Archives: Articles

Part II

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky

First published on February 2, 2023

***

Update: The February Earthquakes, May 14, 2023 Turkey Elections

The economic, social and geopolitical impacts of the February 2023 two earthquakes in Southern Anatolia are far-reaching. They have resulted in economic, social and political chaos in the period leading up to the May 14 presidential and parliamentary elections. 

For details see Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD) and the Turkey-Syria Earthquake: An Expert Investigation is Required

With regard to the May elections, Washington’s unspoken objective is to: “Replace Erdogan” with an obedient US proxy. No easy task: Their chosen successor to Erdogan is leader of the opposition Kemel Kılıçdaroğlu, who heads a six-party coalition “united by the sole aim of removing Erdoğan from power”. 

According to Western media reports, Erdogan’s Justice and Development party (AKP) is poised to suffer losses in the May 14, 2023 elections, which could be followed by a “Color Revolution” resulting in a process of engineered social chaos and mass protests against Erdogan. 

Washington’s ultimate objective is to dismantle the Russia-Turkey alliance, while reintegrating Turkey back into the Atlantic Alliance as an “obedient NATO country”, no more “sleeping with the enemy”.

What the media in recent reports have failed to mention is that the outcome of the May 14 election will have far-reaching geopolitical implications.

Washington is intent upon undermining Turkey’s alliance with Russia, as well as taking full control of  US-NATO naval access to the Black Sea. 

Michel Chossudovsky, May 10, 2023

***

The latest election reports (May 15), point to a run-off. See below.

It should be mentioned that there are reports pointing to the manipulation of election results.

***

Introduction. Turkey is both a “NATO Heavyweight” as well as “An Ally of Russia”

It should be obvious to the White House, the Pentagon not to mention NATO headquarters in Brussels that:

You cannot win a war against Russia when the second largest military power member state of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is “sleeping with the enemy”

I am referring to Turkey which is both a “NATO heavyweight” as well as a firm ally of the Russian Federation.

The “sleeping with the enemy” narrative –which is the object of this article  — has never hit the headlines, nor has it been the object of analysis by the independent media in Turkey’s elections

Turkey abandoned NATO’s Air Defence System in favor of Russia’s “State of the Art” S-400.

“As of 2020, 4 batteries consisting of 36 fire units, and 192+ missiles were delivered to Turkey. Turkey has tested the S-400 air defense system against drones and F-16 fighter jets at low altitudes.”

That acquisition of Russian military technology is part of a concurrent military cooperation agreement as well an alliance between Turkey and Russia established in the immediate aftermath of the failed July 2016 US sponsored coup d’Etat directed against President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. 

Needless to say it is a slap in the face for US-NATO, “which you do not want to publicize”.

It is important to address the history of US-Turkey relations and how this shift in military alliances occurred.

History: US-Turkey Military Clash in Northern Syria

From the outset of the war on Syria in mid-March 2011, the Islamist “freedom fighters” were supported, trained and equipped by NATO and Turkey’s High Command. According to Israeli intelligence sources (Debka, August 14, 2011):

NATO headquarters in Brussels and the Turkish high command are meanwhile drawing up plans for their first military step in Syria, which is to arm the rebels with weapons for combating the tanks and helicopters spearheading the Assad regime’s crackdown on dissent. … NATO strategists are thinking more in terms of pouring large quantities of anti-tank and anti-air rockets, mortars and heavy machine guns into the protest centers for beating back the government armored forces. (DEBKAfile, NATO to give rebels anti-tank weapons, August 14, 2011)

In this regard, Turkey played a central role in relation to logistics, weapons supplies, recruitment and training, in close liaison with Washington and Brussels.

This initiative involved a process of organized recruitment of thousands of jihadist “freedom fighters”, reminiscent of  the enlistment of  Mujahideen to wage the CIA’s jihad (holy war) in the heyday of the Soviet-Afghan war.

The Ankara government also played a strategic role in protecting the movement of jihadist rebels and supplies across its border into Northern Syria.

Also discussed in Brussels and Ankara, our sources report, is a campaign to enlist thousands of Muslim volunteers in Middle East countries and the Muslim world to fight alongside the Syrian rebels. The Turkish army would house these volunteers, train them and secure their passage into Syria. (Debka, emphasis added)

Both Turkey and the US initially collaborated in covertly supporting ISIS-Daesh and Jabhat Al Nusra.

President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, however, had territorial ambitions in Northern Syria which did not meet with US-NATO approval.

They consisted in combating Kurdish YPG separatist forces in Rojava which were supported by Washington.

Rojava is contiguous to the Kurdistan Autonomous region of Iraq, which has been under the control of the U.S. since 1992, in the immediate wake of the Gulf War.

Erdogan’s actions in Northern Syria were considered an encroachment upon Syria’s Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (Rojava), which in 2015 received extensive air and ground support from the United States and its Middle East allies.

In an unusual twist of events, Washington forcefully accused Erdogan:

“he [Erdogan] continues to supply arms [into Syria] as well, with his ultimate aim [being] to go after the Kurds, and ISIS is secondary.”

This division between the US and Turkey had struck at the very heart of the Atlantic Alliance. Washington was firmly opposed to Erdogan’s territorial ambitions in Northern Syria.

Under Obama, a major campaign against Syria and Iraq in support of ISIS-Daesh was initiated in 2014. The US-NATO objective was intent upon fragmenting both Syria and Iraq as well destabilizing  the government of Bashar Al Assad.

In turn, Washington’s strategy in Northern Syria consisted in supporting and controlling the Kurdish YPG separatists against Turkey.

In May 2016, Erdogan retorted, accusing US-NATO of supporting YPG forces:

“The support they give [US, NATO] to… the YPG (militia)… I condemn it,” Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said… during an airport ceremony in the Kurdish city of Diyarbakir.

“Those who are our friends, who are with us in NATO… cannot, must not send their soldiers to Syria wearing YPG insignia.” (Ara News Network, May 28, 2016)

Failed July 2016 Coup d’Etat against President Erdogan

Less than two months following Erdogan’s May 28, 2016 “refusal to comply”, on July 15, 2016, Turkey was the object of an attempted coup d’Etat: 

…[It] was [allegedly] conducted by a faction of the Turkish military [which] bombed government buildings, blocked roads and bridges and attempted to overthrow President Recep Tayyip Erdogan“

What the NPR Report quoted above failed to mention was that the Coup d’Etat consisted in an alleged CIA plan to assassinate President Erdogan:

“…Erdogan accused the CIA of being behind a coup attempt to assassinate him and bring the CIA-controlled networks of exiled Fethullah Gülen into power as Washington had enough of Erdogan’s flips in allegiance. The coup failed and reports were that Russian intelligence intercepts were given Erdogan that saved his life. After that, relations with Moscow improved markedly. 

… Then Erdogan began a shift towards Moscow. In 2017, Turkey ignored repeated protests from Washington and NATO and agreed to buy the advanced Russian S-400 air defense missile system, said to be the most advanced in the world. At that same time Russia began construction of the first of two Black Sea gas pipelines to Turkey, TurkStream in October 2016, further distancing Ankara and Washington.  (F. William Engdahl, April 2021, emphasis added) (see map below)

Ankara Drifts Towards Moscow

Prior to the July 15, 2016 failed coup d’Etat there was a strained relationship between Russia and Turkey (which had been facilitating the entry of US-NATO warships from the Mediterranean into the Black Sea).

The July 2016 failed coup d’Etat attempt against Erdogan pointed to a major turning point in the structure of political and strategic alliances. 

It led to a realignment of alliances almost immediately. Ankara’s evolving relations with Moscow were also coupled with economic cooperation, specifically in  the areas of pipelines.

“Our Alliances”: “Sleeping with the Enemy” while “Cooperating with NATO”.

In recent developments, Turkey’s Minister of Defense Hulusi Akar (a former four-star general) candidly stated (Double Speak):

“…[that] Turkey’s role in Nato against criticism that its objections to the Nordic countries’ joint application and its friendly ties with Russia were harming the alliance. “A Nato without Turkey is unthinkable,” Akar said. …

 “We are a tested nation, a tried army that would never act contrary to our alliances [note plural].  Turkish fighter jets patrol the skies above the Black Sea for Nato and the government has blocked Russian warships from using its straits during the war in Ukraine. (FT emphasis added)

Hulusi Akar says: “A Nato without Turkey is unthinkable.” I partially concur.  

A fractured NATO cannot under any circumstances wage war on Russia when its military heavyweight on the Southern coastline of the Black Sea is “Sleeping with the Enemy”, i.e. collaborating with Moscow coupled with a close personal relationship between Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Vladimir Putin.

Those Turkish fighter jet patrols are pro forma. They are not directed against Russia.

“Our Alliances” says Hulusi Akar, plural: what does this mean? We are not only allied with US-NATO but also with Russia [paraphrase]. A Non sequitur.

Was Turkey’s initiative to block the accession of Sweden and Finland to the Atlantic Alliance undertaken on behalf of Russia?

Geopolitics of the Black Sea

From a geopolitical standpoint Turkey and Russia presently control the Black Sea (and they are collaborating with regard to commodity trade out of Ukraine).

While Russia controls a large part of the Northern and Eastern coastlines, the entire Southern coastline of the Black Sea as well as access to the Mediterranean under the Montreux Protocol is under Turkey’s jurisdiction.

If we go back in history, the Cold War US-NATO militarization was largely dependent on the strategic role of Turkey against the Soviet Union, with a massive US-NATO buildup in Turkey. That is a foregone era.

Moscow and Ankara have developed a bilateral and unofficial understanding. Turkey is not deploying its Navy and Air Force in the Black Sea Basin on behalf of US- NATO.

Is “Sleeping with the Enemy” an Avenue Towards Peace?

The March 2022 failed Peace Initiative in Istanbul was hosted by the Erdoğan government in close liaison with the Kremlin. While it was subject to sabotage by both Kiev and US-NATO, it hopefully remains an option.

In recent developments (Early February 2023) Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan “has openly criticized the decision by his NATO allies to provide Ukraine with over 300 heavy tanks to prolong the war against Russia.”

“I personally can’t say that sending tanks will resolve this issue… This is a high-risk endeavor and will only line the pockets of gun barons,”

Erdogan confirmed that he “would continue talks with both Russia and Ukraine as part of efforts to find a path to peace”.

What Next: Another US Sponsored Failed Coup d’Etat, Regime Change in Turkey?

Presidential elections in Turkey are scheduled for May 2023:

“With Recep Tayyip Erdoğan at the helm, Turkey is again “the sick man of Europe,” Mr. Erdoğan’s performance has consistently been divisive and dangerous. …  Turkey is a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, but it isn’t acting like an ally.” (WSJ),

While there is staunch opposition to Erdogan’s authoritarian rule, the various opposition parties are fragmented, unable to form a meaningful coalition.

The West, signifying US-NATO is committed to intervening in the elections against the “sick man of Europe” who is “sleeping with the enemy”:

Yet there’s a chance he can be stopped, if the West takes bold action to help ensure his domestic opposition gets a fair shake in upcoming presidential elections. To do so, the alliance [NATO] ought to put Ankara’s membership on the chopping block. Considering expulsion now will allow for the alliance to debate the pros and cons of its membership and emphasize—both to Turkish voters and NATO members— … ” (WSJ, emphasis added)

What can we we expect:

Washington’s objective is to destabilize the Erdogan regime (e.g. through color revolution, engineered protest movements, devaluation of the Lira, manipulation of the elections, coup d’Etat?) as a means to reintegrating Turkey as the heavyweight of the Atlantic Alliance and breaking Ankara’s relationship with Moscow.

In substance, another possible coup d’Etat against Erdogan? Triggering social chaos, etc. But will it work?

US-NATO is seeking regime change in Turkey, as a means to regaining control over the Black Sea.

Most of the opposition parties in Turkey are NOT supportive of  US-NATO and Turkey’s membership in the Atlantic Alliance.

Will this succeed or will it backlash, leading to broader divisions within the Atlantic Alliance?

There are massive protest movements against NATO throughout the European Union.

While corrupt governments are supportive of US-NATO, anti-war peace movements have spread across Europe.

Michel Chossudovsky is an award-winning author, Professor of Economics (emeritus) at the University of Ottawa, Founder and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal, Editor of Global Research.

15 May 2023

Source: www.globalresearch.ca

By Abayomi Azikiwe

There have been various contours of discussions reported for the talks between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) which commenced in Jedda, Saudi Arabia on May 6.

Initial news stories stated that the terms of the talks centered around the declaration of a more sustainable ceasefire to allow humanitarian assistance and evacuations to occur from the country with a population of nearly 47 million.

However, in subsequent days there appears to be a recognition of broader discussions between the envoys of the SAF and RSF. Meanwhile thousands are being displaced while others are losing their lives on a daily basis.

Fighting inside Sudan erupted on April 15 after disagreements over the future role of the RSF in a transitional government. The SAF commander General Abdel-Fattah al-Burhan supports the notion of integrating the RSF into the national military structures. General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (Hemeti), the commander of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) has been reported to want a ten-year transitional period for his personnel to merge with the SAF.

What is striking about the negotiations are that they are taking place under the mediation efforts of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the United States. Both of these states have a vested interest in the outcome of the current internal conflict. Washington does want to reset relations with Khartoum albeit on its own terms. Saudi Arabia, with its long-term relationship with Sudan which extends to both religious as well as geostrategic objectives, wants to maintain and extend its existing alliance with Khartoum.

Role of the Gulf Monarchies in Stifling the Sudanese Revolution

The response of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) during the unfolding political situation in the early months of 2019 when thousands were demonstrating in the streets daily, was to stabilize the military and prevent the emergence of a civilian government committed to genuine democratic reforms. Immediately after the forced removal of former President Omer Hassan al-Bashir in April 2019, the Saudis and the UAE announced substantial sums of direct financial assistance to the military regime.

Rather than allow the process of political transformation to continue under the civilian leadership of the Forces for Freedom and Change (FFC), the youth resistance committees and the numerous opposition parties, the military seized power in an effort to confuse the masses by suggesting that it was the people that removed al-Bashir.

According to an article published by Reuters press agency in April 2019:

“Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates said on Sunday (April 19) they had agreed to send Sudan $3 billion worth of aid, throwing a lifeline to the country’s new military leaders after protests led to the ousting of President Omar al-Bashir. The two Gulf Arab countries will deposit $500 million with the Sudanese central bank and send the rest in the form of food, medicine and petroleum products, their state news agencies said in parallel statements. The aid comes amid wrangling between the Transitional Military Council (TMC) and protesters and opposition groups who are demanding that civilians lead a two-year transitional period. The protesters who have kept up a sit-in outside the Defense Ministry since Bashir was removed on April 11. They have demonstrated in large numbers over the past three days, pressing for a rapid handover to civilian rule. TMC head Abdel Fattah al-Burhan told state TV that the formation of a joint military-civilian council – one of the activists’ demands – was being considered.”

General al-Burhan claimed that the military coup of April 11, 2019 against President al-Bashir was in line with the revolutionary movement that the Sudanese people desired. The Sudanese Professional Association (SPA) in public statements rejected the assertion made by the Transitional Military Council (TMC) led by al-Burhan and insisted on continuing the resistance aimed at the removal of the armed forces from power.

When the mass organizations, professional associations and youth-led resistance committees in the neighborhoods continued to demonstrate and occupy the areas around the military headquarters in Khartoum, they were met with the brute force of the Sudanese state bolstered by the assistance from Saudi Arabia and the UAE. The days-long massacres of political activists in June 2019 should have sealed the fate of the security forces as legitimate participants in any transitional process.

Two years later in 2021, the same Reuters media organization noted:

“Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates had jointly promised $3 billion in aid to Sudan and Sudanese officials previously indicated that $750 million of that aid had been delivered, including a $500 million deposit in the central bank. However, there was no news of further disbursements, and it was unclear whether the remainder of the aid would be delivered after civilian groups struck a power-sharing deal with the military in the summer of 2019. Some of the aid was expected to arrive in the form of badly needed supplies of wheat, medicine, fuel and other goods, and Yousif said joint committees would determine how the remaining $1.2 billion of the Saudi Arabian grant would be delivered.”

Sudan’s military structures serving as the government are being subsidized in order to prevent any semblance of a revolutionary movement from coming to power in Khartoum. Another coup was staged by al-Burhan and Hemeti in October 2021 unseating interim Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok and removing the first iteration of the Sudan Sovereign Council, an unholy alliance between the civilian and military leadership which could not stop the repressive policies of the security forces let alone send the army back to its barracks.

Washington and its Allies Continue to Subvert the Will of the People

After the eruption of the April 15 crisis, the government of the Republic of South Sudan headed by President Salva Kiir, offered to host talks between the two belligerents in Juba, the capital. Nonetheless, this neighboring state which is a part of the African Union (AU), the 55-member states continental organization, was not able to enact their proposal.

A mediation effort by the AU or other regional organizations such as the Inter-governmental Authority on Development (IGAD), the East Africa Community (EAC) or the Southern African Development Community (SADC), etc., would have been a continuation of the recent efforts to develop “African solutions to African problems.”  In Ethiopia, the headquarters of the AU, beginning in 2020 when fighting broke out between the central government of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed and the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF), would eventually reach a resolution during late 2022 through the work of the governments of the Republic of South Africa and the Republic of Kenya where discussions were held that ended the conflict.

At present the ceasefire in northern Ethiopia seems to be holding between the TPLF and the Abiy administration in Addis Ababa. The Ethiopia peace agreement has been hailed as a success illustrating the potential for further successes under the diplomatic leadership of the AU.

The U.S. under the previous administration of President Donald Trump and the current government of President Joe Biden have played a destructive role in the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia along with neighboring Republic of Sudan. The many visits to Khartoum by U.S. envoys have only served to further the instability in Sudan while strengthening the intransigence of the military.

Successive administrations in Washington have worked ceaselessly to undermine the genuine independence and sovereignty of Sudan. The country, which was once the largest geographic nation-state in Africa, was partitioned in 2011 after decades of civil war largely at the aegis of the U.S., Britain and Israel. Sudan and South Sudan today are suffering from the impact of the rupture of the once promising emergent oil-producing state.

On May 6, the AU headquarters in Addis Ababa issued the following statement:

“The Chairperson of the African Union Commission, Moussa Faki Mahamat, is closely following the Saudi Arabia – United States facilitated talks between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), which commenced today, in Jeddah. The Chairperson urges the parties to agree to a humanitarian ceasefire as a matter of urgency as a first step to allow for the immediate supply of relief materials to ease the suffering of Sudanese civilians, who have borne the brunt of this crisis. The Chairperson also calls on the SAF and RSF to promptly agree to open humanitarian corridors to ease the distribution of essential supplies and restoration of services. The Chairperson reiterates the imperative for the parties to comply with International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law and to permanently silence the guns in the supreme interest of the people of Sudan. The Chairperson stresses the urgent need for the international community to combine their efforts strongly and expeditiously in a collective action, to express solidarity with the Sudanese people for peace, democracy, and development.”

Despite these words and the willingness of the AU to mediate a sustainable end to the fighting in Sudan, the role and status of the continental body are being constantly undermined. However, until there is an African solution adopted to the Sudanese political crisis, the country will continue to fail in the quest for peace, unity and security.

Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of the Pan-African News Wire. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

11 May 2023

Source: www.globalresearch.ca

By Colin Todhunter

It’s a lose-lose situation for Ukrainians. While they are dying to defend their land, financial institutions are insidiously supporting the consolidation of farmland by oligarchs and Western financial interests.  

So says Frédéric Mousseau, Policy Director of the Oakland Institute, an independent think tank.

Depending on which sources to believe, between 100,000 and 300,000 Ukrainian soldiers (possibly more) have died during the conflict with Russia. That figure, of course, does not include civilian casualties.

The mainstream narrative in the West is that Russia grabbed Crimea and then invaded Ukraine. Russia is portrayed as the outright aggressor which wants to restore its control over large swathes of Europe.

However, this narrative is false and has been debunked by various commentators who explain in some depth how Ukraine has been used and manipulated as part of a geopolitical campaign formulated by neoconservatives in Washington to destabilise Russia.

The expansion of NATO towards the east, the US-backed coup in 2014 – followed by eight years of the shelling of the ethnic Russian eastern parts of the country by the regime in Kyiv resulting in around 14,000 deaths – led up to the military intervention by Russia, which regards the expansionism and militarism as an existential threat.

It is not the purpose of this article to explore these issues. Much has already been written on this elsewhere. But billions of dollars’ worth of military hardware has been sent to Ukraine by the NATO countries and hundreds of thousands of young Ukrainians have died.

They died in the belief that they were protecting their nation – their land. A land that is among the most fertile in the world.

Professor Olena Borodina of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine says:

“Today, thousands of rural boys and girls, farmers, are fighting and dying in the war. They have lost everything. The processes of free land sale and purchase are increasingly liberalised and advertised. This really threatens the rights of Ukrainians to their land, for which they give their lives.”

Borodina is quoted in the February 2023 report by the Oakland Institute War and Theft: The Takeover of Ukraine’s Agricultural Land, which reveals how oligarchs and financial interests are expanding control over Ukraine’s agricultural land with help and financing from Western financial institutions.

Aid provided to Ukraine in recent years has been tied to a drastic structural adjustment programme requiring the creation of a land market through a law that leads to greater concentration of land in the hands of powerful interests. The programme also includes austerity measures, cuts in social safety nets and the privatisation of key sectors of the economy.

Frédéric Mousseau, co-author of the report, says:

“Despite being at the centre of news cycle and international policy, little attention has gone to the core of the conflict — who controls the agricultural land in the country known as the breadbasket of Europe. [The] Answer to this question is paramount to understanding the major stakes in the war.”

The report shows the total amount of land controlled by oligarchs, corrupt individuals and large agribusinesses is over nine million hectares — exceeding 28% of Ukraine’s arable land (the rest is used by over eight million Ukrainian farmers).

The largest landholders are a mix of Ukrainian oligarchs and foreign interests — mostly European and North American as well as the sovereign fund of Saudi Arabia. A number of large US pension funds, foundations and university endowments are also invested in Ukrainian land through NCH Capital – a US-based private equity fund, which is the fifth largest landholder in the country.

President Zelenskyy put the land reform into law in 2020 against the will of the vast majority of the population who feared it would exacerbate corruption and reinforce control by powerful interests in the agricultural sector.

The Oakland Institute notes that, while large landholders are securing massive financing from Western financial institutions, Ukrainian farmers — essential for ensuring domestic food supply — receive virtually no support. With the land market in place, amid high economic stress and war, this difference of treatment will lead to more land consolidation by large agribusinesses.

All but one of the ten largest landholding firms are registered overseas, mainly in tax havens such as Cyprus or Luxembourg. The report identifies many prominent investors, including Vanguard Group, Kopernik Global Investors, BNP Asset Management Holding, Goldman Sachs-owned NN Investment Partners Holdings, and Norges Bank Investment Management, which manages Norway’s sovereign wealth fund.

Most of the agribusiness firms are substantially indebted to Western financial institutions, in particular the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the European Investment Bank, and the International Finance Corporation – the private sector arm of the World Bank.

Together, these institutions have been major lenders to Ukrainian agribusinesses, with close to US$1.7 billion lent to just six of Ukraine’s largest landholding firms in recent years. Other key lenders are a mix of mainly European and North American financial institutions, both public and private.

The report notes that this gives creditors financial stakes in the operation of the agribusinesses and confers significant leverage over them. Meanwhile, Ukrainian farmers have had to operate with limited amounts of land and financing, and many are now on the verge of poverty.

International financial institutions are in effect subsidising the concentration of land and a destructive industrial model of agriculture based on the intensive use of synthetic inputs, fossil fuels and large-scale monocropping.

Much of what is happening in Ukraine is part of a wider trend: private equity funds being injected into agriculture throughout the world and used to lease or buy up farms on the cheap and aggregate them into large-scale, industrial grain and soybean concerns. These funds use pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, endowment funds and investments from governments, banks, insurance companies and high net worth individuals (see the 2020 report ‘Barbarians at the Barn‘ by Grain.org).

Financialising agriculture this way shifts power to people with no connection to farming. In the words of BlackRock’s Larry Fink: “Go long agriculture and water and go to the beach.”

Funds tend to invest for between 10 and 15 years, resulting in good returns for investors but can leave a trail of long-term environmental and social devastation and serve to undermine local and regional food insecurity.

By contrast, according to the Oakland Institute, small-scale farmers in Ukraine demonstrate resilience and enormous potential for leading the expansion of a different production model based on agroecology and producing healthy food. Whereas large agribusinesses are geared towards export markets, it is Ukraine’s small and medium-sized farmers who guarantee the country’s food security.

This is underlined by the State Statistics Service of Ukraine in its report ‘Main agricultural characteristics of households in rural areas in 2011’, which showed that smallholder farmers in Ukraine operate 16% of agricultural land, but provide 55% of agricultural output, including 97% of potatoes, 97% of honey, 88% of vegetables, 83% of fruits and berries and 80% of milk.

In June 2020, the IMF approved an 18-month, strings-attached $5 billion loan programme with Ukraine. Also that year, the World Bank incorporated measures relating to the sale of public agricultural land as conditions in a $350 million Development Policy Loan (COVID ‘relief package’) to Ukraine. This included a required ‘prior action’ to “enable the sale of agricultural land and the use of land as collateral.”

According to the Oakland Institute:

“Ukraine is now the world’s third-largest debtor to the International Monetary Fund and its crippling debt burden will likely result in additional pressure from its creditors, bondholders and international financial institutions on how post-war reconstruction – estimated to cost US$750 billion – should happen.”

Financial institutions are leveraging Ukraine’s crippling debt to drive further privatisation and liberalisation – backing the country into a corner to make it an offer it can’t refuse.

Since the war began, the Ukrainian flag has been raised outside parliament buildings in the West and iconic landmarks have been lit up in its colours. An image bite used to conjure up feelings of solidarity and support for that nation while serving to distract from the harsh machinations of geopolitics and modern-day economic plunder that is unhindered by national borders and has scant regard for the plight of ordinary citizens.

Renowned author Colin Todhunter specialises in development, food and agriculture.

10 May 2023

Source: www.globalresearch.ca

Under the chairmanship of Indonesian President Joko Widodo, the 42nd Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Summit commenced today. When Indonesia accepted the chairmanship from its predecessor Cambodia five months ago, there was renewed hope that ASEAN would take a harder line against Myanmar’s military junta in 2023. With only eight months left before the ASEAN chairmanship is handed to Laos, ASEAN’s emphasis remains on implementing its failed Five Point Consensus, engaging in an “inclusive national dialogue,” and facilitating the repatriation of refugees back to Rakhine State, against repeated calls from Myanmar civil society to change its course. As ASEAN drags its feet, Myanmar continues to burn.

For two years, the people of Burma have bravely resisted the junta’s violent attempt to take total control of the country. In the face of mass, unwavering public resistance, the junta has continued to increase its campaign of brutality and savagery as it carries out killings, torture, forced disappearances, sexual violence, and daily airstrikes against the civilian population throughout the country. Last month, a junta fighter jet dropped bombs on approximately 300 people in a village in Kanbalu Township of the Sagaing Region, killing at least 168 people according to the National Unity Government (NUG). Currently, the number of casualties is nearing 3,500 and still rising.

Despite ongoing atrocities, ASEAN’s response has remained limited to symbolic actions, like banning Burma from meetings. Burma was banned from annual ASEAN summits when Brunei held the chair in 2021 and again by Cambodia last year. However, ASEAN continues to normalize engagement with the junta by treating it as a reliable authority despite it having no legitimacy to represent the will of the people of Myanmar nor the ability to seize effective control of the country. A September 2022 briefing paper by the Special Advisory Council for Myanmar and maps recently produced by the Free Burma Rangers show that the junta does not have sufficient effective control of the country to warrant engagement with ASEAN and other international actors.

“ASEAN cannot expect to negotiate with an oppressive regime holding the country hostage,” said Burma Human Rights Network (BHRN) Executive Director, Kyaw Win. “The source of all of Myanmar’s most significant problems is the military. The regime only manages to survive because the world has taken a soft stance against them after each crime against humanity. This cannot continue, and ASEAN has particular influence to deny them any semblance of legitimacy.

With less than eight months remaining as chair, pressure is mounting on Indonesia to take concrete measures to end the crisis in Myanmar and to hold the junta accountable for its atrocities. As one of the largest democracies in the world with experience toppling its own dictatorship, Indonesia has the opportunity to do what its predecessors could not – to provide the help that the Myanmar people so badly need in their struggle for democracy.

To start, Indonesia should publicly acknowledge the NUG as the legitimate government of Myanmar, and engage with it, alongside representatives of Ethnic Resistance Organisations (EROs) and Myanmar civil society, on all issues. The NUG should be given Myanmar’s seat in ASEAN.

Indonesia should promote within ASEAN a new agreement to replace the failed Five Point Consensus, an agreement signed by ASEAN member states and Min Aung Hlaing’s junta in April 2021 which aimed to end the violence in Burma, foster negotiations between all stakeholders, and deliver humanitarian aid. Min Aung Hlaing has openly flouted ASEAN’s peace plan from the outset. ASEAN must recognize the futility of seeking a negotiated solution to Myanmar’s crisis that could be palatable to the exiled NUG, EROs, and the junta. Moving forward, a new agreement should be negotiated with the NUG and allied forces, not with Min Aung Hlaing, and it should include clear benchmarks and enforcement mechanisms.

Indonesia should immediately announce the appointment and establish a clear mandate for the ASEAN Special Envoy for Myanmar grounded in human rights, justice, and accountability. The envoy should be accountable to ASEAN leaders and foreign ministers instead of the incumbent ASEAN Chair. Once appointed, the envoy should open formal communications and engage with the NUG, National Unity Consultative Council, the Committee Representing Pyidaungsu Hluttaw, EROs, civil society, and other critical stakeholders from Myanmar’s Spring Revolution.

Indonesia should guide ASEAN to re-strategize its humanitarian support plan by working through the NUG, ethnic organizations, and Myanmar’s vibrant civil society to assist those affected by the humanitarian crisis. Currently, the junta continues to be represented in the Governing Board of the ASEAN Coordinating Centre for Humanitarian Assistance on disaster management.

As the main driver of the humanitarian crisis in Myanmar and an actor that routinely weaponizes humanitarian aid, the junta cannot and should not be trusted to deliver aid in an effective mannersaid

said Kyaw Win

BHRN calls on Indonesia’s leadership to work with governments worldwide to freeze all ties with the junta, impose travel bans, global sanctions on military-owned companies, and an arms embargo. ASEAN should also take a leading role in making the junta accountable for its horrific crimes. Finally, ASEAN should put the safety and security of those fleeing the conflict and ongoing atrocities in Myanmar by providing protection, support, and humanitarian and legal aid to all refugees fleeing Myanmar.

Organisation’s Background

BHRN is based in London and operates across Burma/Myanmar working for human rights, minority rights and religious freedom in the country. BHRN has played a crucial role in advocating for human rights and religious freedom with politicians and world leaders.

10 May 2023

Media Enquiries
Please contact:

Kyaw Win
Executive Director
Burma Human Rights Network (BHRN)
E: kyawwin@bhrn.org.uk
T: +44(0) 740 345 2378

By Jafar M Ramini

An innocuous phrase, meaning how welcome is the rain as it falls upon this earth beneath, full of goodness and sustenance, the nourishment of life. Not on Gaza.

Four days ago, when the people of Gaza heard the thunder in the heavens and looked towards the sky they saw surveillance drones, Apache helicopters and F-35 war planes bulging with state-of-the-art implements of war. Nothing and no-one was safe. There is no rain. There is only death and destruction, Mr Netanyahu promising more if the Gaza based resistance fighters do not submit. How can they submit, how can they not retaliate? Even when their only weapons are a barrage of rockets, primitive, ineffective and mostly glued together in the garden sheds and fields of Gaza.

Yes, the heavens have opened above Gaza and the harvest for Israel? Three days ago it was four Palestinian school children and their parents. I posted the pictures of the young, hopeful faces on this page. There were more already; fifteen including their parents and neighbours.

The next day the list of the dead had risen to thirty and before I had a chance to post it and show what these so-called enemies of Israel looked like, the tally has risen to thirty-four. I don’t believe that this will be enough for Mr Netanyahu or Mr Ben Gvir. They have promised total devastation and Mr Netanyahu certainly has the where-with-all to achieve it. He is also less popular than he used to be. But, there’s nothing like a good war to bring the people together under one banner.

Jafar M Ramini is a Palestinian writer and political analyst.

13 May 2023

Source: countercurrents.org

By Countercurrents Collective

The U.S. is meddling in Türkiye’s upcoming presidential and parliamentary elections, Ankara’s Interior Minister Suleyman Soylu claimed on Friday.

Speaking to CNN Turk, Soylu weighed in on the decision by presidential candidate Muharrem Ince, who leads the opposition Homeland Party, to drop out of the race on Thursday ahead of Sunday’s vote.

Ince attributed the withdrawal to a “slander campaign,” which involved the release of an alleged sex tape which he dismissed as fake.

The withdrawal of Ince came amid fears among opposition figures that his candidacy could damage the electoral chances of Kemal Kilicdaroglu, the CHP party chairman, who has emerged as the main rival to incumbent President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

“America has been interfering in this election from the very beginning. Biden said that we were not able to do this with a coup in 2016. This time we will do it with an election, not a coup,” Soylu claimed.

“That is basic logic. If we pull Ince we will get the votes that went to him,” he noted.

The minister went on to claim that Ince “was attacked in this election from outside. It is clear who produced it. The perpetrator is the Gulen movement and the U.S.,” Soylu added.

Turkish officials have insisted that the unsuccessful attempt to remove the Erdogan government from office in July 2016 was orchestrated by cleric Fethullah Gulen and his supporters. The failed coup, which resulted in thousands of arrests, also significantly strained U.S.-Türkiye relations as Ankara slammed Washington for harboring Gulen.

Türkiye’s presidential and parliamentary elections are scheduled for May 14. The race for the presidency is expected to largely be a battle between Erdogan and his main rival Kilicdaroglu. While the incumbent has pursued more conservative and independent policies, steering his country away from integration with the EU and fostering close ties with Russia, Kilicdaroglu champions a more Western-aligned approach.

Recent polls show the two locked in a close race. If neither of the candidates garners more than 50% of the vote in the first round, a run-off will be held on May 28.

In a 2020 interview to the New York Times, prior to being elected president, Biden described Erdogan as an “autocrat.” Washington should be “taking a very different approach to him now, making it clear that we support opposition leadership,” he added at the time, citing Erdogan’s crackdown on Kurds and his cooperation with Russia.

Erdogan Scolds Rival Over ‘Russian Interference’ Claim

Another media report said:

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has condemned rival Kemal Kilicdaroglu for claiming without evidence that Moscow is interfering in Türkiye’s upcoming elections. Erdogan claimed that the West, and not Russia, is “manipulating the elections in Turkiye.”

“Kilicdaroglu said that Russia is manipulating the elections in Turkiye. Shame on you!” Erdogan told a crowd of supporters in Istanbul on Friday.

In a Twitter post a day earlier, Kilicdaroglu accused the country’s “Russian friends” of being “behind the montages, conspiracies, deep fakes and tapes that were exposed in this country yesterday.”

“Get your hands off the Turkish state,” Kilicdaroglu warned the supposed Russian meddlers.

Kilicdaroglu was likely referring to the publication of a video showing another presidential candidate, Muharrem Ince, allegedly engaging in an extramarital affair. Ince dropped out of the race on Thursday, blaming followers of exiled cleric Fethullah Gulen, whose political movement Ankara claims orchestrated a failed coup in 2016.

There is zero evidence linking Russia with the publication or production of the tape, and the Kremlin said that it “firmly rejects” Kilicdaroglu’s claims.

“If I say ‘America is manipulating the elections in Turkiye, Germany is manipulating it, France is manipulating it, England is manipulating it’, what would you say?” Erdogan continued, addressing his remarks to Kilicdaroglu.

While Erdogan did not attempt to tie the leak of Ince’s sex tape with any of the Western countries he mentioned, his interior minister, Suleyman Soylu, did. “It is clear who produced it,” he told CNN Turk earlier on Friday. “The perpetrator is the Gulen movement and the U.S.”

Erdogan accused Western media outlets of trying to shift public opinion in Türkiye against him.

“What do all the magazines say on their covers? ‘Erdogan must go.’ Those published in Germany, France and England say so,” he said at Friday’s rally. “How do you put these words on the covers of these magazines? It is not you, not you, the West! It is my nation that will decide.”

This week’s edition of The Economist features the slogans “Erdogan must go” and “save democracy” on its cover, while France’s Le Point and L’Express magazines also featured anti-Erdogan covers.

Türkiye’s presidential and parliamentary elections will take place on Sunday. Recent polling shows Erdogan – a social conservative who steered his country away from integration with the EU – and Kilicdaroglu – a centrist who favors realignment with the West – within single digits of each other.

Moscow Responds To Claims Russia Interfering In Turkish Election

Another media report said:

Moscow has rejected claims made by Turkish opposition candidate Kemal Kilicdaroglu that Russian operatives were interfering in the country’s presidential race.

Russia has a general policy of not meddling in other nations’ elections and would certainly not do so in Türkiye, a nation whose friendship Moscow treasures and whose foreign policy it considers “very responsible, sovereign and thought-out,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Friday.

“We firmly reject such statements,” the Russian official added. “If somebody provided Mr. Kilicdaroglu with such information, they are liars.”

The leader of the Republican People’s Party (CHP) made the allegations on Twitter this week, without explaining what materials he was referring to. Kilicdaroglu, who is currently polling slightly ahead of incumbent President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, urged Moscow to “get its hands off Türkiye,” although he did reiterate his wish for the countries to have positive bilateral relations. The presidential election is set to take place on Sunday.

Erdogan Toprak, a close aide to Kilicdaroglu, told Turkish media that the CHP had monitored “rumors” of Russian interference, which he hoped were not true.

13 May 2023

Source: countercurrents.org

By Countercurrents Collective

Indian National Congress received a resounding victory in Karanataka Assembly Elections. Congress is now leading in 136 seats in the 224 seat Assembly. The ruling far-right Hindu nationalist party BJP is leading in 64 seats and Janata Dal (Secular) in 20 seats. Congress is set to form the government. The Karnataka elections hold broader implications for national politics. The outcome may impact the balance of power at the national level and shape the narrative leading up to the next general elections in the country.

The BJP had won the Karnataka assembly elections in 2018.

The outcome of the Karnataka election is a setback for Modi, who has been facing a series of challenges in recent months, including a slowing economy and rising unemployment.

The electoral battle witnessed a fierce competition between major political parties, including the BJP, Indian National Congress (INC), Janata Dal (Secular) (JD(S)), and regional outfits.

The Congress party has been campaigning on a platform of development and social justice.

The BJP has been campaigning on a platform of Hindutva, or Hindu nationalism.

The Congress party’s win the Karnataka is a major setback for the BJP and could encourage opposition parties to come together to oppose the ruling BJP in next national election in 2024.

13 May 2023

Source: countercurrents.org

By Rima Najjar

On the weekend of the 75th Nakba commemoration, I was in Toronto. A rally in support of Palestine was scheduled down the street from my hotel at Yonge and Dundas Square in the afternoon, not far from Trinity Square, where Canadians have erected a memorial commemorating their “glorious dead” of wars past.

At breakfast that morning, I couldn’t miss the CNN screen above the cereal stand silently flashing its ticker tape about the “Deadly clashes ongoing between Israel and Palestinians” and “1 Killed, 5 wounded as rocket hits Israeli Apartment Building.”

Over the heads of the oblivious hotel guests enjoying their breakfast, I fumed under my breath. No “clashes” these. Israeli raids on the besieged Gaza Strip were continuing for the 5th day “leaving at least 33 Palestinians dead, including children, the elderly and members of Palestinian armed resistance groups who responded to the attacks.”

As both Samidoun Palestinian Prisoner Network and Masar Badil — Palestinian Alternative Revolutionary Path Movement have made clear, “these attacks are ongoing Zionist war crimes, funded and supported by US and Western imperialism, a key example of the ongoing colonial violence perpetrated against the Palestinian people, as well as the strength and steadfastness of the people and their resistance.”

Israel’s calculation was to conduct a ‘shock and awe’ campaign, slaughtering targeted families and terrorizing the Gaza Strip. But given how the Palestinian armed resistance has mobilized itself forcing Israel to evacuate at least 85 towns around the Strip, including Sderot in western Naqab, Israel’s terror tactics are once again falling on deaf ears.

As a settler-colonial state created by terrorism, including when Irgun blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, Palestine in 1946 killing more than 90 people, Israel understands best the language of terror. Terrorism is imprinted in its DNA. As is a natural reaction for any usurper, Israel not only metes out terror, it also feels terrorized whether the Palestinian armed resistance is quiet or active.

By never giving up on justice, we Palestinians cast terror in the heart of the enemy even while we are sleeping. In its call to the Palestinian people in the Shatat (diaspora) and the Palestine liberation and solidarity movement, Masar Badil affirmed the role of the Palestinian armed resistance:

“The Palestinian armed resistance are currently engaged in a major battle responding to the crimes of the occupation forces: assassination, siege, colonialism, the attacks on Jerusalem, racism, exploitation, oppression. Palestinians across Palestine, from the river to the sea, are suffering daily from these colonial policies.”

The Palestinian resistance is at the forefront of the battle against imperialism, Zionism and reaction. Glory to our martyred dead.

Note: First published on Medium

_____________
Rima Najjar is a Palestinian whose father’s side of the family comes from the forcibly depopulated village of Lifta on the western outskirts of Jerusalem and whose mother’s side of the family is from Ijzim, south of Haifa.

14 May 2023

Source: countercurrents.org

By Nilofar Suhrawardy

Defying opinion polls predicting a hung assembly, clear victory of Congress in Karnataka elections sends strong signals at several levels. It is as yet too early to view electoral potential of Congress as finished. Negative campaign indulged in by rivals of Congress against Rahul Gandhi and his party colleagues have apparently failed to carry any appeal for people at grass-roots. Use of religious card to arouse aggressive fervour among voters and sway them to favour Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) bears minimal electoral significance. Howsoever “effective” BJP-stalwarts’ fiery electoral speeches may appear to be, the limited electoral impact that they have on voters has been proved by their verdict in Karnataka. Extensive media coverage gained by these campaigns should not be expected to decide or even indicate who/what people choose to support.

Undeniably, people in Karnataka have voted extremely wisely and also shrewdly during these elections. Comparison of the present verdict with that of 2018 may be viewed as an indicator of this reality. Their turnout to cast votes – 73.19% was described by Chief Electoral Officer, Karnataka, as a “record.” The turnout in 2018 was 72.13%. Paradoxically, despite Congress having won more votes than BJP in 2018, it failed to win the needed number of seats. Congress and its allies won 38.14% votes against 36.35% won by BJP-led NDA. On its own strength, BJP failed to sweep the 2018 polls or even win the needed majority. The results led to a hung assembly with BJP as the single largest party. A different picture has been projected this time. Congress has been favoured by more than 43% voters against around 36% supporting BJP. In 2018, JD(S) won 37 seats on strength of around 18% votes. This time, JD(S) has won 19 seats with support of 13.3% voters.

Shrewdness of voters is marked probably by their choosing primarily to favour either Congress, BJP or JD(S) and not letting their votes be wasted by opting to vote for other parties, independents, etc. Had perhaps voters exercised a similar strategy in 2018, the results may not have led to a hung assembly then also. The importance of this fact is further supported by the present fight for 224 seats having been contested by 2,613 candidates of which 918 were independents and 685 from Registered Unrecognized Political Parties (RUPP). True, in 2018 also, around eight percent votes were not cast for either Congress, BJP or JD(S). What bears greater importance, as suggested earlier, is 92% voters’ decision not to let their votes be wasted. Clearly, statistics of a greater number having favoured Congress in 2018 polls cannot be dismissed lightly. It is possible, this reality was not ignored by voters. This is partly suggested by greater difference between votes won by Congress and BJP leading the former to sweep these polls. This is, however, one side of the Karnataka-verdict.

Equally significant is the statistical importance apparently given to 2018 results by Congress leaders. Decision to select Mapanna Mallikarjun Kharge as President of Congress was certainly guided with eye on winning Karnataka polls. Kharge’s Karnataka roots are marked by his having won Assembly elections for a record 10 times. The importance given to this state by Congress party at national level has probably been well received by voters in Karnataka. Even though nominally, at least, his being supported to head the post breaks the notions floated about only Gandhi family holding this authority.

Undeniably, Rahul Gandhi’s Bharat Jodo Yatra (Unite India March) has had a greater impact than expected on Karnataka results. He did not simply pass through the state, addressing a few rallies and similar gatherings. Nature of his march was marked by his literally reaching out to people and addressing them on issues which bear importance for them. The latter includes their economic problems. That this march was a crucial part of Congress campaign for Karnataka elections and coming parliamentary polls cannot be denied. Had the same march been timed just ahead of assembly elections, the impact may not have been the same. Congress has probably taken a leaf from BJP’s communication strategy, that of planning as well as working on its campaign a little ahead of elections. It has apparently learnt that rushing to states at virtually the last minute can be of little help in gaining electorally.

Seats gained by BJP in comparison with victory of Congress and its “success” in 2018 also sends several important messages. Against 104 seats won in 2018, BJP has managed to retain only 65 seats. Undeniably, BJP stalwarts spared no efforts to retain its hold in southern India. Perhaps little importance was given by BJP leaders to people’s verdict in 2018. Karnataka is not Gujarat. Nor it is in the Hindi belt. Besides, had BJP swept the polls in 2018 with more votes than its key rival, it may have signalled the importance this party’s communication strategy holds for people in Karnataka. The present results have signalled quite emphatically Karnataka voters’ refusal to be guided by religious cards used by BJP leaders, negative campaign against their rivals and so forth. Hype raised about its stalwarts had limited impact in 2018 and hardly any now. These are just a few indicators suggesting that BJP can no longer bank on its own communication strategies at least in assembly elections in South India. Electoral rhetoric fails to sway voters when they choose to exercise shrewd wisdom as they seem to have in Karnataka Assembly elections!

Nilofar Suhrawardy is a senior journalist and writer with specialization in communication studies and nuclear diplomacy.

14 May 2023

Source: countercurrents.org