Archives: Articles

By Jake Johnson

“There was no CBO score needed. No concern about the deficit. No mention of inflation,” said Rep. Jamaal Bowman.

8 Dec 2021 – In bipartisan fashion, the U.S. House of Representatives late Tuesday [7 Dec] passed a sprawling military policy bill that contains nearly twice as much funding on an annual basis as Democrats’ flagship social spending and climate bill.

That reality led Stephen Miles, executive director of Win Without War, to slam the $778 billion National Defense Authorization Act as “a reckless misuse of resources, a windfall for war profiteers, and proof positive that most in Congress have little concern for the actual security of people in the United States or around the world.”

“Cutting the Pentagon’s budget could help fight threats like Covid, climate change, and more.”

“Little could be more revealing of our nation’s broken budget priorities,” Miles added, “than the fact that this rubberstamp of three-quarters of a trillion dollars for warmaking was prioritized and will soon pass with bipartisan support, while the Build Back Better Act—which would invest in meeting real human needs—has been watered down and pushed to the back burner.”

The House passed the NDAA Tuesday night by a vote of 363-70, with the measure ultimately receiving more votes from Republicans than Democrats even though the latter control the chamber and led negotiations over the bill. Of the 70 no votes, 51 were Democrats.

In a tweet explaining his vote against the NDAA, Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) wrote that “it is astounding how quickly Congress moves weapons but we can’t ensure housing, care, and justice for our veterans, nor invest in robust jobs programs for districts like mine.”

“There was no CBO score needed,” Bowman added, a jab at conservative Democrats who have complained incessantly about the size of the Build Back Better Act without raising similar concerns about the bloated military budget.

“No concern about the deficit,” Bowman continued. “No mention of inflation.”

The House-passed NDAA includes $25 billion more in spending than President Joe Biden requested in his budget blueprint earlier this year. As Rep. Andy Levin (D-Mich.) pointed out, it would cost the federal government roughly $22.5 billion to fund 12 weeks of paid family leave for a year.

According to Defense News, the legislation in its current form contains “12 F/A-18 Super Hornets that were not requested; five more Boeing F-15EX jets than the request for 17 total; and 13 ships total—including two attack submarines and two destroyers―for five more than the request.”

Additionally, as Miles noted, the bill “fails to end U.S. complicity in the war in Yemen, excludes critical measures to rein in out-of-control executive war powers, and doubles down on a dangerous Cold War mindset towards China” with $7.1 billion for the so-called Pacific Deterrence Initiative, which progressives have deemed an “anti-China slush fund.”

Robert Weissman, president of the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, said in a statement that “as the national debate centers around how much is ‘too much’ to be spending on the true needs of the American people, it is unconscionable to approve three-quarters of a trillion dollars for war-making.”

“What possible justification is there for throwing $768 billion at the Pentagon at the very same moment that we’re being told there isn’t enough money to provide dental care to seniors, establish a paid family leave, or provide free community college?” Weissman asked. “Why is there more money for the military-industrial complex—providing no additional protection for our national security and arguably diminishing it—at the same time the U.S. is refusing to spend the $25 billion needed to make enough additional vaccines to vaccinate the world?”

The NDAA now heads to the Senate, where it is expected to pass over the objections of progressives such as Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.), who have introduced amendments aimed at bringing the bill’s spending levels back into line with Biden’s request and redirecting 1% of Pentagon spending to global climate programs.

“Cutting the Pentagon’s budget could help fight threats like Covid, climate change, and more,” Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) said following his no vote on the NDAA. “Our work to cut the Pentagon’s budget and reallocate funds to help communities across the country is just beginning. The fight doesn’t end tonight.”

Jake Johnson is a staff writer for Common Dreams.

13 December 2021

Source: www.transcend.org

By Seth Hancock

Global Justice Now on Saturday [4 Dec] released data showing “just eight top Pfizer and Moderna shareholders” and their CEOs made $10.31 billion since the new COVID variant, Omicron, emerged, but doctor who discovered it says it’s mild, and may even be useful.

7 Dec 2021 – In the week after news of the Omicron variant hit the headlines, the CEOs and major shareholders of Moderna and Pfizer made a combined $10.31 billion, according to data compiled by the UK-based Global Justice Now.

Shares of Moderna jumped 13.61% — $273.39 to $310.61 — between Nov. 24 and Dec. 1, while Pfizer shares increased 7.41% — $50.91 to $54.68, Common Dreams reported.

Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel saw his shares increase from $6.1 billion to $6.9 billion, for a gain of $824 million. Albert Bourla, CEO of Pfizer, saw gains of $339,291.

Combined with the CEOs, Moderna’s and Pfizer’s four top shareholders made about $5.16, The Daily Mail reported.

The top Pfizer shareholders include Vanguard Group ($1.72 billion), Blackrock ($1.46 billion), State Street Corp. ($1.1 billion) and Capital World Investors ($909 million).

Moderna’s top shareholders are Baillie Gifford & Co. ($1.59 billion), Vanguard Group ($1 billion), Blackrock ($999.1 million) and Flagship Pioneering ($653.7 million).

As The Defender reported Nov. 30, early news reports on Omicron sent vaccine makers’ stocks soaring, after Moderna and Pfizer said they were rushing to develop vaccines for the new variant.

Moderna’s stock rose 20% on the Friday following Thanksgiving — a short trading day — while Pfizer and its vaccine partner BioNTech saw respective gains of 6% and 14%.

No evidence we need a vaccine for Omicron, but Pfizer makes the case, anyway

Global Justice Now accused Big Pharma of being responsible for the emergence of Omicron by gobbling up profits selling vaccines to wealthy countries, while refusing to share patents and making sure low-income countries get access to COVID vaccines.

Tim Bierley, the organization’s pharma campaigner, said:

“Pharmaceutical companies knew that grotesque levels of vaccine inequality would create prime conditions for new variants to emerge. They let COVID-19 spread unabated in low and middle-income countries. And now the same pharma execs and shareholders are making a killing from a crisis they helped to create. It’s utterly obscene.”

But not everyone agrees that failure to vaccinate causes new variants to emerge, or that Omicron is dangerous.

Dr. Angelique Coetzee, who is credited with discovering the Omicron variant, said she believes the variant may help lead to herd immunity.

Coetzee, who chairs the South African Medical Association and who has been a general practitioner for the last 33 years, said Omicron symptoms so far appear mild.

Coetzee wrote for The Daily Mail:

“No one here in South Africa is known to have been hospitalized with the Omicron variant, nor is anyone here believed to have fallen seriously ill with it … The simple truth is: We don’t know yet anywhere near enough about Omicron to make such judgments or to impose such policies … If, as some evidence suggests, Omicron turns out to be a fast-spreading virus with mostly mild symptoms for the majority of the people who catch it, that would be a useful step on the road to herd immunity.”

Early data support Coetzee’s observation that while Omicron may be highly infectious, it’s not highly dangerous.

According to CNBC, the South African Medical Research Council, in a report released Saturday, said most patients admitted to a hospital in Pretoria who had COVID didn’t need supplemental oxygen.

The report also noted that many patients were admitted for other medical reasons and were then found to have COVID.Pfizer CEO Bourla responded to that news by telling the Wall Street Journal:

“I don’t think it’s good news to have something that spreads fast. Spreads fast means it will be in billions of people and another mutation may come. You don’t want that.”

Though it’s not clear whether there’s a need for a new shot, Pfizer can develop a vaccine that targets omicron by March 2022, Bourla said.

It will take a few weeks to determine whether the current vaccines provide enough protection against the variant, Bourla said.

13 December 2021

Source: www.transcend.org

By Jake Johnson

A new report finds that global inequities in wealth and income are “about as great today as they were at the peak of Western imperialism in the early 20th century.”

7 Dec 2021 – In the nearly three decades since 1995, members of the global 1% have captured 38% of all new wealth while the poorest half of humanity has benefited from just 2%, a finding that spotlights the stark and worsening gulf between the very rich and everyone else.

“If there is one lesson to be learnt from the global investigation, it is that inequality is always a political choice.”

That’s according to the latest iteration of the World Inequality Report, an exhaustive summary of worldwide income and wealth data that shows inequities in wealth and income are “about as great today as they were at the peak of Western imperialism in the early 20th century.”

“Indeed, the share of income presently captured by the poorest half of the world’s people is about half what it was in 1820, before the great divergence between Western countries and their colonies,” the report notes. “In other words, there is still a long way to go to undo the global economic inequalities inherited from the very unequal organization of world production between the mid-19th and mid-20th centuries.”

The authors of the new report, released in full on Tuesday, go out of their way to stress that contemporary inequities in wealth and income are not inevitable, but rather the consequence of deliberate decisions by policymakers within individual countries and on the global stage.

“The Covid crisis has exacerbated inequalities between the very wealthy and the rest of the population,” said Lucas Chancel, co-director of the World Inequality Lab and lead author of the new report. “Yet, in rich countries, government intervention prevented a massive rise in poverty—this was not the case in poor countries. This shows the importance of social states in the fight against poverty.”

“If there is one lesson to be learnt from the global investigation carried out in this report,” he added, “it is that inequality is always a political choice.”

The new analysis shows that 2020—a year of pandemic-induced economic dislocation that pushed tens of millions of people worldwide into extreme poverty—marked “the largest increase in the share of global billionaires wealth available on record.”

“In the U.S., the return of top wealth inequality has been particularly dramatic, with the top 1% share nearing 35% in 2020, approaching its Gilded Age level,” states the report, whose contributors include prominent economists Thomas Piketty and Gabriel Zucman. “In Europe, top wealth inequality has also been on the rise since 1980, though significantly less so than in the U.S.”

At present, the richest 10% of the world’s population grabs more than half of all global income, the researchers found. The billions of people in the poorest half of the global population, meanwhile, get just 8% of the world’s income.

“Global wealth inequalities are even more pronounced than income inequalities,” the report finds. “The poorest half of the global population barely owns any wealth at all, possessing just 2% of the total. In contrast, the richest 10% of the global population own 76% of all wealth.”

World Inequality Report 2022 – Introduction

In keeping with their argument that skyrocketing incoming and wealth inequality is a choice, the report’s authors recommend that world leaders pursue several policy solutions to the global inequity crisis, which has far-reaching economic, political, and ecological implications.

With a “modest progressive wealth tax on global multimillionaires, the report argues, “1.6% of global incomes could be generated and reinvested in education, health, and the ecological transition.”

If implemented in the U.S., such a tax would help reverse the decades-long trend of falling income taxes paid by the wealthiest individuals. The report notes that “today, the effective tax rates of the working class, the middle class, and top 1% are very close.”

The report also suggests progressive corporate taxes and government crackdowns on “pervasive tax evasion” by the super-rich could help reduce yawning wealth inequities.

More broadly, the authors argue that in order to “put an end to large imbalances in capital and income flows between the Global North and the Global South, it is necessary to reassess the basic principles of globalization.”

“It is not unreasonable to assume that each country in the world should have equal rights to development, in the sense that each human being should have equal access to basic education and healthcare services to start with,” the report states. “The question of how to fund such basic services is entirely political, thereby depending on the set of rules and institutions put in place by societies across the world.”

Jake Johnson is a staff writer for Common Dreams.

13 December 2021

Source: www.transcend.org

By Michael Nevradakis

“ … it is dystopian for the government to give Pfizer billions, mandate Americans to take its product, prohibit Americans from suing for harms, but yet refuse to let Americans see the data underlying its licensure.”

10 Dec 2021 – The U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) now says it needs 75 years — up from the 55 years the agency initially requested — to fully release redacted versions of all documents related to the agency’s approval of Pfizer’s Comirnaty COVID-19 vaccine.

In a legal brief filed Dec. 7, the FDA said 59,000 additional pages of documents, not included in the agency’s earlier filings, need to be processed. The agency did not offer an explanation for why those documents initially were overlooked.

The agency said it can release an initial batch of approximately 12,000 pages by the end of January. Past that date, the FDA said it can process and disclose only 500 pages of documents per month.

This would mean the entire cache of documents would not be fully released until 2096. The FDA’s initial timeline would have meant the release of the documents would not be completed until 2076, or 55 years from now.

The FDA did not divulge the criteria it will use to select the initial 12,000 pages of documents, or how the agency will prioritize the release of those pages, or of additional pages going forward.

The documents in question stem from a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed in August by Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency (PHMPT).

In its FOIA request, the group asked the FDA to release “all data and information for the Pfizer vaccine,” including safety and effectiveness data, adverse reaction reports, and a list of active and inactive ingredients.

In a filing submitted to a federal judge in November, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), arguing on behalf of the FDA, initially claimed the agency could process some 329,000 pages of documents at a rate of only 500 pages per month, in order to have time to redact legally exempt material.

According to the DOJ, such material includes “confidential business and trade secret information of Pfizer or BioNTech and personal privacy information of patients who participated in clinical trials.”

Attorney Aaron Siri, who represents PHMPT, requested the FDA release the documents within 108 days — the amount of time needed by the FDA to license the Comirnaty vaccine.

Remarking on the FDA’s latest request to extend the timeline from 55 to 75 years, Siri stated:

“[I]f you find what you are reading difficult to believe — that is because it is dystopian for the government to give Pfizer billions, mandate Americans to take its product, prohibit Americans from suing for harms, but yet refuse to let Americans see the data underlying its licensure.

“The lesson yet again is that civil and individual rights should never be contingent upon a medical procedure.”

Prior to the FDA’s request for the additional 20 years, U.S. Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), on Dec. 2, introduced legislation that would require the agency to release all records of information related to Pfizer COVID vaccines within 100 days.

Oral arguments set for Dec. 14

PHMPT, a group comprised of more than 30 medical and public health professionals and scientists from institutions such as Harvard, Yale, and UCLA, initially requested expedited processing of its FOIA submission on the basis there is a “compelling need” for the swift release of the documents in question.

When, in September, the FDA declined the request, Siri’s firm, Siri & Glimstad, filed a lawsuit against the agency on behalf of PHMPT. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

PHMPT argued the release of the documents is a matter of urgency at a time where millions of Americans are facing mandates to get vaccinated or face repercussions.

As stated in PHMPT’s most recent brief demanding timely production of the documents:

“The entire purpose of FOIA is government transparency. In multiple recent cases, in upholding the FOIA’s requirement to ‘make the records promptly available,’ courts have required agencies, including the FDA, to produce 10,000 or more pages per month, and those cases did not involve a request nearly this important — i.e., the data underlying licensure of a liability-free product that the federal government requires nearly all Americans to receive.”

In its latest brief, the FDA cited several reasons justifying its proposed disclosure schedule.

The FDA claimed its Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, which maintains the records in question, has only 10 staff members, two of whom are “new.”

Additionally, the FDA argued an accelerated rate of release for the documents in question will divert “significant resources away from the processing of other FOIA requests that are also in litigation,” as well as other pending FOIA requests submitted prior to that of PHMPT.

According to Siri, response briefs from both sides are due on Dec. 13, and an oral argument will follow in court on Dec. 14.

FDA promised ‘full transparency’ prior to authorizing vaccines

As previously reported by The Defender, a study examining the processing of FOIA requests by the FDA and other federal public health agencies between 2008 and 2017 found the FDA processed 114,938 such requests, fully or partially granting 72.4% of them.

Of these requests, 39.8% were considered “complex.”

By contrast, the FDA now claims a backlog of 400 FOIA requests. It’s unclear how many pending requests are considered complex

Federal law prescribes a 20-day period for processing “complex” FOIA requests, although this timeframe is frequently exceeded.

According to the FDA, “complex requests,” such as “510K, PMA, and De novo records,” require “approximately 18-24 months to process,” a far cry from 55 (or 75) years.

Prior to authorizing or licensing COVID vaccines, the FDA promised full transparency on the process.

The federal government’s FOIA request guidelines outline two conditions under which a FOIA request may be processed on an expedited basis.

The first is

“if the lack of expedited treatment could reasonably be expected to pose a threat to someone’s life or physical safety.”

The second condition is

“if there is an urgency to inform the public about an actual or alleged federal government activity if made by a person who is primarily engaged in disseminating information.”

In its legal brief, the FDA did not explain how the agency was able to review the nearly 400,000 Pfizer documents in order to expedite the approval of Pfizer’s vaccine in just 108 days.

The FDA also did not explain why the agency cannot expand its staffing capacity to better respond to FOIA requests, or why it can’t enlist the help of other federal agencies, such as the DOJ, which is handling the FDA’s legal defense against the PHMPT lawsuit.

Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., is an independent journalist and researcher based in Athens, Greece.

13 December 2021

Source: www.transcend.org

By Abayomi Azikiwe

Malcolm X, also known as Hajj Malik El-Shabazz, was assassinated on February 21, 1965 at the Audubon Ballroom in the Washington Heights section of Manhattan in New York City.

There were three people arrested, tried and convicted in his murder yet two men have always maintained that they were not guilty in the crime.

During November 2021, the two defendants who served more than twenty years in prison were exonerated by the prosecutor’s office in New York. The third defendant in the case, Talmadge Hayer, also known as Thomas Hagan (now known as Mujahid Abdul Halim), confessed to the murder of Malcolm X although he refused in the 1966 murder trial to reveal the names of the others involved in the assassination squad.

Later during the early 1980s, Talmadge Hayer (Halim) gave up the names of at least four other people who were involved in the gunning down of Malcolm X in 1965. Halim, was released after serving more than 45 years and the other two, Norman Butler (now known as Muhammad Aziz, who is still alive, and Thomas Johnson (later known as Khalil Islam), who is deceased, were declared by New York prosecutors as not being involved in the actual shooting death of Malcolm X on that fateful day in the winter of 1965.

Although the prosecutors have now declared along with the courts that Butler and Johnson were not in the Audubon Ballroom when Malcolm was killed, the question remains as to why after 56 years the actual assassins were not brought to justice? Apparently, the names of the actual killers who accompanied Hayer were known to the New York police and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in the immediate aftermath of the assassination due to informant reports and eyewitness accounts.

The FBI and the New York Police Department through its Bureau of Security Services (BOSS) engaged in consistent surveillance of Malcolm X, the Nation of Islam, the Muslim Mosque, Inc. and the Organization of Afro-American Unity (OAAU), and any other grouping in which Malcolm was associated. At least one BOSS agent was present at the time of the assassination. Gene Roberts had infiltrated the OAAU and routinely reported back to the NYPD about the activities of the organization.

A recent report on the exoneration of Aziz and Islam indicated that several FBI informants were present in the venue where Malcolm X was slain. After the shooting on February 21, 1965, the emergency services did not appear at the scene, necessitating the followers of Malcolm X and the OAAU to go to the hospital located across the street from the Audubon to retrieve a stretcher to transport the revolutionary leader to the emergency room. He was admitted as “John Doe” and a medical spokesperson said they were not able to revive him after sustaining several gunshot wounds to the chest and other areas of his body.

Halim, who was captured at the scene by Malcolm X’s adherents, was released from detention in 2010. He has maintained a low profile since his parole while the actual assassins, which were reported to have been from the Newark Mosque, remained free until their deaths.

Role of the U.S. Government in the Assassination

The real question which was not answered through the exoneration of two of the defendants, is why did the NYPD and the FBI not follow-up on the information provided by their own informants present in the Audubon Ballroom and other witnesses? What is known is that these law-enforcement agencies had conducted widespread surveillance, wiretapping and other forms of spying on Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam both before and after the split between the two entities during late 1963 and early 1964. (See this)

After the establishment of the MMI and the OAAU during the spring and summer of 1964, the tracking of Malcolm X and the NOI continued. From April 1964 to the end of his life, Malcolm X had traveled extensively in Africa, the Middle East and Europe. He had visited over a dozen countries where he met with government leaders, religious figures and grassroots communities in all of the countries where he traveled.

Malcolm X believed during the time, as reflected in his writings and speeches, that he was followed by the intelligence services of the U.S. government. De-classified documents from the U.S. administration reveal that his activities were closely monitored by not only the FBI. The State Department, military intelligence and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) were involved in attempts to undermine the efforts of Malcolm X as he sought international support for the liberation struggle of African American in the U.S.

A recent article in the New York Times says of the surveillance:

“One F.B.I. report from Sept. 28, 1965, even contains a description of the man whom some experts on the assassination have concluded was probably the assassin who wielded a shotgun — William Bradley. That report gives a description of Mr. Bradley, who was 27 years old at the time, that matches the one given by a defense witness of the shooter who had a shotgun.”

This same report continues by noting that:

“’He had been a lieutenant in the Newark mosque and was known as a ‘strongman’ there,’ the F.B.I. report on Mr. Bradley said. ‘He was a machine gunner in the Marine Corps.’ At least one of the witnesses at the trial was an informant for the F.B.I., according to the documents cited in the motion. One document, dated Feb. 25, 1965, said the bureau had ordered its local offices not to disclose to the New York police the fact that any witnesses were federal informants. In addition, several F.B.I. reports indicated that, on the orders of the agency’s director, J. Edgar Hoover, informants were told not to disclose their relationship with the F.B.I. when talking to the New York police and prosecutors about the murder, according to a footnote in the motion. The Police Department documents include descriptions of undercover detectives having been present in the ballroom, at least one of whom was there at the time of the murder. The report may have been referring to Detective Gene Roberts, an undercover officer who, it later came out, was working as a member of Malcolm X’s security detail.”

These revelations since 1965 indicate clearly that a massive cover-up occurred in the aftermath of the assassination. Even Malcolm X said at his last speech at the Audubon on February 15, that the police were well aware of the criminal operations taking place inside the NOI because they had the organization thoroughly infiltrated. He revealed that several undercover police and informants out of guilt had come to him and confessed that they were working for the authorities.

Malcolm X at the Audubon Ballroom – New York City (February 15th 1965) [HD, in correct order]

Malcolm X’s Youngest Daughter Found Dead After the Recent Revelations

When Malcolm X was assassinated, his wife, Dr. Betty Shabazz, was expecting twins. They were born months after his death and grew up never knowing their father.

One of the twins, Malikah, was found dead in her Brooklyn apartment on November 22. Police have stated that the death did not appear to be the result of foul play. Malikah Shabazz was found unresponsive by her 24-year-old daughter, Bettih. There has not been any official cause of death announced since the time of her passing.

Malikah, 56, largely lived outside the limelight of the media and public appearances. Several of her other older sisters have become public figures in the theater and literary arenas through speaking engagements, performances and book publishing.

The death of Malikah Shabazz under unexplained circumstances just days after the exoneration of Aziz and Islam, continues the family tragedies which were spawned by the targeting and assassination of her father. Malcolm X sacrificed his life in order to advance the liberation struggles of African Americans and people throughout the globe. His legacy will continue to be a source of inspiration to working and oppressed people internationally.

*

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

9 December 2021

Source: www.globalresearch.ca

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky

Both the governments and the media in chorus are now engaged in a renewed fear campaign focussing on the emergence of a new  “deadly” SARS-CoV-2 variant.

Last May it was the Delta variant (B.1.617.2), which allegedly originated in India. And now it’s Omicron (B1.1.529) which, according to the WHO’s “technical advisory group” was first detected in South Africa. According to reports, Omicron has a “very unusual constellation of mutations”

Anthony Fauci is leading the disinformation campaign, already pointing to the need for restrictions on air travel.  Meanwhile US stock markets have dropped amid a new wave of Covid panic. 

In a contradictory statement, Fauci intimated that Omicron “is already in the United States but has yet to be detected”. 

“I would not be surprised if it is, we have not detected it yet, but when you have a virus that is showing this degree of transmissibility and you’re having travel-related cases they’ve noted in other places already, when you have a virus like this, it almost invariably is going to go all over,”  (NBC, November 26, 2021)

“Partial lockdowns” are already contemplated including bans on international travel. The stated intent is  to “save lives”.

In the UK, “…there are growing fears” that the newly discovered Omicron variant, “could impact Christmas”.

Rest assured, While “there’s no reason to panic,” says Dr. Anthony Fauci, the new Omicron variant must “be taken seriously and warrants the newly imposed travel ban against South Africa and seven neighboring countries.” (CNN)

A travel ban against Africa, using the Covid-19 omicron variant as a pretext, could also have devastating social and economic impacts on the African Continent, including the disruption of trade relations. Is there a hidden agenda?

Moreover, it is worth noting that throughout sub-Saharan Africa, large sectors of the population have refused the vaccine. The percentage of the population which is vaccinated is exceedingly low. In this regard, Washington is intent upon enforcing the vaccine program in Africa on behalf of Big Pharma. Joe Biden has generously offered to deliver 570.4 million doses of the vaccine to developing countries, a large share of which will be channeled to Africa in the form of “foreign aid”.

The Ban on Air Travel

Preliminary reports (see below) confirm that the ban in air travel is not limited to African countries.  Sofar,  the US, UK, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Iran, Japan, Thailand and the EU have announced restrictions on air travel.

Moreover, airline stocks have tumbled on the US stock market.

“A new COVID-19 variant discovered in South Africa has markets rattled, and airline stocks are selling off more than most. Shares of Delta Air Lines (NYSE:DAL), Southwest Airlines (NYSE:LUV), American Airlines Holdings (NASDAQ:AAL), United Airlines Holdings (NASDAQ:UAL), JetBlue Airways (NASDAQ:JBLU), Hawaiian Holdings (NASDAQ:HA), and Spirit Airlines (NYSE:SAVE) all traded down by as much as 10% in Friday’s abbreviated market session.”

UPDATE: Chaos and restrictions on air travel, not to mention the ongoing engineered bankruptcy of the airline industry Worldwide. This in turn has contributed to undermining business transactions, international commodity trade and production.

On Wall Street, manipulation, inside information, foreknowledge and speculative trade prevail.

Omicron has contributed to a steep  increase of  Big Pharma shares. CNN Business

Are We Moving Towards a Fourth Wave Lockdown?

Starting in May-June 2021 extending into October, the alleged dangers of the Delta Variant were used to speed up the vaccination program. “A Fourth Wave” had already been announced for Fall -Winter 2021.

Is a lockdown (comparable to March 2020) on the drawing board, requiring stay at home confinement, social distancing and the closure of economic activity?

As we recall, Dr. Neil Ferguson of Imperial College, London recommended the adoption of the March 11, 2020 lockdown at a time when there were 44,279 “Confirmed Covid-19 Cases” worldwide outside of China. According to his “mathematical model”, (generously funded by the Gates Foundation) the lockdown was intended to save an estimated 600,000 British lives.

“The March 11, 2020 lockdown was heralded as a means to containing the alleged “pandemic”. Nonsense.”

In June 2021, a second authoritative “mathematical model” was put forth by Dr. Ferguson to “justify” a “Fourth Wave Lockdown”. The erroneous “assumption” behind the modelling exercise was that the Delta Variant was “deadly”.

According to Prof Neil Ferguson: “the Delta variant of coronavirus is 30% to 100% more transmissible than the previously dominant variant”. (quoted by the Guardian). What he fails to mention is that virus variants are always “less vigilant” and “less dangerous” in comparison to the original virus.

Detecting Covid-19 Variants

The Variant narrative is based on fake science. How are “the new strains” of the original virus detected and identified?

The methodology applied Worldwide, to detect Covid-19 is the PCR test.

The test, however, reveals genetic fragments of several viruses (e.g. corona as well seasonal influenza). It does not under any circumstances identify the virus (or the variants thereof).

The PCR Test Does Not Detect the Covid-19 Omicron Variant

According to Dr. Kary Mullis, inventor of the PCR technique: “The PCR detects a very small segment of the nucleic acid which is part of a virus itself.” According to renowned Swiss immunologist Dr B. Stadler

So if we do a PCR corona test on an immune person, it is not a virus that is detected, but a small shattered part of the viral genome. The test comes back positive for as long as there are tiny shattered parts of the virus left.

Moreover, there is no isolate of the novel coronavirus on record.

The substantive issue, however, does not solely pertain to the identity of the virus. What is at stake is that the original 2019 novel coronavirus was never isolated and purified by the WHO, which was responsible for the configuration of the PCR test.

In view of the absence of an isolate of the original 2019- nCoV (subsequently renamed CoV-SARS-2), the WHO decided  from the outset in January 2020 to use as “point of reference” (in terms of genetic sequences) the “similar” 2003 SARS-CoV virus, which no doubt has mutated extensively over the last 19 years.

Is this 2003 SARS-CoV-1  “point of reference” being used to detect and identify (using the RT-PCR test) the Omicron and Delta Variants of the “original” 2019 novel corona virus (SARS-CoV-2)? Sounds absurd.

The answer to this question is examined below.

Erroneous Assessment by the WHO Technical Advisory Group

The WHO’s “technical advisory group confirmed in a report dated November 26, 2021 that the PCR test had been used to identify the Omicron Variant of SARS-CoV-2 despite the fact that the WHO does not possess an isolate of the original 2019 novel coronavirus, nor is the PCR technique in a position to detect the variants of the original virus (as outlined above):

…In recent weeks, infections have increased steeply, coinciding with the detection of B.1.1.529 variant. The first known confirmed B.1.1.529 infection was from a specimen collected on 9 November 2021.

This variant [omicron] has a large number of mutations, some of which are concerning. Preliminary evidence suggests an increased risk of reinfection with this variant, as compared to other VOCs. The number of cases of this variant appears to be increasing in almost all provinces in South Africa. Current SARS-CoV-2 PCR diagnostics continue to detect this variant. Several labs have indicated that for one widely used PCR test, one of the three target genes is not detected (called S gene dropout or S gene target failure) and this test can therefore be used as marker for this variant, pending sequencing confirmation. Using this approach, this variant has been detected at faster rates than previous surges in infection, suggesting that this variant may have a growth advantage.

emphasis added

The Validity of the PCR Test

In January 2021, the WHO admitted that the PCR-RT test is Invalid as a means to detect / identify both the original virus as well as the variants.

The contentious issue pertains to the Ct enlargement threshold:

“If the test is conducted at a 35 Ct threshold or above (which was recommended by the WHO), genetic segments of the SARS-CoV-2 virus cannot be detected, which means that ALL the so-called confirmed “positive cases” tabulated in the course of the last 18 months are invalid.

According toPieter Borger, Bobby Rajesh Malhotra, Michael Yeadon, et al, the Ct > 35 has been the norm “in most laboratories in Europe & the US”.

“Invalid Positives” is the Underlying Concept. What is at stake is a “Flawed Methodology” which leads to invalid estimates of “Confirmed Covid-19 Cases”.  

The WHO Confirms that the Covid-19 PCR Test is Flawed: Estimates of “Positive Cases” are Meaningless. The Lockdown Has No Scientific Basis

To consult the Full text of the WHO directive dated January 20, 2021

Omicron Reports

Of significance, the country-level reports quoted below confirm that the Invalid PCR test is being used to detect /identify cases of Covid-19 omicron infection among arriving airline passengers. “The UK requires that travelers must take a PCR test and quarantine on arrival until a negative result is returned”.

Health officials in New South Wales, Australia, have begun urgent testing after two people who arrived on a flight from southern Africa overnight tested positive to the coronavirus, [PCR test] Reuters reports.

… Urgent genomic sequencing is underway to determine if they have been infected by the new omicron … variant of concern,” the health department of New South Wales said in a release.

Guardian, November 27, 2021

Switzerland has widened quarantine requirements to stem the spread of the new Omicron coronavirus variant to travellers arriving from Britain, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, Egypt and Malawi, where cases have been detected, its health ministry said.

On Friday, Switzerland banned direct flights from South Africa and the surrounding region due to the detection of the new variant while also imposing restrictions on travel from other countries including Hong Kong, Israel and Belgium.

Israel is to ban the entry of visitors from all countries due to the Omicron variant, Reuters reports.

“The decision by the government to reimplement the need for a PCR test from all individuals arriving in the UK from abroad on day two, with self-isolation until a negative [PCR] test is reported, while frustrating for those travelling, is essential in order to rapidly identify cases of infection with the Omicron variant and implement prompt isolation and targeted contact tracing to limit the spread of the variant in the UK.

emphasis added

Guardian, November 27, 2021

Concluding Remarks

Draw you own conclusions.

The deceptive political statements regarding  the Omicron Variant are totally meaningless, they have no scientific basis.

The unspoken objective is to justify new repressive policy measures including the vaccine passport as well as the destabilization of the airline industry Worldwide, which since March 2020 is already in a state of bankruptcy.

It is worth noting that the WHO’s report on the Covid Omicron Variant, described as “deadly” was released on Friday November 26, two days prior to Switzerland nationwide referendum on Vaccine Passport (November 28, 2021).

Update: Barely three days after the release of the WHO’s report, the Boris Johnson government announced that:

“The UK’s minimum gap for Covid booster jabs will be halved from six months to three, after the government accepted advice from its vaccines watchdog to speed up the programme to limit the spread of the Omicron variant”.

Timely panic and propaganda in favour of tyranny.

***

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.

2 December 2021

Source: www.globalresearch.ca

By Dr Binoy Kampmark

It has been written about more times than any care to remember.  Pliny the Elder, that old cheek, told us that Africa always tended to bring forth something new: Semper aliquid novi Africam adferre.  The suggestion was directed to hybrid animals, but in the weird pandemic wonderland that is COVID-19, all continents now find themselves bringing forth their types, making their contributions. It just so happens that it’s southern Africa’s turn.

On November 26, the Technical Advisory Group on SARS-CoV-2 Evolution (TAG-VE) was convened to assess the threat posed by B.1.1.529.  Named Omicron, its emergence was reported by South Africa to the World Health Organization on November 24.  While the Delta variant had continued to remain dominant, instances of this new infection had been recorded, with the first specimen collected on November 9.

Omicron’s debut brings with it a set of menacing questions.   It has, for instance, a “large number of mutations”.   Initial impressions point to a higher risk of re-infection relative to other variants of concern.  It may have a growth advantage and spread more quickly.

This need not have happened – or at least, the risk of having such a new mutation would have been lessened – had solemn obligations to protect global public health been observed.  Instead of ensuring global vaccine equity, a number of affluent countries have held up debates and filibustered their way to preventing waivers on intellectual property rights on COVID-19 vaccines.

The COVAX facility enabling the distribution of vaccines to low- and middle-income countries has been slow.  Despite receiving support, in principle, from 41 high-, middle- and low-income countries last year, it had received little by way of contributions and almost nothing by way of interest by the time the report of the Independent Panel on Pandemic Preparedness had been published.

In May, the Biden administration finally relented in accepting, albeit narrowly, an IP waiver.  “The Administration believes strongly in intellectual property protections,” stated Ambassador Katherine Tai of the Office of the US Trade Representative on May 5, “but in service of ending this pandemic, supports the waiver of those protections for COVID-19 vaccines.”

The response from Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla was one of panic.  The proposed waiver did not consider the “scarcity of highly specialized raw materials needed to produce the vaccine.”  With Pfizer’s vaccine requiring 280 different materials and elements from 19 countries, the CEO warned that inexperienced and less competent entities would rush out to mount competition for those same products.  Like a dragon guarding its treasure, Bourla suggested that any such waiver threatened “to disrupt the flow of raw materials.”

A statement from the German government also summed up the mood of the affluent detractors: “[T]he limiting factors in the [availability] of vaccines are production capacities and quality standards, not patents.”  There was no substitute to sophisticated technology: “high-tech shots can’t be made at the local soap factory.”

The emergence of this new variant has all the makings of a nightmare pictured in redux format, though structural biologist James Naismith is confident that this was hardly “doomsday”.  The US chief of infectious diseases, Anthony Fauci, is also waiting to draw any conclusions.  “Until it’s properly tested … we don’t know whether or not it evades antibodies that protect you against the virus.”

The WTO is keen to examine the variant and claims that a fortnight of studious examination is required.  In what is bound to return with critical fury at some future date, it is urging caution of countries in terms of closing borders.  Attention should be spent, instead, on enhancing surveillance and sequencing efforts “to better understand circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants.”  Traditional reporting mechanisms should be used, and field investigations and laboratory assessments made.

Certain countries are not waiting for the laboratory reports.  The issue at the start of 2020 was one of speed, or, as it transpired, lethargy.  Delays and hesitancy proved catastrophic.  Like the movement of capital, the SARS-CoV-2 virus spread effortlessly.

US officials have accordingly announced that flights from South Africa, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Lesotho, Eswatini, Mozambique and Malawi will be prevented from entering the country on November 29.  The UK has also blocked entry into the country from Botswana, Lesotho, Zimbabwe, Namibia and South Africa, save for UK or Irish nationals, or UK residents. “We must move quickly and at the earliest possible moment,” explained the UK Health Secretary, Sajid Javid.

The European Union has also imposed a temporary ban on travel from southern Africa.  “The last thing we need is to bring in a new variant that will cause even more problems,” stated a German Health Minister Jens Spahn.  The European Commission has also encouraged Member States within the EU to “activate the ‘emergency brake’ on travel” from designated southern African countries and others affected.  “All travel to these countries should be suspended,” insisted European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.  “They should be suspended till we have a clear understanding about the danger posed by this new variant.”

Having full foresight and knowledge about the threat posed by such mutations, officials from the EU and the United States have again shown a selfishness in the field of vaccination policy that has served to endanger the globe, including their own citizens.

Ever slowly, the citizens of the world are coming to the realisation that such vaccines will always risk being imperilled in the absence of fair and equal distribution across the globe.  Given the freedom to mutate in unvaccinated populations, more variants of SARS-CoV-2 will emerge to penetrate the protective shield.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.

27 November 2021

Source: countercurrents.org

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky

In this essay, I will be addressing the following issues: 

• US war crimes committed against the Korean Nation (1950-53),
• Fire and Fury and the Nuclear Issue: From the Cold War to the Present
• The debate on Reunification and the Sunshine Movement
• The Candlelight Movement which led to the impeachment of president Park Guen hye
• The formulation of a North-South peace proposal involving the repeal of the ROK-US Combined Forces Command (CFC) under the OPCON (Operational Control) agreement

The text concludes with a section entitled:

Reunification and the Road Ahead: There is Only One Korean Nation.

The “real alliance” is that which unifies and reunites North and South Korea through dialogue against foreign intrusion and aggression.

The US is in a state of war against the entire Korean Nation. And what this requires is:

the holding of bilateral talks between the ROK and the DPRK with a view to signing an agreement which nullifies the Armistice Agreement of 1953 and which sets the terms of a bilateral “Peace Treaty”.

In turn, this agreement would set the stage for the exclusion of US military presence and the withdrawal of US forces stationed in South Korea.

1. US War Crimes committed against the Korean Nation (1950-53)

“Fire and Fury” was not invented by Donald Trump. It is a concept deeply embedded in US military doctrine. It has characterized US military interventions since the end of World War II.

What distinguishes Trump from his predecessors in the White House is his political narrative at the 2017 United Nations General Assembly.

President Harry Truman from the very outset of the Korean War (1950-53) was a firm advocate of “Fire and Fury” against the people of both North and South Korea. General Douglas MacArthur, who had actually carried out the atrocities directed against the Korean people, appeared before the US Senate and acknowledged the crimes committed against the Korean Nation:

“I have never seen such devastation,” the general told members of the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees. At that time, in May 1951, the Korean War was less than a year old. Casualties, he estimated, were already north of 1 million.

“I have seen, I guess, as much blood and disaster as any living man,” he added, ” (quoted by the Washington Post, August 10, 2017)

Confirmed by US military documents, both the People’s Republic of China and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea have been threatened with nuclear war for sixty-seven years.

In 1950, Chinese volunteer forces dispatched by the People’s Republic of China were firmly behind North Korea against US aggression.

China’s act of solidarity with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) was carried out barely a few months after the founding of the PRC on October 1, 1949.

Truman had contemplated the use of nuclear weapons against both China and North Korea, specifically as a means to repeal the Chinese Volunteer People’s Army (VPA) which had been dispatched to fight alongside North Korean forces. [Chinese Volunteer People’s Army, 中國人民志願軍; Zhōngguó Rénmín Zhìyuàn Jūn].

It is important to stress that US military action directed against the DPRK was part of a broader Cold War military agenda against the PRC and the Soviet Union, the objective of which was ultimately to undermine and destroy socialism.

Extensive war crimes were committed against the Korean Nation in the course of the Korean war and its aftermath.

Every single family in North Korea has lost a loved one in the course of the Korean War.

In comparison, during the Second World War the United Kingdom lost 0.94% of its population, France lost 1.35%, China lost 1.89% and the US lost 0.32%. During the Korean war, North Korea lost 30% of its population.

These figures of civilian deaths in North Korea should also be compared to those compiled for Iraq by the Lancet Study (Johns Hopkins School of Public Health). The Lancet study estimated a total of 655,000 Iraqi civilian deaths, in the three years following the US-led invasion (March 2003 – June 2006).

The US never apologized for having killed up to 30 percent of North Korea’s population. Quite the opposite. The main thrust of US foreign policy has been to demonize the victims of US-led wars.

There were no war reparations. The issue of US crimes against the people of Korea was never addressed by the international community. And today, the DPRK is tagged by the Western media as a threat to the security of the United States.

For more than half a century, Washington has contributed to the political isolation and impoverishment of North Korea. Moreover, US-sponsored sanctions on Pyongyang have contributed to destabilizing the country’s economy.

North Korea has been protrayed as part of an “axis of evil”. For what?

The unspoken victim of US military aggression, the DPRK is portrayed as a failed war-mongering “Rogue State”, a “State sponsor of terrorism” and a “threat to World peace”. In the West but also in south Korea, these stylized accusations become part of a consensus, which we dare not question.

The Lie becomes the Truth. North Korea is heralded as a threat. America is not the aggressor but “the victim”.

Washington’s intent from the very outset was to destroy North Korea and demonize an entire nation. The US has also stood in the way of the reunification of North and South Korea.

People across America should put politics aside and relate to the suffering and hardships of the people of North Korea. War veteran Brian Willson provides a moving assessment of the plight of the North Korean people:

“Everyone I talked with, dozens and dozens of folks, lost one if not many more family members during the war, especially from the continuous bombing, much of it incendiary and napalm, deliberately dropped on virtually every space in the country. “Every means of communication, every installation, factory, city, and village” was ordered bombed by General MacArthur in the fall of 1950. It never stopped until the day of the armistice on July 27, 1953. The pained memories of people are still obvious, and their anger at “America” is often expressed, though they were very welcoming and gracious to me. Ten million Korean families remain permanently separated from each other due to the military patrolled and fenced dividing line spanning 150 miles across the entire Peninsula.

Let us make it very clear here for western readers. North Korea was virtually totally destroyed during the “Korean War.” U.S. General Douglas MacArthur’s architect for the criminal air campaign was Strategic Air Command head General Curtis LeMay who had proudly conducted the earlier March 10 – August 15, 1945 continuous incendiary bombings of Japan that had destroyed 63 major cities and murdered a million citizens. (The deadly Atomic bombings actually killed far fewer people.).Eight years later, after destroying North Korea’s 78 cities and thousands of her villages, and killing countless numbers of her civilians, LeMay remarked, “Over a period of three years or so we killed off – what – twenty percent of the population.”It is now believed that the population north of the imposed 38th Parallel lost nearly a third its population of 8 – 9 million people during the 37-month long “hot” war, 1950 – 1953, perhaps an unprecedented percentage of mortality suffered by one nation due to the belligerance of another.

Virtually every person wanted to know what I thought of Bush’s recent accusation of North Korea as part of an “axis of evil.” I shared with them my own outrage and fears, and they seemed relieved to know that not all “Americans” are so cruel and bellicose. As with people in so many other nations with whom the U.S. has treated with hostility, they simply cannot understand why the U.S. is so obsessed with them.” (Brian Willson, Korea and the Axis of Evil, Global Research, October 12, 2006 emphasis added)

The Nature of US Atrocities against the People of Korea

The DPRK’s Foreign Minister’s Cable to the United Nations Security Council confirmed the nature of the atrocities committed by the US against the people of North Korea, acting under the banner of the United Nations:

See original below. [original text in Korean]

“ON JANUARY 3 AT 10:30 AM, AN ARMADE OF 82 FLYING FORTRESSES LOOSED THEIR DEATH-DEALING LOAD ON THE CITY OF PYONGYANG. …

HUNDREDS OF TONS OF BOMBS AND INCENDIARY COMPOUND WERE SIMULTANEOUSLY DROPPED THROUGHOUT THE CITY, CAUSING ANNIHILATING FIRES. IN ORDER TO PREVENT THE EXTINCTION OF THESE FIRES, THE TRANS-ATLANTIC BARBARIANS BOMBED THE CITY WITH DELAYED-ACTION HIGH-EXPLOSIVE BOMBS WHICH EXPLODED AT INTERVALS THROUGHOUT FOR A WHOLE DAY, MAKING IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE PEOPLE TO COME OUT ONTO THE STREETS. THE ENTIRE CITY HAS NOW BEEN BURNING, ENVELOPED IN FLAMES, FOR TWO DAYS. BY THE SECOND DAY 7,812 CIVILIANS’ HOUSES HAD BEEN BURNT DOWN. THE AMERICANS WERE WELL AWARE THAT THERE WERE NO MILITARY OBJECTIVES LEFT IN PYONGYANG. …

THE NUMBER OF INHABITANTS OF PYONGYANG KILLED BY BOMB SPLINTERS, BURNT ALIVE AND SUFFOCATED BY SMOKE IS INCALCULABLE, SINCE NO COMPUTATION IS POSSIBLE. SOME FIFTY THOUSAND INHABITANTS REMAIN IN THE CITY, WHICH BEFORE THE WAR HAD A POPULATION OF FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND.”

It was all for a good cause: the fight against “evil communism”. The doctrine of fighting communism acted as a powerful ideological instrument during the Cold War era.

Our message to US military servicemen and women at all levels of the military hierarchy.

Reverse the course of History. Abandon the Battlefield, Refuse to Fight!

For complete text of the cable addressed to the UN Security Council click UN Repository.

2. “Fire and Fury” and the Nuclear Issue: From the Cold War to the Present

In the post Cold War era, under Donald Trump’s “Fire and Fury”, nuclear war directed against Russia, China, North Korea and Iran is “On the Table”.

What distinguishes the October 1962 Missile Crisis to Today’s Realities:

1. Today’s president Donald Trump does not have the foggiest idea as to the consequences of nuclear war.
2. Communication today between the White House and the Kremlin is at an all time low. In contrast, in October 1962, the leaders on both sides, namely John F. Kennedy and Nikita S. Khrushchev were accutely aware of the dangers of nuclear annihilation. They collaborated with a view to avoiding the unthinkable.
3. The nuclear doctrine was entirely different during the Cold War. Both Washington and Moscow understood the realities of mutually assured destruction. Today, tactical nuclear weapons with an explosive capacity (yield) of one third to six times a Hiroshima bomb are categorized by the Pentagon as “harmless to civilians because the explosion is underground”.
4. A one trillion ++ nuclear weapons program, first launched under Obama, is ongoing.
5. Today’s thermonuclear bombs are more than 100 times more powerful and destructive than a Hiroshima bomb. Both the US and Russia have several thousand nuclear weapons deployed.

Moreover, an all-out war against China is currently on the drawing board of the Pentagon as outlined by a RAND Corporation Report commissioned by the US Army.

Washington is actively involved in creating divisions between China and its neighbours including the DPRK and the ROK.

The objective is to draw South East Asia and the Far East into a protracted military conflict by creating divisions between China and ASEAN countries, most of which are the victims of Western colonialism and US military aggression: extensive crimes against humanity have been committed against Vietnam, Cambodia, Korea, the Philippines, Indonesia. In a bitter irony, these countries are now military allies of the United States.

Who Is the Aggressor?

The Soviet Union had tested its first atomic bomb on August 29, 1949 in response to Washington’s design to wage nuclear war against the USSR, first formulated in September 1945.

According to analysts, the Soviet atomic bomb was instrumental in the Truman administration’s decision to eventually stall US nuclear war preparations against North Korea and China. The project was scrapped in June 1951.

In March 1949, President Truman approved National Security Council Memorandum 8/2, which identified the entire Korean peninsula “as an area where the principles of democracy were being matched against those of Communism.” (see P. K. Rose, Two Strategic Intelligence Mistakes in Korea, 1950, Perceptions and Reality, CIA Library, Apr 14, 2007.)

The NSC Memorandum 8/2 paved the way for the June 1949 guerrilla attacks on the DPRK:

“Inquiry uncovers secret of series of attacks by South on North. South Korean troops attacked the North a year before the Korean war broke out, researchers have claimed in the latest disturbing revelation about the conflict which almost led to global war. More than 250 guerrillas from the South are said to have launched an attack on North Korean villages along the east coast in June 1949. The incident has been confirmed by a South Korean army official.  (John Gittings, Martin Kettle, The Guardian, 17 January 2000)

Washington’s objective was to extend its geopolitical zone of influence over the entire Korean Nation, with a view to taking over all the Korean colonial territories which had been annexed to the Japanese Empire in 1910. The Korean war was also directed against the People’s Republic of China as confirmed by president Truman’s November 1950 statements (see transcript below), which intimated in no uncertain terms that the atomic bomb was intended to be used against the People’s Republic of China.

According to military analyst Carl A. Posey in Air and Space Magazine:

In late November [1950], communist China began to turn over its cards. It had already covertly sent troops into North Korea. …

With the Chinese intervention, the United States confronted a hard truth: Threatening a nuclear attack would not be enough to win the war. It was as if the Chinese hadn’t noticed—or, worse, weren’t impressed by—the atomic-capable B-29s waiting at Guam.

President Truman raised the ante. At a November press conference [1950], he told reporters he would take whatever steps were necessary to win in Korea, including the use of nuclear weapons.Those weapons, he added, would be controlled by military commanders in the field.

In April of the next year, Truman put the finishing touches on Korea’s nuclear war. He allowed nine nuclear bombs with fissile cores to be transferred into Air Force custody and transported to Okinawa. Truman also authorized another deployment of atomic-capable B-29s to Okinawa. Strategic Air Command set up a command-and-control team in Tokyo.

This spate of atomic diplomacy coincided with the end of the role played by Douglas MacArthur. … Truman replaced him with General Matthew Ridgway, who was given “qualified authority” to use the bombs if he felt he had to.

In October, there would be an epilogue of sorts to the Korean nuclear war. Operation Hudson Harbor would conduct several mock atomic bombing runs with dummy or conventional bombs across the war zone. Called “terrifying” by some historians, Hudson Harbor merely tested the complex nuclear-strike machinery, as the Strategic Air Command had been doing for years over American cities.

But the nuclear Korean war had already ended. In June 1951, the atomic-capable B-29s flew home, carrying their special weapons with them. (emphasis added)

Truman’s decision to contemplate the use of nuclear weapons is confirmed in Truman’s historic November 30, 1950 Press Conference.

(Excerpts below, click to access complete transcript)

THE PRESIDENT. We will take whatever steps are necessary to meet the military situation, just as we always have.

[12.] Q. Will that include the atomic bomb ?

THE PRESIDENT, That includes every weapon that we have.

Q. Mr. President, you said “every weapon that we have.” Does that mean that there is active consideration of the use of the atomic bomb?

THE PRESIDENT. There has always been active consideration of its use. I don’t want to see it used. It is a terrible weapon, and it should not be used on innocent men, women, and children who have nothing whatever to do with this military aggression. That happens when it is used.³

³Later the same day the White House issued the following press release:

“The President wants to make it certain that there is no misinterpretation of his answers m questions at his press conference today about the use of the atom bomb. Naturally, there has been consideration of this subject since the outbreak of the hostilities in Korea, just as there is consideration of the use of all military weapons whenever our forces are in combat.

“Consideration of the use of any weapon is always implicit in the very possession of that weapon.

“However, it should be emphasized, that, by law, only the President can authorize the use of the atom bomb, and no such authorization has been given. If and when such authorization should be given, the military commander in the field would have charge of the tactical delivery of the weapon.

“In brief, the replies to the questions at today’s press conference do not represent any change in this situation.”

Q. Mr. President, I wonder if we could retrace that reference to the atom bomb? Did we understand you clearly that the use of the atomic bomb is under active consideration?

THE PRESIDENT. Always has been. It is one of our weapons.

Q. Does that mean, Mr. President, use against military objectives, or civilian–

THE PRESIDENT. It’s a matter that the military people will have to decide.  I’m not a military authority that passes on those things. [refutes his earlier statement on not using it “against civilians”]

Q. Mr. President, perhaps it would be better if we are allowed to quote your remarks on that directly?

THE PRESIDENT. I don’t think–I don’t think that is necessary.

Q. Mr. President, you said this depends on United Nations action. Does that mean that we wouldn’t use the atomic bomb except on a United Nations authorization ?

THE PRESIDENT. No, it doesn’t mean that at all. The action against Communist China depends on the action of the United Nations. The military commander in the field will have charge of the use of the weapons, as he always has.

[15.] Q. Mr. President, how dose are we to all-out mobilization.

THE PRESIDENT. Depends on how this matter we are faced with now works out.

[16.] Q. Mr. President, will the United Nations decide whether the Manchurian border is crossed, either with bombing planes or–

THE PRESIDENT. The resolution that is now pending before the United Nations will answer that question.

Q. Or with troops?  … (emphasis added

In December 1949, a detailed top secret National Security Council (NSC) report was addressed to president Truman:

“Development of sufficient military power in selected non-Communist nations of Asia to maintain internal security and to prevent further encroachment by communism….

Gradual reduction and eventual elimination of the preponderant power and influence of the USSR in Asia

… The United States should continue to provide for the extension of political support and economic, technical, military and other assistance to the democratically-elected Government of the Republic of Korea.

(NSC top secret report, December 1949)

Beneath the facade of spreading democracy, Washington’s ultimate objective was to establish a proxy state in South Korea.

America’s appointee Sygman Rhee was flown into Seoul in October 1945, in General Douglas MacArthur’s personal airplane, Rhee became president in 1948, with a mandate to curb political dissent including the arrest, torture and assassination of thousands of alleged Communist opponents.

Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)

The doctrine of mutually assured destruction (MAD) evolved in the wake of the launching of the Soviet atom bomb in August 1949. Prior to that, the US resolve was to use nukes on a first strike basis against the Soviet Union, the People’s Republic of China and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK).

However, at the outset of the Korean war in 1950, confirmed by Truman’s statements, no clearcut distinction was made between a nuclear weapon and a conventional weapon. The Truman administration’s nuclear doctrine consisted in using nuclear weapons within the framework of a conventional war theater.

The concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) which characterized the Cold War was based on the recognition that the use of nuclear weapons “by two or more opposing sides would cause the complete annihilation of both the attacker and the defender”.

China was first threatened by the US with nuclear war in 1950, a year after the inauguration of the People’s Republic of China. Some 14 years later in October 1964, China tested its first 16-ton nuclear bomb.

3. The Candlelight Movement, The Demilitarization of the Korean Peninsula

The 1987 June Democratic Uprising was a nationwide grassroots movement in the Republic of Korea (ROK) directed against the military regime of president Chun Doo-hwan, a ROK army general who came to power in 1979 following a military coup and the assassination of President General Park Chung-hee.

Chun Doo-hwan (1979-1987) had announced the appointment of a new military dictator: Army General Roh Tae-woo as the next unelected president of the ROK.

This self-proclaimed decision in defiance of public sentiment was conducive to the June 1987 mass movement in support of constitutional reform with a view to instating the holding of direct presidential elections. While the June movement put an end to unelected military rule, what was achieved was a military-civilian transition whereby General Roh-Tae-woo, was instated through the conduct of presidential elections. (In 1996, Roh was sentenced to more than 22 years in prison on bribery, mutiny and sedition charges.)

While the June movement was a landmark, it did not modify the social hierarchy, the corrupt political and corporate networks, the authoritarian nature of the leading corporate giants (Chaebols), not to mention the shadow decision making processes within the military and intelligence apparatus, conducted in liaison with Washington.

Thirty years later, the irony of history is that another grassroots protest movement, The Candle Light Movement in part inspired by the 1987 June Uprising successfully sought the impeachment of president Park Guen-hye, daughter of General Park Chung-hee who ruled the ROK from 1963 to 1979.

According to media reports, the mega protests gained impetus on November 12, 2016 with one million protesters, rising to 1.9 million on November 19, and culminating on December 3, with 2.3 million. “The 2.3 million mega-protest … was a critical turning point that halted Park’s last attempt to escape impeachment.”

The government backlashed on grassroots organizations and the labor movement. In turn, under Mrs. Park’s presidency, the neocolonial relationship exerted by the US was reinforced with particular emphasis on expanded militarization.

Rep. Lee Seok-ki of the United Progressive Party (UPP) was accused without evidence of “plotting to overthrow the ROK government” of president Park Guen hye.

That government was indeed overthrown, by the people’s Candlelight movement, by a democratic process which was ratified by the constitutional court.

Convicted on charges of bribery, corruption, abuse of power, coercion and leaking government secrets (in a total of 18 cases), Park Guen-hye faces between 10 years to life in prison.

Bear in mind, these accusations are but the tip of the iceberg, they do not include Ms. Park’s orders to arbitrarily arrest her political opponents and repeal fundamental civil rights.

In a bitter irony, it was the constitutional court under pressure from the Conservative Party, which ratified president Park’s baseless accusations against Rep. Lee Seok-ki, which led to his imprisonment.

That erroneous decision by the Constitutional Court, which was in part upheld by the Supreme Court, invoking the 1948 National Security Act must be challenged and annulled.

Park Geun-hye at the Seoul central district court in South Korea. Photograph: Xinhua/Rex/Shutterstock

4. The Sunshine Policy

The Sunshine policy initially established under the government of Kim Dae-jung with a view to seeking North-South cooperation had already been abolished by Park Guen-hye’s predecessor president Lee Myung-bak (2008-2013). In turn, this period was marked by a heightened atmosphere of confrontation between North and South, marked by successive war games.

The administrations of both presidents Lee and Park were largely instrumental in repealing the Sunshine Policy which had been actively pursued during the Roh Moo-hyun administration (2003-2008), with increased public sentiment in favor of reunification of North and South Korea.

Sunshine 2.0. The Demilitarization of the Korean Peninsula

The legacy of history is fundamental: From the outset in 1945 as well as in the wake of the Korean war (1950-53), US interference and military presence in the ROK has been the main obstacle to the pursuit of democracy and national sovereignty.

Washington has consistently played a role in ROK politics, with a view to ensuring its hegemonic objectives in East Asia. The impeached president Mrs. Park served as an instrument of the US administration.

Will the popular movement against the impeached president prevail?

It was conducive to the conduct of new presidential elections leading to the election of Moon Jae-in as president of the ROK.

Supported by the Candle Light movement, Moon Jae-in’s presidency potentially constitutes a watershed, a political as well as geopolitical landmark, an avenue towards national sovereignty in defiance of US interference, a potential break with a foregone era of authoritarian rule.

President Moon Jae-in had worked closely with president Roh Moo-hyun as his chef de cabinet. He has confirmed his unbending commitment in favor of dialogue and cooperation with Pyongyang, under what is being dubbed the Sunshine 2.0 Policy, while also maintaining the ROK’s relationship with the US.

While President Moon Jae-in (left) is firmly opposed to the DPRK’s nuclear program, he nonetheless took a firm stance against the deployment of the US-supplied Terminal High-Altitude Area Defence Missile Defence System (THAAD).

In recent developments, the ROK Defense Ministry acting behind his back took the initiative (May 30, 2017) of bringing in four more launchers for the THAAD missile system. “President Moon said that it’s ‘very shocking’ after receiving a report” on the incident from his national security director.” (Morningstar, May 30, 2017)

President Moon’s commitment to cooperation with North Korea coupled with demilitarization, will require redefining the ROK-US relationship in military affairs. This is the crucial issue.

The World is at a dangerous crossroads: How will the policies of President Moon’s administration affect the broader East Asia geopolitical context marked by US threats of military action (including the use of nuclear weapons) not only against North Korea but also against China and Russia?

In the present context, the US has de facto control over ROK foreign policy as well as North-South Korea relations. Under the OPCON agreement, the Pentagon controls the command structure of the ROK armed forces.

Ultimately this is what has to be addressed with a view to establishing a lasting peace on the Korean peninsula and the broader East Asian region.

5. The Repeal of the ROK-US Combined Forces Command (CFC) Towards a Bilateral North-South Peace Agreement

In 2014, the government of President Park Geun-hye postponed the repeal of the OPCON (Operational Control) agreement “until the mid-2020s”. What this signified is that “in the event of conflict” all ROK forces would be under the command of a US General appointed by the Pentagon, rather than under that of the ROK President and Commander in Chief.

It goes without saying that national sovereignty cannot reasonably be achieved without the annulment of the OPCON agreement as well as the ROK – US Combined Forces Command (CFC) structure.

As we recall, in 1978 a bi-national Republic of Korea – United States Combined Forces Command (CFC), was created under the presidency of General Park (military dictator and father of impeached president Park Guen-hye). In substance, this was a change in labels in relation to the so-called UN Command.

“Ever since the Korean War, the allies have agreed that the American four-star would be in “Operational Control” (OPCON) of both ROK and US military forces in wartime …. Before 1978, this was accomplished through the United Nations Command. Since then it has been the CFC [US Combined Forces Command (CFC) structure]. (Brookings Institute)

Moreover, the Command of the US General under the renegotiated OPCON (2014) remains fully operational inasmuch as the 1953 Armistice (which legally constitutes a temporary ceasefire) is not replaced by a peace treaty.

The 1953 Armistice Agreement

What underlies the 1953 Armistice Agreement is that one of the warring parties, namely the US has consistently threatened to wage war on the DPRK for more than 60 years.

The US has on countless occasions violated the Armistice Agreement. It has remained on a war footing. Casually ignored by the Western media and the international community, the US has actively deployed nuclear weapons targeted at North Korea for more than half a century in violation of article 13(b) of the Armistice agreement. More recently it has deployed the so-called THAAD missiles largely directed against China and Russia.

The US is still at war with North Korea. The armistice agreement signed in July 1953 –which legally constitutes a “temporary ceasefire” between the warring parties (US, North Korea and China’s Volunteer Army)– must be rescinded through the signing of a long-lasting peace agreement.

The US has not only violated the armistice agreement, it has consistently refused to enter into peace negotiations with Pyongyang, with a view to maintaining its military presence in South Korea as well as shunting a process of normalization and cooperation between the ROK and the DPRK.

If one of the signatories of the Armistice refuses to sign a Peace Agreement, what should be contemplated is the formulation of a comprehensive Bilateral North-South Peace Agreement, which would de facto lead to rescinding the 1953 armistice.

What should be sought is that the “state of war” between the US and the DPRK (which prevails under the armistice agreement) be in a sense “side-tracked” and annulled by the signing of a comprehensive bilateral North-South peace agreement, coupled with cooperation and interchange.

This proposed far-reaching agreement between Seoul and Pyongyang would assert peace on the Korean peninsula –failing the signing of a peace agreement between the signatories of the 1953 Armistice agreement.

The legal formulation of this bilateral entente is crucial. The bilateral arrangement would in effect bypass Washington’s refusal. It would establish the basis of peace on the Korean peninsula, without foreign intervention, namely without Washington dictating its conditions. It would require the concurrent withdrawal of US troops from the ROK and the repeal of the OPCON agreement.

Bear in mind, the US was involved in the de facto abrogation of paragraph 13(d) of the Armistice agreement, which forecloses the parties from entering new weapons into Korea. In 1956, Washington brought in and installed nuclear weapons facilities into South Korea. In so doing, the U.S. not only abrogated paragraph 13(d), it abrogated the entire Armistice agreement through the deployment of US troops and weapons systems in the ROK.

Moreover, it should be noted that the militarization of the ROK under the OPCOM agreement, including the development of new military bases, is also largely intent upon using the Korean peninsula as a military launchpad threatening both China and Russia. Under OPCOM, “in the case of war”, the entire force of the ROK would be mobilized under US command against China or Russia.

The THAAD missiles are deployed in South Korea, against China, Russia and North Korea. Washington states that THAAD is solely intended as a Missile Shield against North Korea.

Similarly, the Jeju island military base is largely intended to threaten China.

The Jeju island military base is also directed against China.

Less than 500km from Shanghai

Moreover, Washington is intent upon creating political divisions in East Asia not only between the ROK and the DPRK but also between North Korea and China, with a view to ultimately isolating the DPRK.

In a bitter irony, US military facilities in the ROK (including Jeju Island) are being used to threaten China as part of a process of military encirclement. Needless to say, permanent peace on the Korean peninsula as well as in the broader East Asia region as defined under a bilateral North-South agreement would require the repeal of both the Armistice agreement as well as OPCOM, including the withdrawal of US troops from the ROK.

It is important that the bilateral peace talks between the ROK with DPRK under the helm of President Moon Jae-in be conducted without the participation or interference of outside parties. These discussions must address the withdrawal of all US occupation forces as well as the removal of economic sanctions directed against North Korea.

The exclusion of US military presence and the withdrawal of the 28,500 occupation forces should be a sine qua non requirement of a bilateral ROK-DPRK Peace Treaty.

6. Reunification and the Road Ahead. There Is Only One Korean Nation

America’s neo-colonial practice applied both prior and in the post World War period has been geared towards weakening the nation state. Washington seeks through military and non-military means the partition and fracture of independent countries (eg. Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Central America, Iraq, Syria, Sudan). This foreign policy agenda focussing on fracture and partition also applies to Korea.

There is only one Korean Nation. Washington opposes reunification because a united Korean Nation would weaken US hegemony in East Asia.

Reunification would create a competing industrial and military power and nation state (with advanced technological and scientific capabilities) which would assert its sovereignty, establish trade relations with neighbouring countries (including Russia and China) without the interference of Washington.

It is worth noting in this regard, that US foreign policy and military planners have already established their own scenario of “reunification” predicated on maintaining US occupation troops in Korea. Similarly, what is envisaged by Washington is a framework which would enable “foreign investors” to penetrate and pillage the North Korean economy.

Washington’s objective is to impose the terms of Korea’s reunification. The Neocons’ “Project for a New American Century” (PNAC) published in 2000 had intimated that in a “post unification scenario”, the number of US troops (currently at 28,500) should be increased and that US military presence should be extended to North Korea.

In a reunified Korea, the stated military mandate of the US garrison would be to implement so-called “stability operations in North Korea”:

While Korea unification might call for the reduction in American presence on the peninsula and a transformation of U.S. force posture in Korea, the changes would really reflect a change in their mission – and changing technological realities – not the termination of their mission. Moreover, in any realistic post-unification scenario, U.S. forces are likely to have some role in stability operations in North Korea.

It is premature to speculate on the precise size and composition of a post-unification U.S. presence in Korea, but it is not too early to recognize that the presence of American forces in Korea serves a larger and longer-range strategic purpose. For the present, any reduction in capabilities of the current U.S. garrison on the peninsula would be unwise. If anything, there is a need to bolster them, especially with respect to their ability to defend against missile attacks and to limit the effects of North Korea’s massive artillery capability. In time, or with unification, the structure of these units will change and their manpower levels fluctuate, but U.S. presence in this corner of Asia should continue. 36 (PNAC, Rebuilding America`s Defenses, Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century, p. 18, emphasis added)

Washington’s intentions are crystal clear.

It should be understood that a US led war against North Korea would engulf the entire Korean nation.

The US sponsored state of war is directed against both North and South Korea. It is characterised by persistent military threats (including the use of nuclear weapons) against the DPRK.

It also threatens the ROK which has been under US military occupation since September 1945. Currently there are 28,500 US troops in South Korea. Yet under the US-ROK OPCON (joint defense agreement) discussed earlier, all ROK forces are under US command.

Given the geography of the Korean peninsula, the use of nuclear weapons against North Korea would inevitably also engulf South Korea. This fact is known and understood by US military planners.

What has to be emphasized in relation to Sunshine 2.0 Policy is that the US and the ROK cannot be “Allies” inasmuch as the US threatens to wage war on North Korea.

The “real alliance” is that which unifies and reunites North and South Korea through dialogue against foreign intrusion and aggression.

The US is in a state of war against the entire Korean Nation. And what this requires is:

The holding of bilateral talks between the ROK and the DPRK with a view to signing an agreement which nullifies the Armistice and sets the term of a bilateral “Peace Treaty”. In turn this agreement would set the stage for the exclusion of US military presence and the withdrawal of the 28,500 US forces.

Moreover, pursuant to bilateral Peace negotiations, the ROK-US OPCON agreement which places ROK forces under US command should be rescinded. All ROK troops would thereafter be brought under national ROK command.

Bilateral consultations should also be undertaken with a view to further developing economic, technological, cultural and educational cooperation between the ROK and the DPRK.

Without the US in the background pulling the strings under OPCON, the threat of war would be replaced by dialogue. The first priority, therefore would be to rescind OPCON.

*

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.

21 November 2021

Source: www.globalresearch.ca

By Julie Varughese

14 Nov 2021 – Just three days after Sandinista revolutionary Daniel Ortega won his fourth term as Nicaragua’s president with 75.92 percent of the vote, U.S. President Joe Biden signed the RENACER Act.

An acronym for the “Reinforcing Nicaragua’s Adherence to Conditions for Electoral Reform Act of 2021,” RENACER slaps sanctions on Ortega government officials, attempts to restrict multilateral financing to Nicaragua, monitors Nicaragua’s relationship with Russia, punishes the country for alleged human-rights violations and targets reported corruption inside Nicaragua, among other items.

Then on November 12, 25 member states of the Organization of American States’ (OAS) Permanent Council voted in favor of a resolution that criticized the elections as not free and fair and urged further action.

The OAS resolution and fresh U.S. sanctions, as well as social media platforms suspending known Ortega supporters a week before the elections and corporate media outlets inaccurately reporting on Ortega make clear the United States is the primary contradiction in the Nicaraguan people’s struggle for liberation.

Social Markers Improve

Ortega, a militant in the Frente Sandinista de Liberación Nacional (the Sandinista National Liberation Front, or FSLN for short), was first elected president in 1984. His defeat in 1989 to neoliberal Violeta Chamorro, a scion of the landowning class, kicked off 16 years of neoliberal rule. During that time, Sandinista reforms were rolled back and social outcomes plummetted. That is why the era from 1990 to 2006 is referred to as the Neoliberal Period.

When Ortega was re-elected in 2006, the maternal mortality rate—a key marker of a country’s well-being–was 92.8 deaths per 100,000 live births. By 2020, that number dropped 60 percent to 37.5 deaths per 100,000 live births because of programs that include “maternity homes” to monitor pregnant women close to their due date. Other improvements include a 41 percent decrease in poverty, 100 percent electrification, 100 percent mobile-phone access, 85 percent internet accessibility, as well as a 100 percent increase in the amount of renewable energy the state generates. A free-trade zone employs 120,000 Nicaraguans, who work for foreign companies. Those corporations are required to abide by Nicaragua’s laws as well as respect the environment and workers’ rights. All of this means few people leave the country, but many have arrived from neighboring neoliberal Honduras.

Farmers Defend Nicaragua

Victoriano Potosme once labored under the orders of “latifundistas,” white plantation owners in Nicaragua.

“We were slaves under them,” he said while standing on his mountaintop farm in San José de los Rios in Ticuantepe, about an hour from the capital of Managua. There, he and his family grow award-winning fruits and have developed an internationally acclaimed organic fertilizer called BIO Buena Vista.

For campesinos like Potosme, the November 7 elections were critical. After the Sandinista Revolution, peasants like Potosme were able to own the land they worked because of reforms that put 235,000 acres into their hands.

“If we go back to the neoliberal period, it would take us back 150 years,” he said a few days before casting his ballot.

The Human Rights Question

Biden released a statement on Election Day, citing the Inter-American Democratic Charter as justification for intervening in Nicaragua’s affairs. That charter was adopted on September 11, 2001, by the Organization of American States (OAS), a multilateral body the United States slapped together in the early 20th century as part of its efforts to control the Western Hemisphere. Per the Monroe Doctrine, the United States considers the rest of the hemisphere its “backyard.” After years of dormancy, that colonial term re-emerged during the Trump administration.

Then after the election, the OAS also chimed in.

“We reject the results of the illegitimate elections in #Nicaragua,” tweeted OAS Secretary General Luis Almagro. “I urge countries of the OAS to respond to this clear violation of the Democratic Charter during its #OASassembly.”

The OAS General Assembly held its 51st regular session this past week in Guatemala. The organization could not be reached for comment as of press time.

But numerous commentators have pointed out the hypocrisy of the United States and the OAS using terms like “democracy,” “self-determination” and “rights.”

Black Alliance for Peace (BAP) National Organizer Ajamu Baraka, who has taught U.S. history in universities, recently wrote an analysis in which he said all settler-colonial states like the United States have criminality at their core because they were born out of “systematic, terroristic and genocidal violence against Indigenous populations.” The United States now is the largest empire in recorded human history.

“Democracy and human rights are no more than ideological props to obscure the real interests and intentions of the rulers and to build domestic support for whatever criminal activity the state has embarked on,” Baraka went on to write. (Full disclosure: This reporter coordinates a wing of BAP.)

Killer Sanctions

Ordinary Nicaraguans understand the pain of sanctions.

“They are going to kill all the farmers, who dedicate themselves on a daily basis to life, to building, to working the land,” Jhaniors, a youth organizer in the Managua department, told a journalist who traveled with this reporter on a recent Friends of the ATC delegation. “The sanctions don’t help—they kill.”

Potosme’s son, Saul, said when the U.S.-funded, right-wing attempt at a coup took place in 2018, his family lost out on the opportunity to sell 30,000 to 40,000 pineapples. Participants in the attempted coup had blocked the path for trade to take place unless farmers paid up.

“We had no way of sustaining our families,” Saul said as he handled a bottle of his family’s award-winning organic fertilizer, BIO Buena Vista. “Many farmers here within this community rose up to get rid of the golpistas because we were sick of the coup attempt.”

“Golpistas” means “coupmongers” in Spanish.

The farmers traveled an hour to Managua to confront the coupmongers.

“It was a hard fight,” Saul said. “The reality is farmers are the ones who sustain a nation.”

After the coup attempt, the Ortega government implemented a program to create alternative ways for Nicaraguan farmers, young people, and women start and sustain businesses.

Nicaraguans on Election Day

In the run-up to Election Day, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken denounced the “sham of an election.” Then major social-media platforms like Facebook and Twitter disappeared the accounts of pro-Sandinista activists a week before the elections.

Despite the saber-rattling and repression, more than 2.8 million Nicaraguans cast votes in a process that appeared more organized than what this reporter has witnessed in various jurisdictions in the United States. Nicaraguans took between five and 10 minutes to vote, while U.S. voters have had to stand on lines in the sweltering sun for as long as 11 hours, as seen during the 2020 presidential election. While U.S. voters must figure out how to get to the polls between long commutes, jobs and other obligations, Nicaraguans are given the day off. Plus, Nicaraguan college students get a week off to travel to their home departments to vote.

Support for Ortega’s party, the FSLN, was overwhelming on Election Day, resulting in an almost 76 percent victory, with 65 percent of people voting.

“I voted for Commandante Daniel Ortega for the benefit of the community,” said Raul Navarretto, 64, as he walked out of a voting center in Chinandega, a Sandinista stronghold three hours north of the capital of Managua.

Nineteen-year-old Arlen Rueda, who strolled a toddler out of a voting center, also voted for Ortega, saying she supported the government’s efforts to provide food to its population, among other endeavors.

Armando Casa Y Padilla, 75, would not divulge to this reporter for whom he voted. “Es una secreta.” Yet, he valued the voting process. “Only people can make democracy happen.”

Jailing Coupmongers

While the corporate media spoke of Nicaraguan candidates and journalists being thrown in jail, the only people who were actually detained include “criminals, drug traffickers and golpistas,” according to Fausto Torrez, who handles international relations for the Associación de Trabajadores del Campo (Rural Workers’ Association, or ATC for short), an independent farm workers organization, as well as for the Coordinadora de Latinoamericana Organizaciones del Campo (the Latin American Coordinator of Rural Associations, or CLOC for short). CLOC is made up of 84 rural worker organizations in 18 Latin American countries.

Despite what the Western corporate media has reported, “pre-candidate” is not an official designation in Nicaragua. Those who wish to run for office must do so under the banner of one of six registered national parties, five of which are anti-Sandinista.

Many media outlets are opposed to the Ortega government and yet are allowed to operate. For example, the Chamorro family still operates La Prensa, a newspaper.

“Here, we hear from people who are against the government, but we don’t accept people taking U.S. money for coups,” Torrez said.

The Violeta Barrios de Chamorro Foundation accepted $7 million between 2014 and this year from the U.S. Agency for International Development. Nicaragua has been cracking down on U.S. funded operations that seek to subvert their progress. That includes groups who were involved in the 2018 coup attempt that killed more than 300 Nicaraguans, most of whom were Sandinistas. Plus, this past September, Cristiana Chamorro, the foundation’s founder and daughter of former right-wing president Violeta Chamorro, was arrested for money laundering.

“In other places, they go to college and get drunk in financial paradises,” said ATC Secretary-General Edgar Garcia. “But here, they are in jail.”

Julie Varughese is editor of Toward Freedom.

22 November 2021

Source: www.transcend.org