF became involved in the discussions. In particular, both France and the ECB advocated strongly against this measure. At the time, it was perceived that a debt restructuring in Greece would create doubts regarding the safety of the sovereign bonds of other countries, causing the crisis to spiral out of control. In order to contain this “systemic risk” it was decided that financial assistance to the country should only be provided as a last resort and in what effect consisted of punitive terms. The opposition to restructure Greek debt protected the interests of French and German banks that stood to suffer steep losses on their €83 billion in loans to Greece |2|. Thus, when the IMF joined the Troika in March of 2010, the option to restructure debt was off the table. As one IMF staff member put it “the train had already left the station” |3|.

The IEO report highlights that at this point the IMF could have decided to refuse participation in the Greek program in order to avoid breaching its own internal guidelines. However, the eagerness of management to involve the IMF, and specifically that of Dominique Strauss Kahn, led to the disregard of this option. Instead what followed was a deliberate process of concealment of information by staff and management. The goal was to secure the simultaneous approval from the executive board of what should have been two independent decisions. The first issue was the board’s endorsement of the Greek program. The second issue was the modification of the lending rules of the IMF, in order to allow the organization to provide financial assistance in a situation in which debt was not considered sustainable with high probability.

In the case of the former, the executive board was kept in the dark regarding the deliberations that had taken place among the staff regarding debt restructuring and other key aspects of the program in the run up to its approval |4|. Even on the day the program was approved, Gary Lipsky, the senior representative of the IMF management, lied by explicitly denying to the board that the staff had entertained the possibility of a debt restructuring. As he put it: “there is no Plan B. There is Plan A and a determination to make Plan A succeed; and this is it.” |5| In the case of the later, the required change in the lending rules of the organization was embedded in the report requesting for the approval of the Greek program. Even though the staff had discussed the need to change the rules since April, they did not draw attention to the issue even on the day the program was approved |6|. The IEO highlights that as a result of these shady maneuvers “management’s discretion and decision-making powers were left effectively unchecked” while “the decision-making and supervisory roles of the Executive Board were undermined” |7|.

The outcome of this process was a program that was destined to failure from its inception. When the adjustment started to get off track by early 2011, the IMF refused to acknowledge its Greek fiasco and instead doubled down on its failed strategy. The number of structural reforms required from Greece steadily increased from 15 in the initial program to more than 45 by 2012 |8|. As the list of measures multiplied after each review, so did the arguments regarding the unwillingness of Greece to reform. To cover the funding problems derived from unachievable fiscal targets, the IMF raised its privatization targets for Greece from €12.5 billion to €50 billion, despite the lackluster performance of the country in this area |9|.

In addition, the IMF was unable to develop or provide any compelling technical arguments that supported the claim that a debt restructuring in Greece represented the type systemic risk that was feared by European officials |10|. By the time debt restructuring took place in 2012, the IMF supported program had facilitated “the most dramatic credit migration from private into official hands in the history of sovereign debt” |11|. In the meantime, from the Greek perspective, the debt restructuring was “insufficient to reestablish solvency decisively” while “created a large risk for European taxpayers” |12|. In short, as one of the IEO background papers points out “the decision not to seek preemptive debt restructuring fundamentally left debt sustainability concerns unaddressed, magnified the required fiscal adjustment, and thereby— at least in part—contributed to a large contraction of output and a subsequent loss of Greek public support for the program”. |13|

Against this damning indictment, Christine Lagarde defended the actions of the IMF on the grounds that despite its shortcomings, the program “enabled Greece to remain a member of the Euro Area—a key goal for Greece and the Euro Area members” |14|. From the perspective of the articles of agreement of the IMF, this claim holds little water. As it was pointed out by the Argentina representative to the executive board of the IMF on the fateful day that the first Greek programme was approved, “The Fund’s financial assistance is supposed to… correct maladjustments without resorting to measures destructive of national or international prosperity”. In the context of the IEO report this statement is especially relevant as it clearly points out that the IMF owed a responsibility to protect Greece as a country member, not to the Euro zone. However, the IMF neglected this obligation in order to turn the Greek program into a “holding operation” that gave the Euro area time to build a firewall and prevent contagion |15|.

Thus, the fact that it was the mainly the Euro zone, and not Greece itself, who stood to benefit from the program should open the discussion at least two sets of related discussion. On the one hand, it’s the distribution of the costs of the Greek programme. Not only was Greece left on its own to shoulder the burden of an unsustainable debt but it also became the scapegoat for the failures of both IMF and Euro area governance. Given the clear-cut public good aspect of this type of program, its costs should have been distributed among those who stood to benefit from it. Indeed, as the IMF itself has suggested “the burden in such circumstances should not fall wholly on the member for whom the program is being granted… but should be shared more widely.” |16| Sadly, as the recent agreement on the Greek debt shows, neither the IMF nor the Euro area are nowhere close to assume responsibility for the damage their policies have inflicted on Greece. On the contrary, the IMF has made more than 2.5 billion in profits from its loans to Greece |17|. On the other hand, there is the issue of the legal standing of the loans provided to the country. The IEO report confirms many of the findings of the Debt Truth Committee and as such strengthens the case regarding the illegitimate and odious character of Greek debt. As such, it’s important to emphasize the call made by the Committee to repudiate the debt burden imposed upon Greece, as only the adoption of decisive measures that lead to significant debt relief will allow to start mending the deep social and economic damages caused by 6 years of crisis |18|.

Notes

|1| Schadler, S. (2016). Living with Rules: The IMF’s Exceptional Access Framework and the 2010 Stand-By Arrangement with Greece. Retrieved from www.ieo-imf.org

|2| BIS Banking Statistics on an ultimate risk basis. Data for Q4 of 2009.

|3| IEO. (2016). THE IMF AND THE CRISES IN GREECE, IRELAND, AND PORTUGAL: AN EVALUATION. Retrieved from http://www.ieo-imf.org/ieo/files/co… v5.PDF

|4| De las Casas, M. (2016). The IMF Executive Board and the Euro Area Crisis—Accountability, Legitimacy, and Governance. Retrieved from www.ieo-imf.org

|5| IMF. (2010). Greece – Request for Stand-By Arrangement; Rule K-1 Report on Breach of Obligations Under Article VIII, Section 5 of the Articles of Agreement; EBM 10/45-1.

|6| Op. cit. 4

|7| Op. cit. 4

|8| Wyplosz, C., & Sgherri, S. (2016). The IMF’s Role in Greece in the Context of the 2010 Stand-By Arrangement BP/16-02/11. Retrieved from http://www.ieo-imf.org/ieo/files/co…

|9| Ibid.

|10| Op. cit. 1.

|11| Op. cit .8.

|12| Ibid.

|13| Wyplosz, C., & Sgherri, S. (2016). The IMF’s Role in Greece in the Context of the 2010 Stand-By Arrangement BP/16-02/11. Retrieved from http://www.ieo-imf.org/ieo/files/co…

|14| IMF. (2016). Statement by the Managing Director on the Independent Evaluation Office’s Report on the IMF and the Crises in Greece, Ireland, and Portugal: An Evaluation by the Independent Evaluation Office Executive Board Meeting. Retrieved from https://www.imf.org/external/np/pp/…

|15| IMF. (2013). Greece: Ex Post Evaluation of Exceptional Access under the 2010 Stand-By Arrangement IMF Country Report No. 13/156. Retrieved from https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/f…

|16| IMF. (2014). THE FUND’S LENDING FRAMEWORK AND SOVEREIGN DEBT—PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. Retrieved from http://www.imf.org/external/np/pp/e…

|17| Jubilee Debt UK. (2015). IMF has made €2.5 billion profit out of Greece loans – Jubilee Debt Campaign UK. Retrieved from http://jubileedebt.org.uk/news/imf-…

|18| Debt Truth Committee Hellenic Parliament. (2015). Truth Committee on Public Debt. Retrieved from http://cadtm.org/IMG/pdf/Report.pdf

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur How the IMF Contributed to Destabilizing the Greek Economy

Climate Chaos Worse than the COP22 is Letting on

novembre 20th, 2016 by Michael Welch

“It’s likely that we would need some technologies to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to reach that number (1.5C) . It’s theoretically feasible but it would mean that we should …see very dramatic declines in the emissions taking place over the coming years, and that’s a question of how prepared the countries are to create such a dramatic emission decline.” – Petteri Taalas, Secretary General of the World Meteorological Organization (November 17, 2016 Press Conference) [1]

“It has always been one degree, the maximum that we should not exceed, and so the whole 2 degree has been a complete reframing. I mean it’s not science at all, it’s just a mechanism to keep growing the economy and keep the system going for the few that it serves.” -Cory Morningstar

“I can pretty much guarantee… we’ll get zero-emissions economy by 2050.” -Professor Guy Mcpherson

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Lire

Length (59:33)

Click to download the audio (MP3 format) 

While the surprise victory of Donald Trump in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election has dominated headlines, the annual U.N. Climate talks were taking place in Marrakech, Morocco.

The focus of the talks was to implement actionable plans to realize the goals of the previous conference. These involve keeping average global temperatures well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels through a combination of methods, including transitioning away from fossil fuels toward ‘renewable’ and ‘clean’ energy. [2][3]

A fundamental rethinking of how our economic system operates appears to be off the table in these international discussions.

Whether or not the international community through these U.N. Summits constitute an authentic response to the climate crisis, there are a number of alarming trends in evidence.

  • The annual growth of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere has reached a record high of between 3.2 to 3.55 parts per million (ppm) (source: Dahr Jamail, quoting National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration data)
  • According to the Arctic Institute, concentrations of Methane, a greenhouse gas 25 times more potent than CO2, have increased from 715 parts per billion (ppb) to 1840 ppb in 2015.
  • According to the University of Maine’s Climate Change Institute, fall temperatures over most of the Arctic Ocean were roughly 20 degrees Celsius (36 degrees Fahrenheit) above normal.
  • According to the National Integrated Drought Information System, drought has impacted nearly one third of the continental United States during the second week of November 2016.
  • According to an October 2016 paper co-authored by former NASA climate scientist JamEs Hansen and 11 others, global temperatures have reached levels approaching the mean of the inter-glacial period known as the Eemian in which sea levels were several metres higher than they are today.
  • The Nature Bats Last website lists no fewer than 69 self-reinforcing feedback loops (phenomena that enable more heating as the globe warms) active on the planet today.
  • According to the most recent Living Planet report released by the Zoological Society of London (ZSL) and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), the world’s wiLdlife populations have declined by 58% since 1970 and vertebrate populations could decline by 67% by the end of the decade.

On this week’s Global Research News Hour, we check in with three writers and past guests who have analyzed the climate crisis and the way human agencies are responding to the threat.

Guy McPherson holds the title of Emeritus Professor of Natural Resources and Ecology and Evolutionary Biology from the University of Arizona. He has chronicled and assembled hundreds of articles from the refereed scientific literature which collectively demonstrate his view that human life on Earth will not survive long beyond 2030.

Cory Morningstar is an activist and investigative journalist. She has documented the role of elite private foundations like Open Society and the Rockefeller foundations in manipulating the environmental Non-Governmental Organizations that depend on foundation money for their high profile activities. Her essays and original research is featured at Wrong Kind of Green, Counterpunch, and her own website: Theartofannihilation.com.

In the middle portion of the program, McPherson and Morningstar explore academic resistance to the inescapable dire predictions of actual climate science, the distorted role of mainstream climate activism and who benefits, and meaningful responses humans can muster to address the climate predicament.

Dahr Jamail is an award-winning journalist who first gained notoriety for his unembedded reporting on the Iraq War. His writing on Anthropogenic Climate disruption appears regularly at Truthout.org. Jamail makes an appearance near the end of the hour to update listeners on the current state of the climate and its impacts, and assesses how individuals and communities can respond in the face of the incoming climate change denying Trump Administration.

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Lire

Length (59:33)

Click to download the audio (MP3 format) 

The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM in Winnipeg. The programme is also podcast at globalresearch.ca . The show can be heard on the Progressive Radio Network at prn.fm. Listen in every Monday at 3pm ET.

Community Radio Stations carrying the Global Research News Hour:

CHLY 101.7fm in Nanaimo, B.C – Thursdays at 1pm PT

Boston College Radio WZBC 90.3FM NEWTONS  during the Truth and Justice Radio Programming slot -Sundays at 7am ET.

Port Perry Radio in Port Perry, Ontario –1  Thursdays at 1pm ET

Burnaby Radio Station CJSF out of Simon Fraser University. 90.1FM to most of Greater Vancouver, from Langley to Point Grey and from the North Shore to the US Border.

It is also available on 93.9 FM cable in the communities of SFU, Burnaby, New Westminister, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Surrey and Delta, in British Columbia, Canada. – Tune in every Saturday at 6am.

Radio station CFUV 101.9FM based at the University of Victoria airs the Global Research News Hour every Sunday from 7 to 8am PT.

CORTES COMMUNITY RADIO CKTZ  89.5 out of Manson’s Landing, B.C airs the show Tuesday mornings at 10am Pacific time.

Cowichan Valley Community Radio CICV 98.7 FM serving the Cowichan Lake area of Vancouver Island, BC airs the program Thursdays at 6am pacific time.

Campus and community radio CFMH 107.3fm in  Saint John airs the Global Research News Hour Fridays at 10am.

Caper Radio CJBU 107.3FM in Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia airs the Global Research News Hour starting Wednesday Morning from 8:00 to 9:00am. Find more details at www.caperradio.ca 

Notes:

1) COP22: WMO Full Press Conference (November 2016); https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-Y5rIUe4gg

2) https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/15/global-climate-change-action-unstoppable-despite-trump?utm_content=buffer3e9b2&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer;

3) http://cop22.ma/en/#whatscop/post/165

A now-notorious list of ostensibly “fake” news sites — created by a liberal professor, seemingly out of thin air — spread like wildfire online in the past two days and was eagerly reprinted by corporate media presstitutes hoping to vindicate their own failed reporting on the 2016 election.

But branding perfectly legitimate outlets with the same scarlet letter as those devoid of integrity deemed the professor’s list a spurious attempt to defame alternative and independent media — anyone dissenting from the left’s mainstream narrative — as a whole.

This is, in no uncertain terms, a hit list — or, at least, a laughable attempt — and it fits conveniently into the establishment’s burgeoning war on independent media disguised as a battle against fake news.

When corporate media outlets from the Independent and Business Insider, to the Los Angeles Times and NYMag scrambled over one another to reprint this irresponsibly contrived hit list, they proved yet again a lack of journalistic integrity — the same issue that originally caused regular subscribers to abandon them in the first place.

Indeed, in this otherwise unknown professor’s foray into the world of journalism, a glaring mistake was made — the only mainstream outlets making the list were those who had heralded Bernie Sanders as the best candidate for the White House.

Such an obvious attempt to control thought could only be conjured in a totalitarian regime.

In fact, failing to place the exact corporate media organizations on the list, who for nearly a year praised fealty only to Hillary Clinton — and for decades have foisted on the public countless mendacious whoppers — constitutes a comedic lack of honesty. So, to bring that irony front and center, it’s imperative to examine some mainstream lies — most of which had appalling consequences — including the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people in the United States and around the world.

1. George W. Bush’s Weapons of Mass Destruction

President George W. Bush decided to unleash the full force of the U.S. military upon the world in a new policy of war writ large disguised as a war on terrorism following the attacks of September 11, 2001. First arbitrarily designating Afghanistan as its primary victim due to the supposed identities of the attackers, Bush then chose Iraq to feel the wrath, and set out to invade the country following dubious claims Saddam Hussein harbored destructive chemical and biological weapons and was actively seeking far stronger munitions.

“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised,” the president asserted in a public address on March 17, 2003. “This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq’s neighbors and against Iraq’s people.”

Bush’s assertions were questioned by not only human rights experts, but by U.N. weapons inspectors and countless others — so shortly after the U.S. invaded the sovereign nation, the New York Times took up the slack to fill in the appropriate casus belli.

Judith Miller notoriously reported on a source she described only as an Iraqi scientist who had seen several extensive caches of such weapons stored somewhere in the country. American weapons experts, she claimed,

said the scientist told them that President Saddam Hussein’s government had destroyed some stockpiles of deadly agents as early as the mid-1990’s, transferred others to Syria, and had recently focused its efforts instead on research and development projects that are virtually impervious to detection by international inspectors, and even American forces on the ground combing through Iraq’s giant weapons plants.

In hindsight, Miller’s problematic report turned out to be horrendously flawed, and the Times spent months attempting to backtrack, but the damage — fomenting widescale public support for a war no one wanted the military to undertake — had been done. Years later in 2014, the Times — after much internal strife — again took up Miller’s case, in a series reporting catastrophic injuries U.S. military personnel suffered in handling chemical weapons in Iraq. But that report, and the parroting of it by multiple other mainstream mainstays, failed to fully disclose Hussein had been oblivious to the stockpiles presence — something the CIA had clearly stated in a report.

2. Gulf of Tonkin Incident

Often, the American mainstream media becomes a de facto government employee, taking the claims of U.S. officials and reporting them as proven fact — and nothing exemplifies this penchant better than reporting on the Gulf of Tonkin incident — perhaps one of most flagrant lies ever dreamed up as a justification for war.

On August 5, 1964, the New York Times reported

“President Johnson has ordered retaliatory action against gunboats and ‘certain supporting facilities in North Vietnam’ after renewed attacks against American destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin.” Additional outlets, such as the Washington Post, echoed this claim.

But it wasn’t true. At all. In fact, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, as it became known, turned out to be a fictitious creation courtesy of the government to escalate war in Vietnam — leading to the deaths of tens of thousands of U.S. troops and millions of Vietnamese, fomenting the largest anti-war movement in American history, and tarnishing the reputation of a nation once considered at least somewhat noble in the eyes of the world.

In 2010, more than 1,100 transcripts from the Vietnam era were released, proving Congress and officials raised serious doubts about the information fed to them by the Pentagon and White House. But while this internal grumbling took place, mainstream media dutifully reported official statements as if the veracity of the information couldn’t be disputed.

Tom Wells, author of the exhaustive exposé “The War Within: America’s Battle Over Vietnam,” explained the media egregiously erred in “almost exclusive reliance on U.S. government officials as sources of information” and “reluctance to question official pronouncements on ‘national security issues.’”

If due diligence had been performed, and reporters had raised appropriate doubts about the Gulf of Tonkin false flag, it’s arguable whether support for the contentious war would have lasted as long as it did.

3. Suppression of brutality perpetrated in Bahrain during the Arab Spring

CNN sent reporter Amber Lyon and a crew to U.S. ally Bahrain for a documentary about technology’s role in the 2011 people’s uprising known as the Arab Spring, ultimately titled “iRevolution: Online Warriors of the Arab Spring” — but what they encountered instead bore the hallmarks of a repressive and violent regime, and its attempt to filter and censor the truth. Lyon and the other CNN reporters went to great lengths to speak with sources participating in the massive uprising — one the Bahraini government wished to quash at all costs.

“By the time the CNN crew arrived,” the Guardian reported“many of the sources who had agreed to speak to them were either in hiding or had disappeared. Regime opponents whom they interviewed suffered recriminations, as did ordinary citizens who worked with them as fixers. Leading human rights activist Nabeel Rajab was charged with crimes shortly after speaking to the CNN team. A doctor who gave the crew a tour of his village and arranged meetings with government opponents, Saeed Ayyad, had his house burned to the ground shortly after. Their local fixer was fired ten days after working with them.”

Even the CNN crew experienced the wrath of the regime, upon showing up to interview one source, the Guardian continued, “‘20 heavily-armed men’, whose faces were ‘covered with black ski masks’, ‘jumped from military vehicles’, and then ‘pointed machine guns at’ the journalists, forcing them to the ground. The regime’s security forces seized their cameras and deleted their photos and video footage, and then detained and interrogated them for the next six hours.”

After returning to the U.S., Lyon felt it her duty to expose the abuse being perpetrated by the government of an ally nation — but CNN International didn’t agree. CNN U.S. eventually aired the one-hour documentary. Once. CNN International never did — worse, the organization gave Lyon the cold shoulder, ignoring her repeated requests to return to Bahrain, which would have put CNN ahead of the game in reporting government brutality. Its failure to air the documentary and refusal to provide justification for doing so angered seasoned CNN and other mainstream established journalists across the board.

Lyon met with CNN International president Tony Maddox twice — he first promised to investigate why the documentary wasn’t aired, and then turned against her, warning the journalist not to discuss the matter publicly. Bahraini officials contacted CNN International repeatedly complaining about Lyon’s continued reporting on what she’d witnessed. Intimidation continued until she was eventually laid off, putatively for an unrelated matter.

Attempting to save face, CNN International rebuffed the Guardian’s account and interview with Lyon — but the effort was an impotent justification for the obvious failure of integrity.

But threats for Lyon to remain silent followed her off the job, and when she persisted in exposing the Bahraini regime, as well as the suppression by CNN, the outlet sent a stern warning to halt. Lyon, however, said she had never signed a non-disclosure agreement and would not be pressured into their lies — ultimately walking away reputation in hand — something that could not be said for CNN.

4. That time Fox News hired a CIA operative who wasn’t a CIA operative

Wayne Shelby Simmons made guest appearances on Fox News as a security expert with insider expertise from his work as a CIA operative — for over a decade. However, Simmons had never been employed by the agency — in fact, the imposter’s lies eventually caught up with him and he was arrested and sentenced to 33 months in prison.

“Instead of verifying whether Simmons had actually worked for the CIA, Fox News and the Agency allowed him to make fools out of Bill O’ReillySean HannityAndrew NapolitanoNeil Cavuto, and everyone at Fox & Friends for over the last twelve years. After building a false reputation as a CIA agent on Fox News, Simmons obtained an interim security clearance when an unnamed government contractor hired him in 2008. Simmons also falsely claimed on national security forms that his prior arrests and criminal convictions were directly related to his supposed intelligence work for the CIA, and that he had previously held a top secret security clearance from 1973 to 2000,” The Free Thought Project’s Andrew Emett explained.

In other words, mainstream Fox News didn’t bother with journalism at all — proffering fake expertise as the real deal — because the outlet failed the most basic of tasks any hourly wage employer would perform.

Simmons’ commentaries weren’t harmless stabs in the dark, either — relentlessly parroting baseless Islamophobic rhetoric to drum up support for the government’s insidious war on terror likely poisoned the minds of thousands of viewers, furthering the already divisive atmosphere in the U.S.

5. Vapid anti-marijuana propaganda and the furtherance of the war on drugs

According to the Drug Policy Alliance, over $51 billion is spent fighting the war on drugs in the United States — each year. In 2015, a striking 38.6 percent of all arrests for drug possession were for cannabis — 643,121 people were arrested for marijuana-related offenses.

What those figures don’t show are the millions of lives ruined by criminal conviction for the government’s unjustifiable quest to eradicate, demonize, and vilify this beneficial plant. It would be an impossible task to tally the number of families whose homes have been destroyed by SWAT teams searching for marijuana — whether or not police bothered to verify an address. An untold number of others have been slain by police for the same reason.

But worst of all, the mainstream media propagates nonsensical, false propaganda about cannabis to convince the gullible and ignorant among us to equate it with heroin, cocaine, and other ‘illicit’ substances. And while a majority of the populace has seen through such lies, some outlets have obstinately continued the drug war — seemingly of their own volition.

One stunning example occurred in March last year, when Dr. David Samadi made a guest appearance on Fox News to fearmonger the horrors of marijuana and scare the bejeezus out of the viewing audience.

“It actually causes heart attacks. It increases your heart rate. And on and on,” Samadi claimed, fecklessly distorting statistics. “We’re seeing in Colorado that we had 13 kids that came to the emergency [room] and ended up in the ICU as a result of overdose from marijuana. Now we have crack babies coming in because pregnant women are smoking this whole marijuana business.”

Fortunately, the Internet has provided the public with alternatives to these corporate media lies — and as of two years ago, despite these and other claims about pot being a dangerous substance, Pew Research Center found fully 69 percent of the population felt alcohol was more harmful than cannabis.

* * *

While this list presents only a few of the bigger lies of the corporate press, there are innumerable examples of its proud history of actual fake news. Keep these in mind when the mainstream presstitutes rush to reprint a hit list targeting journalists and outlets whose narratives counter the establishment. Indeed, it would be the corporate media — with its vast captive audience — who most deserves to be listed as propagators of lies.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Five Times Corporate Media Got Caught Publishing « Fake News » Causing the Death and Suffering of Millions

Obama’s Hollow Legacy

novembre 20th, 2016 by Margaret Kimberley

Democrats used to value things like global peace and justice in the workplace. But, for decades they have given their votes to warmongers and job-exporters. This week, they are mourning the defeat of a politician they once would have despised. In January, lots of Black Democrats will cry over the exit of a president who “won by making himself palatable to white people while also taking advantage of undeserved black pride.”

The sight of Barack and Michelle hosting a state dinner was enough to make black hearts swoon.

Obama’s legacy is in tatters, and that is good news. Donald Trump’s victory was not just a win over Hillary Clinton, but against Democratic Party policies that silenced the rank and file.

For years Democrats became convinced that the only means of keeping Republicans at bay was to go along with their party leadership without complaint. If they wanted to expand trade deals that stole workers’ jobs, so be it. The people who marched against the invasion of Iraq folded their tents when Democrats became the party of endless war. When Obama promoted austerity and “grand bargains” with Republicans not a word was uttered. Even Black Lives Matter refused to point out that the Obama Justice Department left killer cops unpunished.

Barack Obama is nothing if not consistent. While Democrats take to the streets in protest against president elect Trump, Obama declares that the man he once called unfit is not an ideologue, but a “pragmatist.” No one should be surprised about the conciliatory tone. Obama never had a problem with Republicans. They may have obstructed him, but he was always happy to assist them because he wasn’t really opposed to their policies.

The most obvious example of Obama’s lack of substance was his relationship with black Americans. His disdain and contempt for the people who loved him the most was clear to anyone who paid attention. Jokes about “cousin Pookie” and parents serving fried chicken for breakfast should have been seen as the racist screeds they clearly were. But the desire to see a black face in a prominent place endures to our detriment.

The people who marched against the invasion of Iraq folded their tents when Democrats became the party of endless war.

Obama won by making himself palatable to white people while also taking advantage of undeserved black pride. Hillary Clinton would be the president elect if the new voters who emerged in 2008 had remained committed to the Democratic Party. But their loyalty was to the imagery of Barack Obama as president. Their joy was confined to seeing him meet the queen of England alongside his first lady or disembarking from Air Force One with his signature swagger. The sight of Barack and Michelle hosting a state dinner was enough to make black hearts swoon. Policy initiatives need not intrude upon the love fest.

The end result of this unrequited and superficial love was six million fewer votes cast for Hillary Clinton in 2016 than for Obama in 2012. The apocryphal cousin Pookie stayed home and no one should be surprised. There is no secret to keeping voters engaged. They are engaged if their needs are met. Deliver for voters and they deliver in the voting booth.

Even the unpopular and shady Hillary Clinton could have won Michigan if the people of Flint had received the federal help they needed so badly. Not only did the Obama environmental protection agency allow the beleaguered city to be given contaminated water, but he showed up for a photo opportunity and did nothing else as residents suffered. He drank a glass of water, posed for the cameras and returned to Washington. The people of Flint are still living under conditions Americans think of as being “Third World.”

Democratic voters must ask themselves why they said nothing when their party promoted trade deals that were against their interests.

The response to Trump’s victory should mean more than protesting policies the Democrats now have little ability to fight. This moment presents an opportunity for much needed introspection and mea culpas. Millions of people did more than just accept Democratic Party policy. They supported actions they would have rejected if carried out by a Republican or a white Democrat. They supported Muammar Gaddafi when Republicans were president but averted their eyes to his murder when committed by a Democrat. They even voted for the person who bragged about the killing. Democratic voters must ask themselves why they said nothing when their party promoted trade deals that were against their interests. Ultimately that acquiescence led to defeat at Trump’s hands.

The Obama team’s propaganda skills were legendary but the day of reckoning revealed the emptiness of what they produced. The corporate media acted like scribes under White House direction and declared that Russia was an enemy state and its president a 21st century Hitler. Now it is Donald Trump, the self-promoting reality television star, who declares his willingness to talk to his Russian counterpart. It is the sort of behavior that Democrats once valued.

Democratic presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton began the tradition of getting Democrats to support what they didn’t like. Obama perfected the art, which ultimately led to the debacle. He will certainly not be the last to tempt the party faithful but in 2016 Democrats sold their souls and ended up with nothing. Defeat creates the most hollow feelings of all.

Margaret Kimberley‘s Freedom Rider column appears weekly in BAR, and is widely reprinted elsewhere. She maintains a frequently updated blog as well as athttp://freedomrider.blogspot.com. Ms. Kimberley lives in New York City, and can be reached via e-Mail at Margaret.Kimberley(at)BlackAgendaReport.com.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Obama’s Hollow Legacy

Will Trump Drain the Swamp as Promised?

novembre 20th, 2016 by Stephen Lendman

Promises are easy to make, fulfilling them another matter entirely. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Trump has lots of proving to do. I intend cutting him some slack, withholding criticism like media and many others until he starts governing – then holding his feet to the fire if he fails to deliver, commending him for what’s praiseworthy.

That’s what fair and unbiased journalism should be all about – available through alternative media sources only, mainstream ones entirely lacking credibility.

They denigrated Trump throughout his campaign (while one-sidedly exalting war goddess, racketeer Hillary), likely continuing to bash him in office no matter what he does or doesn’t do.

Given America’s sordid political history, I doubt I’ll look back on his years with admiration. Yearning for real change like millions of others, I hope he’ll prove critics wrong. If so, his tenure will be historic.

I remember Jack Kennedy fondly. In June 1956, as a junior Massachusetts senator, he concluded his commencement address to my class, saying “if more politicians knew poetry, and more poets knew politics, I am convinced the world would be a better place in which to live…”

If they knew Shakespeare, Tennyson, Neruda, Yeats, Keats, Emerson, Thoreau, Twain, Sandburg, Pushkin, others like them and internalized their thinking, perhaps we’d have a much better world.

Instead, we have to play the hand dealt us, striving hard for beneficial change, never losing hope, never yielding to Machiavellian evil.

Trump campaigned against deep-seated corruption, dishonesty, hypocrisy and “liars,” promising he’d do better.

Beginning January 20, it’s put up or shut up time. On the stump and via Twitter, he said he’ll make government honest again, close all loopholes and “drain the swamp.” Here are some promises:

  • he’ll ban all executive branch officials from lobbying government for five years after they leave office;
  • he’ll “ask Congress to institute its own 5-year ban on lobbying by former members…and their staffs;”
  • he’ll expand the definition of lobbying so former government officials can’t circumvent rules by calling themselves consultants, advisors or other designation concealing their lobbying intentions;
  • he’ll “issue a lifetime ban against senior executive branch officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government;”
  • he’ll “ask Congress to pass campaign finance reform that prevents registered foreign lobbyist from raising money in American elections;

It takes a giant leap of faith to believe he’ll “end our government corruption.” Let’s see what steps he takes and judge him accordingly.

  • he’ll “end economic stagnation” – helicopter money for Main Street, not Wall Street, would be a good way to start;
  • he’ll “push for a Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress” – no easy task; Article V of the Constitution explains:

It requires two-thirds supermajority approval by House and Senate member or a (never before used) two-thirds supermajority national convention vote – called by Congress at the request of at least 34 state legislatures.

If one of the above two options is achieved, a three-fourths supermajority of state legislatures or state ratifying conventions is required for adoption.

The process was successfully completed 27 times before, including for the Bill of Rights, the Constitution’s first 10 amendments – so a 28th amendment is possible, but only after a lengthy, arduous process.

Trump said he’ll “enforce all laws concerning the protection of classified information. No one will be above the law.”

He failed to explain over-classification abuses, maintaining secrecy on things everyone has a right to know, including serious government wrongdoing – why courageous whistleblowers exist. They should be honored, not prosecuted and imprisoned.

Incarcerated heroes like Chelsea Manning and all other political prisoners should be freed straightaway once Trump is inaugurated. Indictments of Edward Snowden and Julian Assange on phony espionage charges should be dropped.

Trump:

I am going to forbid senior officials from trading favors for cash by preventing them from collecting lavish speaking fees through their spouses when they serve.

I am going to ask my senior officials to sign an agreement not to accept speaking fees from corporations with a registered lobbyist for five years after leaving office, or from any entity tied to a foreign government.

I am going to restore honor to our government. We’ve seen the corruption of Hillary Clinton, the mass email deletions, the pay-for-play at the State Department, the profiteering, the favors given to foreign corporations and governments at your expense.

We’ve seen a former Secretary of State lie to Congress about her illegal email scheme, risk innocent American lives, and bring dishonor onto our government.

Will he hold her accountable or go back on his word to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate her wrongdoing? He told CBS’ 60 Minutes he’s “going to think about it,” adding he wants to focus on jobs, healthcare, border control and immigration  – then saying:

“I don’t want to hurt them (meaning Bill and Hillary). They’re good people,” suggesting accountability won’t be forthcoming on his watch.

Trump:

I know the system better than anybody else and I’m the only one up here that’s going to be able to fix that system because that system is wrong.

Our campaign is about breaking-up the special interest monopoly in Washington, DC. We’re trying to disrupt the collusion between the wealthy donors, the large corporations, and the media executives.

They’re all part of the same rigged political establishment. They go to the same restaurants, they attend the same conferences, they have the same friends and connections. And they are all in for a big day of reckoning on November 8th.

The Big Banks and Wall Street donors who want nothing to change are throwing millions and millions at my opponent. These are the same people who paid Bill and Hillary Clinton $150 million for speeches.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign is all about protecting the powerful. Our campaign is about protecting those who have no power.

Together, we are going to give working people a voice for the first time in a very, very long time.

On every issue, our campaign is about making life better for working people. But we can’t accomplish that goal unless we break-up the special interest monopoly and give power back to the citizens.

(G)lobalization wiped out our middle class. It doesn’t have to be this way. We can turn it all around – and we can turn it around fast.

If I am elected President, I will end the special interest monopoly in Washington, DC.

Bold pledges! Will he deliver? What about ending America’s permanent war agenda, its imperial ambitions for unchallenged world dominance, wanting US-controlled puppet regimes replacing sovereign independent ones?

Will he normalize relations with Russia, ending illegal sanctions and the threat of possible nuclear war? Will he “make America great again” for all its people, not just its privileged few like it’s always been from inception?

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

His new book as editor and contributor is titled « Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the 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 Will Trump Drain the Swamp as Promised?

The establishment media is dying. This is not a biased view coming from “alternative media,” it is a fact borne out by metrics and opinion polls from within the establishment itself. It was true before the recent election, and is guaranteed to accelerate after their shameless defense of non-reality which refused to accept any discontent among the American population with standard politics.

Now, with egg on their face after the botched election coverage, and a wobbling uncertainty about how they can maintain multiple threads of a narrative so fundamentally disproven, they appear to be resorting to their nuclear option: a full shut down of dissent.

news media

Voices within independent media have been chronicling the signposts toward full-on censorship as sites have encountered everything from excessive copyright infringement accusations, to de-monetization, to the open admission by advertising giants that certain images would not be tolerated.

However, until now these efforts have appeared random, haphazard, and rife with retractions and restorations of targeted sites and content. A massive backlash of reader outrage toward these restrictive measures has confirmed that most consumers don’t like the idea of being given boundaries to their intellectual freedom.

That said, there has been a notable increase of hoax websites beginning to populate the information stream. We can attest that this has been an incredible annoyance as we are bombarded daily with new outrageous claims and rabbit holes that readers expect us to sift through.

Most times, a cursory glance at the “About” page or any disclaimers quickly shows where this information is coming from. Other times, a bit of common sense and discernment about why a site that has just appeared on the scene (check Alexa for this info) would have “EXCLUSIVE” “BREAKING” content under the banner of an apparent local news channel or a name that is the twisted version of a legitimate news outlet.

But even with those caveats, we’ve all been taken in at one time or another and have had to retract or update articles as necessary, or apologize to our e-mail list for sending out a given link. This does jam up the works, but it is the tax we all must pay if we believe in the free-market of ideas and information. We’re not perfect, but at least we have never been deliberately misleading like CNN and others often have been.

The government recently legalized using propaganda against US citizens. They wielded all of their establishment media force to sell their lies. And now they’re frustrated that people still prefer the truth as they see it naturally.

As The Verge highlighted in a recent article, “Two-thirds of the world’s internet users live under government censorship.” Although this is roundly decried by establishment media as evidence of “declining freedom,” this is exactly the path we are heading toward at the behest of that same media within those areas that have managed to thwart such a reality.

The voices of the corporate media are making a show of calling Facebook to task for evidently not having stringent enough algorithms to discern legitimate news from deliberate hoax. We are being told that this very likely led to the election of Trump, and that this has become a major problem in need of a major solution.

The first shots are being fired as we speak. Yesterday we learned that Facebook and Google would take swift action against “fake news” by de-monetizing or banning them outright.

“Moving forward, we will restrict ad serving on pages that misrepresent, misstate, or conceal information about the publisher, the publisher’s content, or the primary purpose of the web property,” a Google spokesperson said in a statement given to Reuters. This policy includes fake news sites, the spokesperson confirmed. Google already prevents its AdSense program from being used by sites that promote violent videos and imagery, pornography, and hate speech.

(Source)

This is problematic on a number of levels, not least of which is the vague notion of what constitutes violent imagery and hate speech. War, of course, is what should first come to mind when thinking of violence. Police shootings and other clashes might qualify as well, but routinely populate the most mainstream of sources. And one person’s hate speech is another person’s dissent.

The second component is that of transparency, where we see claims about any effort to “conceal information about the publisher.” Again, very vague, but as any journalist worth their salt knows, it is anonymity which leads to the truth more often than not, especially when threats against journalists and whistleblowers are demonstrably on the rise.

Today, the mainstream media named us as one of the top “fake news” sites to avoid. It’s quite an honor.

US News (linked above) has published a list of websites that it deems unworthy of support, and is essentially urging to be de-monitized or banned based on the previous calls to action.

Here are several fake news sites that have become popular on Facebook, and which should be avoided if you’re looking for the facts:

fake-newsSource

Firstly, the grouping of satire, hoax, and propaganda is troubling, as the definitions of each aren’t even remotely related to one another.

Satire is literature and has a tradition dating back thousands of years; it has been recognized as an essential component of intellectual and political freedom. A deliberate hoax, we can all agree, is lacking integrity, purposely deceptive, and can be legitimately harmful or dangerous. Propaganda, though, is aligned with the State; and most commonly is directed and funded by the State.  That is a serious accusation and one that is entirely without merit for this website. It is also an especially ironic and dubious accusation coming from an outlet called US News.

Yet we’re proud to be biased for peace, love, and liberty. Anyone against those principles is serving fake news as far as we’re concerned.

All of this is to say that we are entering dangerous new territory, as the Internet itself is under a new regime with the transfer to ICANN, an international body. If 2/3 of the globe is under digital dictatorship, what else is the likely outcome from such international control over information?

However, it is also an exhilarating time to be a part of such mammoth upheaval, where the entrenched apparatus of the State itself has declared information to be its enemy and to acknowledge that it must do everything in its power to maintain its tenuous monopoly on the truth.

The unfortunate reality for them is that the truth will always be more efficient and, therefore, simpler to disseminate than the complexities of lies and true propaganda.

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur Establishment Media Declares War on Their Competition as “Fake News”

For Washington, Destroying Syria is a Bipartisan Agenda

novembre 20th, 2016 by Tony Cartalucci

With a new president coming into office, hopes for a break in the Syrian conflict are abound. However, these hopes are likely misplaced. Recent US designs for the destruction of Syria began unfolding, not during the administration of US President Barack Obama, but in fact during the presidency of George Bush, and were merely continued, and clearly expanded upon under President Obama.

Pundits and policymakers on both the “left” and “right” of the Western political spectrum have made arguments for continued, even expanded US war with Syria, simply behind the smokescreen of varying partisan narratives. In the end, however, the Middle Eastern nation’s overthrow – and failing that – its incremental and systematic division and destruction, remains Washington’s ultimate endgame.

President-Elect Trump’s Surrounded by Eager Warmongers  

President-elect Donald Trump’s campaign for the past 2 years or so has been openly guided by elements of Washington’s political establishment often referred to as Neo-Conservatives. This includes former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director during the Bill Clinton administration, James Woolsey, an avid supporter of US war with Iran who served as Trump’s adviser on national security, defense and intelligence, Politico would report.

Together with Woolsey, Trump has either invited in or courted other members of the so-called Neo-Conservative establishment including former US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, former New York City mayor, Rudy Giuliani, and former Speaker of the US House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich.

Joining them is media personality Steven Bannon of Breitbart News, the establishment’s “right cover” retrenched within what is otherwise the independent and increasingly influential alternative media.

Woolsey, Bolton, Giuliani, and Gingrich have all lobbied for years as advocates for war with Iran, including lobbying directly for US State Department-listed foreign terrorist organization, Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK) as a means of propping up a capable, armed, and fanatical proxy with which to indirectly wage war on Iran, much as the US is currently using Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, and proxy groups like Jabhat Al Nusra and the self-proclaimed “Islamic State” (ISIS) to wage proxy war on Syria.

Syria’s Destruction Plotted Under Bush, Carried Out Under Obama, a Prerequisite for War with Iran…  

In fact, war with Syria has been long determined by US policymakers as an essential prerequisite before waging war on Iran. Syria’s inclusion within the Bush-era “Axis of Evil” was in fact announced by Trump-ally John Bolton under the Bush administration in 2002.

The BBC in a 2002 article titled, “US Expands ‘Axis of Evil,’” would report that:

The United States has added Cuba, Libya and Syria to the nations it claims are deliberately seeking to obtain chemical or biological weapons.

In a speech entitled “Beyond the Axis of Evil”, US Under Secretary of State, John Bolton said that the three nations could be grouped with other so-called “rogue states” – Iraq, Iran and North Korea – in actively attempting to develop weapons of mass destruction. 

He also warned that the US would take action.

And the US would indeed take action, utterly destroying Libya and setting itself upon Syria, only not during Bush’s eight-year term in office, but under his successor’s administration, beginning in 2011.

And while the US proxy war with Syria began in 2011 under Obama, the stage was already being set as early as 2007 under Bush. In Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh’s 2007 article, “The Redirection: Is the Administration’s new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on terrorism?,” it would be explicitly stated that (emphasis added):

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

Hersh, in his 9-page report, would enumerate how financial, political, and material support was already benefiting extremist organizations associated with this expanding conspiracy, organizations that would soon be directly involved in the 2011 Syrian conflict including the Muslim Brotherhood and armed militant groups aligned with Al Qaeda.

US corporate-financier funded policy think tanks including the Brookings Institution as early as 2009 would also reveal that either the coercion or overthrow of the Syrian government, as well as the neutralization of Hezbollah would be essential prerequisites to the eventual attack on and overthrow of the Iranian government, as stated in their extensively detailed report, “Which Path to Persia?: Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran.”

Trump’s Transition Includes Reboot of Syrian-Iranian “Axis of Evil” Narrative 

It should be noted that Trump’s political allies among Washington’s Neo-Conservative clique, have been lobbying for MEK terrorists as recently as July of this year. In Paris, France, Bolton, Gingrich, and Giuliani were shoulder-to-shoulder with the Saudi Royal Family calling for “regime change” in Tehran.

Noting that the elimination of Syria and Hezbollah are essential prerequisites for this “regime change,” should pique concern regarding the incoming administration of President-elect Trump. With Russia’s steadfast intervention in Syria upon Damascus’ request, and with the positive outcome of the Syrian conflict for Moscow key to Russian national security, it is unlikely that genuine rapprochement between the US and Russia can actually be made.

The hope of Trump allying the United States with Russia should be interpreted as a political ploy not unlike the now obviously disingenuous “reset” Hillary Clinton herself presided over as US Secretary of State in 2009. As Secretary Clinton posed for pictures with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov holding an emergency stop button with “reset” written on it, US policymakers were already deeply involved in the planning of not only political unrest within Russia itself through the use of US-funded opposition groups, but planning fully on the liquidation of Russia’s traditional allies throughout the Middle East and North Africa region (MENA), Eastern Europe, and Central Asia via the upcoming “Arab Spring” conflagration.

With Trump now incoming as US president, the Western media is attempting to capitalize on campaign promises made by Trump himself regarding “safe zones” in Syria and the exploitation of the refugee crisis triggered by US interventions across the MENA region.

A CNN article written by conservative media personality Sarah “SE” Cupp titled, “Syria: The issue we can’t ignore anymore,” repackages Obama-era talking points to dovetail with Trump’s campaign promises. Tellingly, the op-ed states (emphasis added):

Trump has made clear during the course of the election that he would not take in any Syrian refugees. While that’s not the position I wish he would take, I can live with this, because keeping refugees out matters to him, and presumably his many supporters. And ultimately, the humane and practical solution is to secure a safe zone within Syria so that other countries, including ours, do not have a refugee crisis in the first place. Indeed, one of the most straightforward things we can do — and the most significant — is to give Syrians a safe way to return home. It’s also something Trump and a Republican-led Congress could agree on.

However, “safe zones” are not a new idea. They also have nothing to do with addressing the humanitarian disaster unfolding in Syria. They were introduced by the very engineers of the Syrian conflict among US foreign policy circles, and were designed not to help end the war or protect refugees, but to “bleed Syria” to death as a functioning nation state by intentionally protracting fighting for as long as possible.

As early as 2012, the Brookings Institution in a document titled, “Middle East Memo #21: Saving Syria: Assessing Options for Regime Change,” US policymakers would openly declare their intentions to create such “safe zones” stating:

An alternative is for diplomatic efforts to focus first on how to end the violence and how to gain humanitarian access, as is being done under Annan’s leadership. This may lead to the creation of safe-havens and humanitarian corridors, which would have to be backed by limited military power. This would, of course, fall short of U.S. goals for Syria and could preserve Asad in power. From that starting point, however, it is possible that a broad coalition with the appropriate international mandate could add further coercive action to its efforts.

The document would then openly admit that – failing to overthrow the Syrian government – bleeding the nation would be an acceptable alternative, claiming (emphasis added):

The United States might still arm the opposition even knowing they will probably never have sufficient power, on their own, to dislodge the Asad network. Washington might choose to do so simply in the belief that at least providing an oppressed people with some ability to resist their oppressors is better than doing nothing at all, even if the support provided has little chance of turning defeat into victory. Alternatively, the United States might calculate that it is still worthwhile to pin down the Asad regime and bleed it, keeping a regional adversary weak, while avoiding the costs of direct intervention.

If it seems that Trump’s campaign speeches, his campaign and transition team, as well as his prospective presidential administration seem fully arrayed to preserve a continuity of agenda that has so far, clearly transcended both the 8 year term of Bush and Obama’s subsequent 8 years in office, that’s because it is.

Russian “optimism” regarding America’s incoming president is likely nothing more than a diplomatic gesture of goodwill. And just as Foreign Minister Lavrov humored Secretary Clinton’s “reset” charade, fully anticipating treachery, Russia and its Syrian allies must prepare fully for American treachery once again – from an administration carrying the distinct DNA of the very policy circles that added Syria to the “Axis of Evil” in the first place, and has since then worked ceaselessly to undermine it and its allies for well over a decade.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine New Eastern Outlook.”

 

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur For Washington, Destroying Syria is a Bipartisan Agenda

With a fast approaching European Parliament vote on the EU-Canada trade deal CETA and potential subsequent rows over its ratification in EU member states, CETA continues to draw heavy criticism. A close look at the text of the agreement – and recent declarations designed to reassure critics and gain support for its ratification – shows that concerns over CETA are well-founded. Behind the PR attempts by the Canadian Government and the European Commission to sell it as a progressive agreement, CETA remains what it always has been: an attack on democracy, workers, and the environment. It would be a major mistake to ratify it.

On both sides of the Atlantic, the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between the EU and Canada is hugely controversial. A record 3.3 million people across Europe signed a petition against CETA and its twin agreement TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership). European and Canadian trade unions, as well as consumer, environmental and public health groups and small and medium enterprises (SMEs) reject the agreement. Constitutional challenges against CETA have been filed in Germany and Canada and the compatibility of CETA’s controversial privileges for foreign investors with EU law is likely to be judged by the European Court of Justice.

The controversy has also reached governments and parliaments. Across Europe, more than 2,100 local and regional governments have declared themselves TTIP/CETA free zones, often in cross-party resolutions. National and regional parliaments, too, worry about CETA, for example in Belgium, France, Slovenia, Luxembourg, Ireland, and the Netherlands. In October 2016, concerns in four sub-federal Belgian governments (led by Wallonia) over the agreement’s negative impacts, and in particular its dangerous privileges for foreign investors, nearly stopped the federal government from approving the signing of CETA.

Over the past months, to salvage CETA’s ratification process, European and Canadian trade officials have gone into a massive propaganda mode. They have framed CETA as “a very progressive trade agreement” (European Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström) which will “shape globalisation” along the principles of “fair trade” and in the interest of workers (Germany’s Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier).

The latest PR move of the CETA supporters is a multitude of 39 declarations and statements accompanying the text of the agreement. These texts are designed to alleviate concerns amongst Social Democrats, trade unions, and the wider public who fear that CETA threatens public services, labour and environmental standards and undermines governments’ right to regulate in the public interest. But in fact, the declarations do nothing to fix CETA’s flaws.

Read the full report to see through the many swindles, which CETA supporters are currently engaged in, in order to win support for what is actually a major assault on democracy, workers, and the environment:

Swindle #1: CETA protects workers’ rights

Swindle #2: CETA is a good deal for the environment

Swindle #3: CETA’s investor rights safeguard the right to regulate to protect the environment, health and other public interests

Swindle #4: CETA protects public services like healthcare and water

Swindle #5: CETA establishes an independent court to settle investor-state disputes

Swindle #6: CETA will uphold standards to protect people and the environment

Full report: The great CETA swindle

Attached files:
  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur The Great CETA Swindle. Workers Rights, Consumers, Environment, Healthcare, Small Business, Democracy

War Crimes Accusations: Guess Who’s Talking

novembre 20th, 2016 by Martin Berger

As the voices demanding to bring the sitting US administration to justice are getting louder, Washington is literally in panic, since it may soon be held responsible for hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths. These concerns have recently been intensified by Hillary Clinton’s electoral defeat, since it was obvious for the members of the Obama administration that would have been covering up those influential criminals along with the crimes they’ve committed. Since Hillary herself was heavily involved in the destruction of Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, she’s has a deep personal interest in obstructing justice.

The “panicky mood” in the White House was intensified even further by the announcement of the International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda, who stated that the ICC would start investigating US war crimes in Afghanistan.

Under these circumstances the White House has started pushing its corporate propaganda machine to vilify Moscow and Damascus, to divert the attention from the damage the US inflicted upon the countries of the region, including Iraq and Syria. Western journalists have been “recommended” to go down hard on Russia, Iran, Syria so that a regular reader would assume that the humanitarian catastrophe and the exodus of migrants from the Middle East is someone else’s fault.

An extensive amount of attention has been drawn to the situation in Aleppo, as virtually all Western leafless would feature pictures of a Syrian girl allegedly rescued from the rubble “after the inhumane bombing” of Aleppo. However, a number of French-speaking sites, in particular, the Réseau international, Antipresse or Arrêt Sur Info have already declared those pictures a blatant manipulation, since the gild has been photographed in several places being carried by three different militants of the “white helmets” that are pretending to be rescuers during the day only to transform into Islamist insurgents as soon as the darkness falls.

At the same time the Pentagon tried to downplay the amount of “collateral damage” that the the US Air Force inflicts in Iraq and Syria. In particular, according to the statement by the representative of the Central Command of the US Armed Forces, Colonel John Thomas, during the period from November 2015 to September 2016 a total of 64 civilians was killed by American air strikes in Syria and Iraq. However, one could hardly call this number “inaccurate”, since it’s a blatant lie.

Last January a single US air strike in the Aleppo region resulted in 24 civilians killed and more than 40 injured. Later on a air strike against the Kurdish village of Sulsana resulted in 19 civilian deaths, among which one may find 3 minors. In July, the village of Tokhars was burying 45 adults and 11 children after a bombardment carried out by the US Air Force. Finally, the village of Hamir lost 9 people to American bombs, including 4 minors. The US Air Force claimed the lives of 167 civilians, including 17 women and 44 minors in the Syrian city of Manbij in the period from May to July.

As for the Mosul assault, that is being heralded in the West as the greatest achievement of “allied forces” to date, it’s been a massacre. On March 20, as the result of a direct hit on the local University, American pilots left 92 civilians dead and 135 more injured. On April 18, the US Air Force destroyed a local tank farm, killing 150 civilians in the process. Finally, on October 21 a funeral procession came under fire in Daquq, leaving behind 21 dead bodies.

The incredibly modest evaluation of the “collateral damage” that US Air Force inflicts upon the Middle Eastern population has been heavily criticized by the Amnesty International along with a number of various experts. The charts that White House present them with show one civilian is being killed in Iraq and Syria per 200 US air strikes… At the same time the Pentagon admits that in Afghanistan there was at least one civilian victim per every 15 air strikes, while the latest report from the White House shows that civilians are being killed each 5 flight against possible terrorist targets in such countries such as Pakistan and Yemen. If these figures are to be applied to the number of air strikes that the US carried out in Iraq and Syria, it will mean that during the US-led air strikes resulted in at least more than 300 civilians killed, while 2,750 civilians looks like a much more accurate number.

The Amnesty International has analyzed the data provided by Syrian human rights activists and local monitoring organizations only to come to the conclusion that a total of 11 air strikes that the Pentagon would launch a total of 300 civilians is to be killed, while Washington would only acknowledge a single death, if any. In total, according to various estimates, in the Syrian conflict has already claimed the lives of more than 300 thousand people.

Therefore, the White House strongly spins the hysteria about the alleged guilt of Russia and Damascus in the deaths of civilians Aleppo, without presenting any evidence, which brings us to the conclusion that this is nothing but a cheap trick used to shift the focus of the public attention from the unbelievable amount of “collateral damage” Washington has been inflicting on Syria illegally, since nobody has invited it. But, as the announcement about the International Criminal Court investigation shows, the war criminals are to be established and brought to justice, no matter how hard they may try to avoid the responsibility for their war crimes.

Martin Berger is a freelance journalist and geopolitical analyst, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”  

  • Posted in Non classé
  • Commentaires fermés sur War Crimes Accusations: Guess Who’s Talking