Archives: Articles

By Clara Weiss

22 May 2020 – Yesterday the Trump White House announced it will unilaterally withdraw from the Open Skies Treaty, which permits participating states to conduct limited, unarmed reconnaissance flights over the territories of other member states in order to collect data on military forces and activities. The scrapping of Open Skies heightens the likelihood of a major conflict between the United States, Russia and the major European powers.

The treaty, signed in 1992 after the dissolution of the USSR, has been in full force since 2002. It has been ratified by 34 states, including almost all NATO and EU members, Russia and most countries of the former Soviet Union. The US withdrawal from Open Skies, which will take effect within six months, comes amidst growing tensions with Russia. In June, Washington and its NATO allies will stage major war games just 35 miles from Kaliningrad, a Russian enclave in Europe.

Russian media report that NATO is convening an extraordinary session on Friday, May 22, to discuss the situation.

Trump’s move is universally seen as a sign that the US will also soon end the 2010 New START treaty with Russia, which limits the number of deployable nuclear missiles to 1,550 for each country. It is the last remaining treaty constraining the arsenal of the world’s two largest nuclear powers.

The American withdrawal from the Open Skies Treaty means that Russia and other member states can no longer conduct observational flights over the US that provide information, among other things, about the growing nuclear capabilities of the US. Washington will no longer provide advance notice to other states before it conducts surveillance flights or limit its activities to dictates established by the treaty.

The White House argues that the US withdrawal is justified by Russia’s alleged “violation” of the treaty. “Russia didn’t adhere to the treaty. So until they adhere, we will pull out, but there’s a very good chance we’ll make a new agreement or do something to put that agreement back together,” Trump said at a press briefing on Thursday.

The alleged violations refer to the fact that Russia has excluded Kaliningrad, a small piece of Russian territory that abuts Poland and Lithuania, and the Georgian breakaway republics of Ossetia and South Abkhazia in the south Caucasus, from the treaty. Moscow does not allow Open Skies surveillance of these areas. In 2008, Georgia provoked a war with Russia over Ossetia and South Abkhazia with the full backing of the US, bringing NATO and Russia to the brink of all-out war.

Russian deputy foreign minister Alexander Grushko sharply criticized Washington’s withdrawal from Open Skies. “Our position is absolutely clear and is invariable: The withdrawal of the US from this treaty will come as yet another blow to the system of military security in Europe, which is already weakened by the previous moves by the administration.”

Indicating that Russia might now also withdraw from the treaty, the spokesperson for the Russian foreign ministry, Maria Zakharova, declared on Thursday that the US itself violated the treaty.

Since 2002, the US has undertaken three times as many reconnaissance flights over Russia than Russia has over the US. In 2019, Washington conducted 18 flights out of a maximum allowed of 21, whereas Moscow carried out 7. In 2020, the US is expected to reach the upper limit of 21.

Europe has been the primary target of Russian surveillance under Open Skies, with Moscow using the treaty provisions to observe the movement of NATO troops and the build-up of American military capabilities on the continent. Particularly since the 2014 crisis in Ukraine, when Washington and Brussels supported a far-right, anti-Russian coup in Kiev, the Western allies have staged ever larger and more provocative military exercises in the region.

If Russia withdraws from the treaty, it will no longer be able to continue its overflights in Europe. European signatories would also be legally prohibited from carrying out such missions over Russia.

The Trump administration first signaled its intention to withdraw from the treaty in November 2019. At that time, Konstantin Bogdanov of the Russian Academy of Sciences’ Center for International Security warned, “There is nothing to replace it with. ‘Open Skies’ is an important, symbolic treaty which has enormous political significance.”

Europe’s imperialist powers and NATO members have long opposed an American withdrawal from the treaty. Ukraine, whose eastern Donbass region is engulfed in a conflict between pro-Ukrainian and pro-Russian separatists, has also opposed the scrapping of Open Skies.

On May 12, the European Leadership Network think tank published an open letter signed by several high-ranking NATO ex-generals that called upon the Trump administration to continue complying with Open Skies. It further appealed to the European powers to “make every effort to remain in the treaty, even if the United States withdraws.” The letter, whose signatories included former military chiefs from Germany, Ukraine, the UK, France and Italy, declared that “while the intelligence and confidence building advantages are limited for the US itself, they are very real for America’s NATO allies.”

German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas criticized the American withdrawal of the treaty and urged the US government to “reconsider.” He said, “We are calling upon Russia to resume full obligations under the treaty. For us it is clear that we will continue to implement the treaty and that we will do everything to maintain it.”

The European powers, which have played a central role in staging major NATO exercises on Russia’s borders in recent years, are interested in keeping the treaty because it enables them to gather military intelligence using air surveillance. The US, by contrast, has more advanced satellite capabilities than the European powers.

While utterly reckless, the unilateral withdrawal from the treaty is part of systematic preparations by US imperialism for world war. Since 2018, Washington has officially based its military policy on the prospect of a “great power conflict,” above all with Russia and China.

In 2017, the US pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal, exacerbating tensions with Germany and France and setting the stage for an open military conflict with Tehran. Last summer, the US scrapped the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) deal, a clear signal that it was preparing for nuclear war. And in 2019, Democrats and Republicans voted for a $750 billion military budget—the largest in history—which explicitly rejected any kind of limitations on the development of “low-yield” nuclear weapons. Other imperialist powers, most notably Germany, have stepped up their military rearmament.

25 May 2020

Source: www.transcend.org

By C R Abrar

“We all knew that [Aung San Suu Kyi] was put on a pedestal or portrayed as the icon of democracy and human rights, but ever since [her party] has taken office [after the 2015 election] and ever since she took the office of the State Councillor, all of her actions and her words, statements point otherwise”, noted Professor Yanghee Lee, in one of her last conversations with Al Jazeera as the Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights Situation in Burma. “Perhaps the world didn’t really know who she was”, she said.

At a time when the world, including neighbouring Malaysia and Thailand, have shunned the Rohingya (acknowledged as the most persecuted minority in the world), at a time when the Burmese state audaciously tramples the whole corpus of international human rights instruments being aided and abetted by major powers; at a time when those who stand for reason, rule of law and justice feel betrayed by the high and mighty of the world, Yanghee Lee stood firm as a beacon of hope.

A developmental psychologist and professor with decades of involvement in the UN’s rights bodies, Lee held the mandate of the Special Rapporteur from 2014 until end of April this year. Over the years, she made extensive visits to the region, including Burma. Her objective reporting on the human rights situation in Rakhine and the rest of Burma did not augur well and during their last one-to-one meeting, the de facto head of Burmese government Suu Kyi threatened visa denial if the UN Special Rapporteur kept pushing the “UN line”. Lee refused to be cowed by the former human rights icon’s interference and Suu Kyi delivered on her threat—she has been denied entry to the country since 2017. Lee viewed the Burmese decision “as a strong indication that there must be something terribly awful happening in Rakhine, as well as in the rest of the country”. While holding office, she was one of the very few global public figures who unwaveringly championed the Rohingyas’ quest for dignity, justice and protected return to their homeland.

Yanghee Lee’s tenure came to be largely dominated by the Burmese state’s attempt to complete the “unfinished business” of Rohingyas’ physical and historical existence, the Burmese equivalent of the Final Solution, in the early fall of 2017. The genocidal terror that was unleashed resulted in the exodus of at least 750,000 people into neighbouring Bangladesh. It was presented as a clearance operation of “ARSA terrorists”, a pretext enthusiastically accepted by Islamophobic western governments, world media and “security experts”. Choosing to ignore the genocidal nature of these “security clearance operations”, the emerging chorus of policy and media discourses faulted the Burmese military for “disproportionate and excessive use of force”, despite Lee calling out the “the hallmarks of a genocide” by Burma. As a matter of fact, on August 10, 2017, at least two weeks prior to the alleged ARSA attack on Burmese police outposts, Lee warned of the buildup and ominous movement of security forces in northern Arakan and appealed for restraint and respecting human rights.

In her parting statement to the Human Rights Council, Lee noted, “(w)hen I took up my mandate in 2014, I had thought that by 2020 a rights-respecting democracy would have been firmly established in Myanmar… Rather than a nation that protects human rights, I observe rights violations that continue to routinely occur and a country that stands accused of the most serious crimes under international law.”

Lee proposed ways to move towards an equal, tolerant and pluralistic society, including through victim-centered transitional justice mechanisms. Among other things, the UN expert underscored the need to bring the entire government and security forces under civilian control and initiate extensive legal reforms—including of the Constitution, land laws, the Citizenship Law and laws that violate fundamental rights such as freedom of expression, assembly and religion. “An end to impunity is the lynchpin for Myanmar to succeed in its transition to democracy. Perpetrators of human rights violations and international crimes must be held accountable,” she argued.

Yanghee Lee was appalled at the world’s reaction to the Rohingya plight—particularly that of the Security Council, which could not manage to agree on a single unified stance on an unfolding genocide in real time. She made her feelings loud and clear. Lee felt it was “shameful” that China and Russia, being UN security council members, have not taken any action against Burma. “China cannot be a global leader if it ignores such atrocities,” she noted. The Special Rapporteur also said the US decision to impose sanctions against senior military leaders in Burma did not go “far enough” and recommended these be tougher and applied to more generals.

She was disappointed at the response of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) to the developments in northern Arakan. The situation posed an increasing risk to the peace and security of countries of the region, she warned, urging them to prioritise human rights in its dealings with Burma. She expressed regret at the lack of response from the Government of India on her request to visit the country to meet refugees there. She reminded them that it is incumbent on member states to respect mandates established by the Human Rights Council and provide timely and reasonable answers to such requests.

The UN’s role in addressing the Rohingya plight has been palpable. Lee personally appealed to Secretary General Antonio Guterres for an international investigation, to no avail. In October 2017, when The Guardian reported the scandalous news of Renata Lok-Dessalien, UN Resident Coordinator in Burma, compromising UN Human Rights Up Front policy by prioritising a cozy relationship with Burma’s rulers, Guterres relented and commissioned former Guatemalan foreign minister Gert Rosenthal to do an internal assessment of the UN’s performance in Burma. The Rosenthal Report condemned the organisation’s “obviously dysfunctional performance” over the past decade and noted “the overall responsibility was of a collective nature; in other words it can truly be characterised as a systemic failure of the United Nations.” Accordingly, no UN official was held accountable, and Lok-Dessallien was even rewarded with a larger portfolio when she was appointed head of the UN in India!

Yanghee Lee was unequivocal in expressing her disappointment of the UN system in dealing with the Rohingya issue, particularly the UN’s technical agencies in the New York headquarters and in Burma. She was brutally honest about how she felt about the Memorandum of Understanding that was signed by the Burmese government, UNHCR and UNDP in early June 2018 purportedly “to assist the process of repatriation from Bangladesh”. The document was not made publicly available, nor was there any transparency about its terms. UN’s failure to defend the self-identity of the Rohingya and their refugee status appalled her. “I am dismayed about the fact that the parties to the MoU, including the United Nations agencies involved in this process, have apparently failed to recognise Rohingya living in Bangladesh as refugees and as Rohingya”.

The tendency of concerned states, including Burma and Bangladesh, to deny any role to Rohingya refugees was of grave concern for her. “Most frightful … is the fact that the Rohingya refugees have not been included in any of the discussions … around this MoU nor consulted in relation to the repatriation process as a whole”, she noted, posing the uncomfortable but pointed question to the Council—”how can the process of repatriation be voluntary with the people who the process is for excluded from it? How can you be sure that any return is based on individual informed consent?”

Conveying the common view among Rohingya refugees to the Council, Lee said “it is futile to speak about their safe, voluntary, dignified and sustainable return unless the root causes of their exodus are properly addressed”. She argued that to ensure such repatriation, the international community must ensure that Burma dismantles the system of discrimination against the Rohingya by law, policy and practices that continue to exist, and guarantee fundamental human rights to them, including by restoring their citizenship rights and property.

Helping lay the foundation for global justice for both Rohingyas and other victims within the UN’s system of accountability has been the single most important contribution of Professor Lee to Burma’s oppressed communities (not just the Rohingya), especially given that the country does not have national or domestic justice and accountability mechanisms that recognise and are capable of processing the gravest crimes in international law, such as crimes against humanity and genocide. Her persistent demand for an independent investigation into Burma’s state crimes against the Rohingya led to setting up of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar (FFMM) by the UN that was succeeded by the creation of the Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar (IIMM) by the Human Rights Council in September 2018. The IIMM became operational on August 30, 2019—it is mandated to collect evidence of the most serious international crimes and violations of international law and prepare files for criminal prosecution.

Despite widespread skepticism, it was the relentless effort of Lee that led to the huge success in setting up of an accountability mechanism. She even wrote the TOR of the personnel of IIMM and prepared its budget. All these were achieved with the meagre support of a desk officer and a research assistant. Acknowledging her significant role, Rohingya genocide scholar Maung Zarni succinctly noted “No Yanghee Lee, no Fact Finding Mission and The Gambia-vs-Myanmar case at the International Court of Justice”.

In our meeting during her last visit to Bangladesh, she underscored the need for sustained engagement of civil society against all odds. Brushing aside my shyness, I told her that we celebrate her good fight against a system that stands for the status quo and the powerful, and has repeatedly failed to deliver justice. I added, she was the role model for those who stand for justice for the wretched of the earth. Maintaining her graceful composure, she smiled. Gracias, Professor Yanghee Lee.

C R Abrar is an academic. He is the Coordinator of Refugee and Migratory Movements Research Unit.

19 May 2020

Source: www.thedailystar.net

By Rima Najjar

An encounter between a Jewish couple in Ijzim, Israel (south of Haifa) the the displaced Palestinians in whose house that couple resides, who are denied return to their village and property.

“On the anniversary of the Nakba … a tour through depopulated Palestinian villages within Israel … and rare meetings between the owners of the original Palestinian homes and their current Jewish residents” — Najwan Simri, reporting for Al Jazeera

Displaced Palestinians encounter Jews occupying their home in Ijzim, Israel

TRANSLATION OF THE VIDEO-CLIP NARRATION:

Information on the Palestinian village of Ijzim shown as three consecutive red text blocks throughout the video clip:
— The village of Ijzim south of Haifa is one of three villages known as the Carmel triangle of villages that fell at the hands of Zionist gangs after the establishment of Israel.
— A number of the people of the village of Ijzim took refuge in nearby cities and villages. Others took refuge in Arab countries after Ijzim’s occupation by Zionist gangs.
— Many of the landmarks of the village of Ijzim, south of Haifa, are still there as witness of the events of the Nakba 72 years ago.

NARRATION:

… Here lives a family uprooted from a nearby village. We had an appointment with Hajjeh Im Samir to accompany her there. Her [ailing] husband insisted on coming with us because he said the air of Ijzim is the best cure.

Despite its beauty, the road there seems desolate as if it gets you to the place but doesn’t take you there. Eagerly, Im Samir organizes our tour for us and tells us the names of the [Palestinian] owners of the houses.

Our first stop is God’s house. Its stones have been preserved as they were. Alone, the colors of its locked doors change each time the dryness of the seasons intensifies.

Here, Abu Samir does not stay in the car because this stop [station] is the location for which he has most longed in order to banish the other stations of his life. “This was our house, my father’s house. After the ’48 wars, the Jews occupied it.”

After a few minutes, the residents of the house come out to [the gate]. They ask us what we want. We say, this is the owner of the house; how do you feel living in a house built on the wreckage of his house? [The answer] Frankly, I don’t feel anything. I am very happy. Living here is very enjoyable.

How strange is the distance between the owner of the house and he who is occupying it. How strange is the irony between he who has to stand inside the gate and he who must stand outside the gate. How strong Abu Samir is! For other uprooted people have refused to accompany us [on our tour]. One of them told us that he cannot bear to glimpse through the window of his father’s house a foreigner living there.

And that [glimpse] could possibly be of a strange symbol, like [what is glimpsed through the window] of a stolen [Palestinian] school converted into a temple with an emblem [the flag of Israel] that is not as old as the memory of the stones of the school.

Flag of Israel glimpsed through the window of the converted school of the Palestinian village of Ijzim, which is now a Temple

And so, an extreme picture! It is said that the passage of time helps in forgetting, but, in the Palestinian case, it seems that the equation of time is different and that the years are merely a number. Rather, the longer the banishment of the Palestinians is, the more they remember.

– This is Najwan Simri, reporting from the depopulated village of Ijzim for Al Jazeera.

___________________

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

17 May 2020

Source: countercurrents.org

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.

The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. (President Dwight D. Eisenhower, January 17, 1961)

***

The World is being misled concerning the causes and consequences of the corona crisis.

The COVID-19 crisis is marked by a public health “emergency” under WHO auspices which is being used as a pretext and a justification to triggering a Worldwide process of economic, social and political restructuring.

Social engineering is being applied. Governments are pressured into extending the lockdown, despite its devastating economic and social consequences.

What is happening is unprecedented in World history.

Prominent scientists support the lockdown without batting an eyelid, as a “solution” to a global health emergency.

Amply documented, the estimates of the COVID-19 disease including mortality are grossly manipulated.

In turn, people are obeying their governments. Why? Because they are afraid?

Causes versus solutions?

The closing down of national economies applied Worldwide will inevitably result in poverty, mass unemployment and an increase in mortality. It’s an act of economic warfare.

Stage One: Trade War against China

On January 30, 2020 the WHO Director General determined that the coronavirus outbreak constitutes a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC). The decision was taken on the basis of 150 confirmed cases outside China, First cases of person to person transmission: 6 cases in the US, 3 cases in Canada, 2 in the UK.

The WHO Director General had the backing of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Big Pharma and the World Economic Forum (WEF). The decision for the WHO to declare a Global Emergency was taken on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland (January 21-24).

One day later (January 31) following the launch of the WHO Global Emergency, The Trump administration announced that it will deny entry to foreign nationals “who have traveled in China in the last 14 days”. This immediately triggered a crisis in air transportation, China-US trade as well as the tourism industry. Italy followed suit, cancelling all flights to China on January 31.

The first stage was accompanied by the disruption of trade relations with China as well as a partial closedown of export manufacturing sector.

A campaign was immediately launched against China as well ethnic Chinese. The Economist reportedthat

“The coronavirus spreads racism against and among ethnic Chinese”

“Britain’s Chinese community faces racism over coronavirus outbreak”

According to the SCMP:

“Chinese communities overseas are increasingly facing racist abuse and discrimination amid the coronavirus outbreak. Some ethnic Chinese people living in the UK say they experienced growing hostility because of the deadly virus that originated in China.”

And this phenomenon is happening all over the U.S.

Stage Two: The Financial Crash Spearheaded by Fear and Stock Market Manipulation

A global financial crisis unfolded in the course of the month of February culminating in a dramatic collapse of stock market values as well as a major decline in the value of crude oil.

This collapse was manipulated. It was the object of insider trading and foreknowledge. The fear campaign played a key role in the implementation of the stock market crash. In February, roughly $6 trillion have been wiped off the value of stock markets Worldwide. Massive losses of personal savings (e.g. of average Americans) have occurred not to mention corporate failures and bankruptcies. It was a bonanza for institutional speculators including corporate hedge funds. The financial meltdown has led to sizeable transfers of money wealth into the pockets of a handful of financial institutions.

Stage Three: Lockdown, Confinement, Closing Down of the Global Economy

The financial crash in February was immediately followed by the lockdown in early March. The lockdown and confinement supported by social engineering was instrumental in the restructuring of the global economy. Applied almost simultaneously in a large number countries, the lockdown has triggered the closing down of the national economy, coupled with the destabilization of trade, transport and investment activities.

The pandemic constitutes an act of economic warfare against humanity which has resulted in global poverty and mass unemployment.

Politicians are lying. Neither the lockdown nor the closing down of national economies constitute a solution to the public health crisis.

Who Controls the Politicians?

Why are politicians lying?

They are the political instruments of the financial establishment including the “Ultra-rich philanthropists”. Their task is to carry out the global economic restructuring project which consists in freezing economic activity Worldwide.

In the case of the Democrats in the US, they are largely concerned in opposing the reopening of the US economy as part of the 2020 election campaign. This opposition to reopening the national and global economies is supported by “Big Money”.

Is it opportunism or stupidity. In all major regions of the World, politicians have been instructed by powerful financial interests to retain the lockdown and prevent the re-opening of the national economy.

The fear campaign prevails. Social distancing is enforced. The economy is closed down. Totalitarian measures are being imposed. According to Dr. Pascal Sacré

… in some countries, patients can leave hospital by agreeing to wear an electronic bracelet. This is only a sample of all the totalitarian measures planned or even already decided by our governments in favor of the coronavirus crisis. It goes much further, it’s limitless and it affects a good part of the world, if not the whole world.
.

The “Herding Instincts” of Politicians

Are corrupt governments acting like “police dogs” with “herding instincts” going after their sheep.

Is “the herd” too scared to go after their “government”?

The analogy may be simplistic but nonetheless considered relevant by psychologists.

“Some breeds of dogs [corrupt politicians] have herding instincts that can be brought out with the right training and encouragement [bribes]. …. teach your dog [political proxy] basic obedience and see if it [he, she] displays herding tendencies. … Always look for a trainer who uses reward-based training methods [bribes, personal gain, political support, accession to high office]” (How to Teach Your Dog to Herd)

But there is another dimension. Politicians in high office responsible for “convincing their herd” actually believe the lies which are being imposed upon them by higher authority.

The lie becomes the truth. Politicians endorse the consensus, they enforce “social engineering”, they believe in their own lies.

It’s Not an Epidemic, It’s An Operation

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo (slip of the tongue) tacitly admits in a somewhat contradictory statement that the COVID-19 is a “Live Exercise”, an “Operation”:

“This is not about retribution,… This matter is going forward — we are in a live exercise here to get this right.”

To which president Trump retorted “you should have told us”.

Those words will go down in history.

Geopolitics

Let us be under no illusions, this is a carefully planned operation. There is nothing spontaneous or accidental. Economic recession is engineered at national and global levels. In turn, this crisis is also integrated into US-NATO military and intelligence planning. It is intent not only upon weakening China, Russia and Iran, it also consists in destabilizing the economic fabric of the European Union (EU).

“Global Governance”

A new stage in the evolution of global capitalism is unfolding. A system of “Global Governance” controlled by powerful financial interests including corporate foundations and Washington think tanks oversees decision-making at both the national and global levels. National governments become subordinate to “Global Governance”. The concept of World Government was raised by the late David Rockefeller at the Bilderberger Meeting, Baden Germany, June 1991:
.
“Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure, one world if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” (Ibid)

People do not question the consensus, a consensus which borders on the absurd.

Global Capitalism and “The Economic Landscape”

The crisis redefines the structure of the global economic landscape. It destabilizes small and medium sized enterprises Worldwide, it precipitates entire sectors of the global economy including air travel, tourism, retail trade, manufacturing, etc. into bankruptcy. The lockdown creates famine in developing countries. It has geopolitical implications.

The Pentagon and US intelligence are involved. The corona crisis affects to conduct of US-NATO led wars in the Middle East including Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan and Yemen. It is also used to target specific countries including Iran and Venezuela.

This engineered crisis is unprecedented in world history. It is an act of war.

The lockdown triggers a process of disengagement of human and material resources from the productive process. The real economy is brought to a standstill. Curtailing economic activity undermines the “reproduction of real life”. This not only pertains to the actual production of the “necessities of life” (food, health, education, housing) it also pertains to the “reproduction” of social relations, political institutions, culture, national identity. At the time of writing, the lockdown is not only triggering an economic crisis, it is also undermining and destroying the very fabric of civil society not to mention the nature of government and the institutions of the state (crippled by mounting debts), which will eventually be privatized under the supervision of Big Money creditors.

There are conflicts within the capitalist system which are rarely addressed by the mainstream media. Billionaires, powerful banking and financial institutions (which are creditors of both governments and corporations) are waging an undeclared war against the real economy. Whereas the Big Money financial and banking establishment are “creditors”, the corporate entities of the real economy which are being destabilized and driven into bankruptcy are “debtors”.

Bankruptcies

This diabolical process is not limited to wiping out small and medium sized enterprises. Big Money is also the creditor of large corporations (including airlines, hotel chains, hi tech labs, retailers, import-export firms, etc.) which are now on the verge of bankruptcy.

The global financial establishment is not monolithic. It is marked by divisions and rivalry. The dominant Big Money faction seeks to destabilize its competitors from within. The results of which would be a string of bankruptcies of regional and national banking institutions as well as a process of global financial consolidation.

In the US, numerous retailers, airlines, restaurant and hotel chains filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in February. But this is just the beginning. The big gush of bankruptcies will occur in the wake of the lockdown (“The New Normal”). And at the time of writing, the financial establishment is relentlessly pressuring (corrupt) national governments to postpone the lifting of the lockdown. And the governments are telling us that this is to “protect people against the virus”.

Canada’s province of Alberta which is largely dependent on oil revenues is bankrupt.

“Countries that represent over 50 per cent of the world’s global GDP are closed for business. Economists looking for historical comparisons mention the 1929 stock crash, the 1974 economic crisis or the 2008 recession. But they admit that these all fall short of the toll that this pandemic could have.” (Wired News UK, April 29, 2020

In Britain, recent reports state (It’s very British”) “we do not know how many have gone bankrupt”.

A chunk of Britain’s business landscape may have already been permanently erased, as some 21,000 more UK businesses collapsed in March alone than the same month a year ago, according to data gathered by the Enterprise Research Centre, a group of university researchers.

What these reports fail to mention are the unspoken causes: a fear campaign on behalf of the creditors, instructions by corrupt governments to close down the economy, allegedly to “save lives”, which is a big lie. Lives are not being saved, and they know it.

The coronavirus crisis “has ground U.S. business to a halt”. National economies are destabilized. The objective of Big Money is to weaken their competitors, “pick up the pieces” and eventually buy out or eliminate bankrupt corporations. And there are many to choose from.

Global Finance Capitalism

The interests of Big Money (global financial interests) overlap with those of Big Pharma, Big Oil, the Defense contractors, etc. Major banking institutions in the US including JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, State Street Co. and Goldman Sachs, are investing in the war economy including the development of nuclear weapons under Trump’s 1.2 trillion dollar nuclear weapons program (first established under Obama).

The ultimate objective of “Big Money” is to transform nation states (with their own institutions and a national economy) into “open economic territories”. That was the fate of Iraq and Afghanistan. But now you can do it without sending in troops, by simply ordering subservient proxy governments integrated by corrupt politicians to close down their economy on humanitarian grounds, the so-called “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) without the need for military intervention.

Impossible to estimate or evaluate. More than half the global economy is disrupted or at a standstill.

Let’s be clear. This is an imperial agenda. What do the global financial elites want? To privatize the State? To own and privatize the entire planet?

The tendency is towards the centralization and concentration of economic power. Heavily indebted national governments are instruments of Big Money. They are proxies. Key political appointments are controlled by lobby groups representing Wall Street, The Military Industrial Complex, Big Pharma, Big Oil, the Corporate Media and the Digital Communications Giants, etc.

Big Money in Europe and America (through Washington Lobby groups) seek to control national governments.

In what direction are we going? What is the future of humanity? The current corona crisis is a sophisticated imperial project, which consists in Worldwide domination by a handful of multibillion dollar conglomerates. Is this World War III? Global capitalism is destroying national capitalism.

The unspoken intent of global capitalism is the destruction of the nation state and its institutions leading to global poverty on an unprecedented scale.

The following citation by Lenin dated December 1915 at the height of the First World War pointed with foresight to some of the contradictions which we are presently facing. On the other hand, we should understand that there are no easy solutions and that this crisis is intended to reinforce imperialism and the clutch of global capitalism:

“There is no doubt that the development is going in the direction of a single World trust which will swallow up all enterprises and all states without exception. But the development in this direction is proceeding under such stress, with such a tempo, with such contradictions, conflicts and convulsions not only economical, but political national, etc. etc — that before a single world trust will be reached, before the respective financial national capitals will have formed a “World Union” of ultra imperialism, imperialism will explode and capitalism will turn into its opposite.

(V. I. Lenin, Introduction to Imperialism and World Economy by N, Bukharin, Martin Lawrence, London, printed in the US, Russian Edition, November 1917)

How to reverse the tide. The first priority is to repeal the lie.

In this regard, it is unfortunate that many people who are “progressive” (including prominent Left intellectuals) are –despite the lies– supportive of the lockdown and closing down of the economy as a solution to the public health emergency. That’s the stance of the Democratic Party in the US, which goes against common sense.

Truth is a powerful weapon for repealing the lies of the corporate media and the governments.

When the Lie Becomes the Truth There is No Moving Backwards

Without the fear campaign and media propaganda, the actions taken by our governments would not have a leg to stand on.

“Social Distancing” does not prevent the financial elites from providing instructions to corrupt politicians.

On the other hand, “social distancing” combined with confinement is being used as a means of social subordination. It prevents people from meeting as well as protesting this so-called New World Order.

Organization, Truth and Solidarity are essential to reversing the tide. The first step of a worldwide movement is “counter-propaganda”.

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.

16 May 2020

Source: www.globalresearch.ca

By Jafar M Ramini

Today, May 15th, is the 72nd anniversary of the Palestinian Nakba (Catastrophe) and counting. I say ‘and counting’ because the theft of our land, the occupation, the siege on Gaza, the disposition of our people, the ethnic cleansing of Palestine and replacement of the Palestinian nation with Jews with dual nationality from around the world continues more aggressively than ever. So does the building of illegal settlements to house those interlopers. They too are still going apace with no end in sight.

And I haven’t even got around to mentioning the Israeli prisons which are full of Palestinian men, women and children, tortured and held in disgusting conditions without charge or legal recourse.

In the last 72 years there were many attempts to settle the so-called Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Yet, to put it in those terms is misleading. A conflict is between two opposing powers and their armies. Israel has the power, has the army, has the airforce, has the navy. Not to mention three hundred nuclear heads. The Palestinians have none of these. So how can we call it a conflict?

It is genocide. It was designed to ethnically cleanse all of Palestine and turn it into a state for Jews only, as per the nation state bill that was passed two years ago, which emphatically states that the right of self-determination in Israel is exclusively a Jewish prerogative.

There you have it. Black and white. This ethnic cleansing and theft of land and expansion are all official Israeli policy. This is not new. This is how the Zionist terrorist organisations operated in Palestine during the British mandate of 1922 -1948. They embarked on a policy of murder of innocent Palestinian men, women and children while the British forces looked the other way in some instances and actively encouraged it in others. Yet all of this was just a starter for a much more ambitious, well-planned and financed project of the Greater Israel.

First: Conquer Palestine. Get rid of the Palestinians, or corral them in bins euphemistically referred to as ‘cantons’ and keep them on a strictly limited diet and under tight military rule.

Second: Present to the world that Jews are the only victims and Israelis are the biggest victims of all.

Third: Blackmail friends and allies to support Israeli ambitions come what may. Steal their technology. Kill their sailors. Blame it on others. Those who do not submit, smear them as ‘anti-semitic’.

This is how Mr Benjamin Netnayahu, has kept his grip on power since the 1990s. He has lied, he has waged wars, he has inflicted more death and suffering on the Palestinians and he has pretended to make peace. What he was actually trying to do, and is still trying to do is establish a legacy as the man who put the Greater Israel project on a higher level than any other leader before him.

The opposition to his rule in Israel is minimal. His popularity with the Israeli people is higher than any other leader ever and when it comes to the Trump family, at present ruling the USA ,he is just one of the family. Mr Trump will grant his every wish. First, he rewarded Netanyahu and the Jewish lobby in America with his declaration that Jerusalem was the eternal capital of the Jewish people. He also declared that Israel could enforce its sovereignty on the occupied Syrian Golan Heights. All against the rule of international law and past UN resolutions.

He then kicked out the PLO representative in Washington. But that wasn’t enough for Mr Netanyahu. So Trump went one step further by depriving the Palestinian Authority of much needed funds and demonising the UN Refugees and Works Agency, UNRWA by insisting that there were no such thing as Palestinian refugees. Consequently a lifeline of vital food, health and education for 5 million Palestinian refugees was put in jeopardy.

You’d think that would be enough. Israel has got its wish. Palestine no longer exists, other than in name, although even that is denied by many Israelis. But no, Mr Netanyahu, the arch manipulator who was indicted on charges of bribery, fraud and breach of trust, found another escape route. He went to his benefactors, the Trump Administration, and started yet another assault on the Palestinian people. The so-called ‘Deal Of The Century’.

This was a deal that totally ignored the Palestinians and catered, as usual, to the demands of Mr Netanyahu and his cronies in Washington.

The Palestinian leadership could only reject it. What else could they do? They have no power to speak of on the ground. They have no influence and no cards to play in the corridors of power in Washington, London, Paris or any other western capital and they are, most importantly, divided amongst themselves and have been publicly abandoned by their supposed brethren in the Arab world.

Despite 25 years of unproductive ‘peace’ negotiations and despite the relentless expansionist policies of the Israeli government the Palestinian leaders, the world leaders and the UN still do believe that a two-state solution is the only way forward.

Enter Mr Netanyahu and his new partner in crime, General Gantz with a new idea and a new government based solely on the total annexation of the illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank and the entire Jordan Valley. In a normal world with ordinary, fair-minded people in charge this would be seen for what it is. Blatant theft. Blatant misuse of power and flagrant disregard for the rule of law. Nothing of the sort. Europe, as per usual, offered lukewarm rejection, but the people who matter, i.e.the United States of America gave it their tacit approval. In the words of Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, “As for the annexation of the West Bank, the Israelis will ultimately make those decisions,” he told reporters. “That’s an Israeli decision.”

To reaffirm the Trump Administration’s total devotion to the survival and continuation of Mr Netanyahu’s career Mr Pompeo, ignoring any health risk in quarantined Israel against the Corona virus, was in Tel Aviv two days ago. He was there to make it clear that in this year of the American elections, to the Trump Administration only Israel matters.

The chosen one to facilitate this latest annexation process is none other than American Ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, an ultra-nationalist, settlement supporter and religious zealot and rejectionist of the two-state solution. Yet this is the person who is deciding where the future border will be between Greater Israel and the remaining, already lacerated West Bank.

Thankfully, not all American presidents are Trump clones. Jimmy Carter, former president of the USA and author of ‘Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid’ has spoken firmly against this blatant flouting of international law.

“If the joint mapping of Palestinian lands to be seized by the Israeli government continues, the standing of the United States in the international community will be further damaged. The West Bank belongs to Palestine, and any changes should be mutually agreed upon.”

In the name of fairness there was one dissenting Jewish, Zionist, right-wing voice who was against this idea of annexation. Not because it is illegal. Not because he has sympathies with the plight of the Palestinians. Not because he is anti Israel. On the contrary, his dissent was based on racist condescension. The man I am referring to is Daniel Pipes, president of something called ‘The Middle East Forum’ and a well-known supporter of Israel. Mr Pipes gave six reasons why he would be against such a move. But the one I have chosen for you, my readers, is the last and I believe the only true one.

“Annexation would be likely to make more Palestinians eligible to become citizens of Israel.”

Dear God. Palestinian citizens of anywhere?
Heaven forbid!

Jafar M Ramini is a Palestinian writer and political analyst.

15 May 2020

Source: countercurrents.org

By Rima Najjar

To me, an American-Palestinian, the world tainted by the corona virus is analogous to Israel tainted by the evil it contains.

Every day for the past few days, I have been listening to New York Governor Cuomo give his daily briefing on the virus. His words resonate with me eerily transforming themselves to advice on how to handle Israel’s cruel manifestation in Palestine as a Zionist Jewish apartheid colonial state. As talk of “re-opening” the New York increases in volume, so does my feverish imagination.

For those who don’t know, the Arabic word “Fateh” [فتح], the name of the Palestinian National Liberation Movement, which is the political bloc now dominating the Palestinian Authority in the occupied West Bank, means “opening”. It also carries the meaning of “conquering”. What’s more, “Fateh” and “key” [مفتاح], that profoundly indicative word of Palestinian longing for return, have the same linguistic root in Arabic. Hence, all these unbidden associations in my mind as I listen to Cuomo.

Every day, I wait for Cuomo’s briefing impatiently and watch while perched, tense and hyper-alert, at the edge of my seat, mesmerized by the shifting lines of his charts that, I swear, often morph into the outline of the map of Palestine.

My mind automatically sucks in Cuomo’s words and echoes them back at the TV in an altered form. I am Muslim, but the dynamic gripping me is one akin to the relationship between a pastor and his congregation at a black church. Cuomo calls and I respond, sometimes aloud. I hold back from hollering and shouting at his image, so as not to scare my family.

I take in every word of his sane, hopeful message — facts, not “facts on the ground”; science, not myths; let’s learn from our mistakes. Yes!

I translate his sentences into something else, like this: After decades of land theft, when will Palestinians be finally in control of their destiny and not subject to the whims of Israel and the international community? You tell me how Israel behaves today; I will tell you how Palestinians will be resisting a year from now.

The Zionist virus that is the Jewish state of Israel has yet to be stamped out. Hot-spot outbreaks have been with us since the Nakba of 1948. Currently, they are in the form of Israel’s horrifying annexation of parts of the West Bank, preying on the most vulnerable of peoples. We need to look for solutions that make things better for the Palestinian people. We need to reimagine the status quo and pose such a solution.

“In the first phase, we had to figure out what we are dealing with because we had no idea.” Yes, we had no idea — just intimations of unbelievable cruelty and diabolical greed! In 1947–48, we really had little idea. Remember, Palestine was 80% agrarian then — not the sophisticated community of Basle, Switzerland, where the plot for our dispossession was hatched at the First Zionist Conference in 1897.

“In the first phase, stabilize, control the damage,” says Cuomo. It turns out the key (here is that word again!) is information.

“I worked hard every day to make sure they knew the facts. ‘Trust the people’ — Lincoln, right? An informed public will keep this country safe. True, and that’s exactly what happened here,” Cuomo continues.

Funny Cuomo should say that, because, just the other day, a Palestinian friend on Facebook, Imad Jibawi, was saying something similar. He was commenting on a Zoom discussion I had posted titled “What do we do now?” conducted by Hani al-Masri, Director General of Masarat — The Palestinian Center for Policy Research & Strategic Studies (Masri is also a Policy Advisor for Al-Shabaka).

Imad Jibawi wondered:

“What is it that would drive the Palestinian people to the streets to protest by the thousands? Is it the annexation of Jerusalem? No; is it annexation of the Jordan Valley? No; is it Israel’s new settlements, then? No.

Why is that so?

I think the answer is in the question: Who is it mainly that we expect to take to the streets? They are those who are primarily under 30 — i.e., the Oslo generation.

These Palestinians were born and brought up in the reality of the Palestinian Authority, a government, ministries, VIPs, jobs, loans, etc.

[Preserving that] has been the national project for which our people sacrificed for years. People’s very livelihoods are now the red lines, holding them back. Their concerns are the teachers’ movement, the social security movement, the “we want to live” movement.

The question that concerns the political class as a whole is this: What next? What to do? The answer is: We start with our ABCs all over again. The first lesson is: Who are the Palestinians? What are the borders of the homeland of Palestine? The second lesson is: Who is our enemy? And what do we want?

Wanted: a new national awareness ….” [my translation from Arabic]

But then, as I continued to listen to Cuomo, I realized that, even though he and Jibawi are appealing to people to act collectively in their best interests by looking to themselves, rather than to their governments, there is a fundamental difference.

Cuomo is invoking security of health, family and livelihood as a raison d’etre for a certain set of collective behaviors, whereas what Jibawi is pushing for, necessarily given the Palestinian condition, is a revolutionary national consciousness that calls for a sacrifice of the very same things Cuomo is protecting for New Yorkers.

To Jibawi, the ideal of home and hearth (job security, health care, education, etc., as provided currently by the Palestinian Authority and the Oslo regime) must be superseded by the ideal of liberty, justice and equality for a people under occupation, who have escaped Israel’s genocide so far, but who continue to be dispossessed, brutally subjugated and oppressed by a vicious, powerful judeo-fascist entity and its allies.

Cuomo says, “I don’t know when government became so political. It all became about rhetoric rather than actual competence, but it happened somewhere along the way that government could not handle the situation. People had to get engaged; people had to be informed and that’s the new thing I did. They got engaged because it mattered — this is not an abstract issue we are talking about people’s lives and people’s health and the health of their children.”

They’ll get engaged, because it matters. For both Palestinians and New Yorkers, these are not abstract issues. Far from it. In our case, all you have to do to realize the concreteness is to tune in to the daily news of thievery and savagery in their myriad forms the Israeli regime inflicts on the Palestinian people.

Many ask, if not the Palestinian Authority, if not the status quo of self-government for the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, what then? My answer is this: First, hard as it is for many, we must find the will and steadfastness to effect an insurrection to continue the interrupted Palestinian revolution, returning to the political and community structures that sprang up to further the first intifada. We need a supreme manifestation of popular resistance against both the Palestinian Authority and Israel in all of occupied Palestine from the river to the sea with aid from Palestinians in exile.

Cuomo is right! “No government can impose any of these things … Stay in the house. Close every school. Close every bus. State government can’t enforce that. People had to understand the facts people had to engage in governing themselves in a way they hadn’t in decades … We are tough, smart, united, disciplined and loving” — even if our governments aren’t. We are samidoun.

Amen to that! Hallelujah!

Rima Najjar is a Palestinian whose father’s side of the family comes from the forcibly depopulated village of Lifta on the western outskirts of Jerusalem.

13 May 2020

Source: countercurrents.org

By Javeed Ahmad Raina

India is the cradle of the human race, the birthplace of human speech, the mother of history, the grandmother of legend, and the great-grandmother of tradition…Mark Twain

India has ever been the land of peace and harmony. It has been a heaven for co-existence, brotherhood and religious tolerance. The country managed to sustain secular values in the face of striking, ethnic, linguistic and religious diversity. The country is well-known for vibrant democracy, independent judiciary, rich literature, secular ethos and cultural diversity. Historians, poets and travelogue writers have frequently praised this ancient land of mystic majesty. The American born poet T. S Eliot calls India as the land of “Shantih (Peace)”. He saw hope and re-generation in the Indian culture amidst the barbarism and disillusionment of the modern West. Similarly, the German poet Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe, in his collection of lyric poems, West-Eastern Diwan, expresses disdain towards the spiritual bankruptcy of the West and believes that the East is the seat of spiritual power. The spirit of Eastern culture was best represented by India.

These secular principles were further preserved by the country’s constitution. The modern constitution of free India promoted compassion and self-control, because it believes that everyone was one with each other, and therefore, everyone should share and help in each other. The very idea of India invoked in the constitution is one of secularism, freedom and sagacity. It is due to these ideals that the Indian constitution does not insist on a single language or religion but embraces diversity of languages, cultures and customs. It was due to these distinctive features that various regions liberally aligned with the main domain of India.

But, over the course of time, the beautiful soul of India has been defaced. The land has been battered by a tsunami of religious hatred. The country is lamenting on the loss of its soul. The very word, India, has come to represent repression of marginal sections- Muslims, Christians and Dalits. Even, the ordinary Indians have serious reservations with the idea of new majoritarian India. The transformation of a great democracy into seemingly anarchy and apathy should be a grave concern for all of us. This un-wanted transition has not only disfigured the image of country, it has also fractured the muti-cultural heritage of the nation. The land which used to attract people from diverse faiths has turned into the land of despair.

The multicultural heritage of the country is slowly losing a common ground that used to hold different ethnic communities together. The harmony that once existed between different communities, regardless of the religious differences has been torn apart. The feelings of goodwill and pride towards the motherland are now replaced with bitterness and contempt. The very land once used to stand as a rock for communal harmony, a gathering of everything and everybody, but now it provokes the feelings of disgust and dissatisfaction in the saner voices. The historians no longer record the famous legends of the country. They have no means to do so, because the very land is in lament for the loss of its incredible inclusiveness.

The beautiful soul of the country is tormented by the unruly collaborators- despotic leaders, sellout media and ultra nationalists. The sheer egoism of politicians, the deceptive mass media and the self-serving regimes have collectively betrayed the nation. They have manipulated and misguided the masses. They, re-write history, impose majoritarian ideology, erode identity and enforce vilifying narratives. They, in the long process cultured a class of people who exclude everything from their exclusive design, including those very Indian in colour and blood. In all these years, the mainstream media in particular acted as the right arm of tyranny by enforcing majoritarian ideology. The vibrant democracy is fast shrinking in the direction of Hobbes’ leviathan, the rule by absolute sovereign. The land of Saints and Sufi’s has slowly changed into the land of religious extremism. This land does not inspire us anymore; this land only inspires lament and dirges!

Postscript: India is not, as people keep calling it, an underdeveloped country, but rather, in the context of its history and cultural heritage, a highly developed one in an advanced state of decay. Shashi Tharoor

Javeed Ahmad Raina is a school teacher and can be mailed at: javeedahmadraina44@gmail.com

14 May 2020

Source: countercurrents.org

By Dr Ramzy Baroud

‘Heinous racism,’ is how the Geneva-based Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor described a recent decision by Lebanese authorities to bar Palestinian refugee expats from returning to Lebanon.

Lebanon’s restrictions on its ever-diminishing population of Palestinian refugees is nothing new. However, this event is particularly alarming as it may be linked to a long-term official policy regarding the residency status of Palestinian refugees in this Arab country.

Many were taken aback by a recent Lebanese government’s order to its embassy in the United Arab Emirates, instructing it to prevent Palestinian refugees from returning to their homes in Lebanon.

Tariq Hajjar, a legal advisor to the Euro-Med Monitor said in a statement that “the circular includes heinous racial discrimination against Palestinian refugees holding Lebanese travel documents.”

Hajjar rightly insisted that “the holder of this document should receive similar treatment to the Lebanese citizen.”

Indeed they should, as has been the practice for many years. Otherwise, there is no other place where these refugees can possibly go, considering that Lebanon has been their home for decades, starting in 1948 when Israel forcefully expelled nearly a million Palestinians from their historic homeland.

Refugees, regardless of their race, ethnicity or religion, should be treated with respect and dignity, no matter the political complexity of their host countries. Palestinian refugees in Lebanon cannot be made an exception.

Last April, the Palestinian Association for Human Rights called on the United Nations to provide financial assistance to Lebanon’s Palestinian refugees, indicating that due to the coronavirus pandemic, a whopping 90 percent of all Palestinian refugees in Lebanon have lost their jobs.

Under discriminatory Lebanese laws, Palestinian refugees are not allowed to practice 72 types of jobs that are available to Lebanese nationals. This is merely one of many other such restrictions. Thus, employed Palestinian refugees in Lebanon (the vast majority of whom are now unemployed) have been competing within a very limited work market.

A large number of those refugees have been employed at the various projects operated by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA).

Many of those who were lucky enough to receive university degrees opted to leave the country altogether, mostly working in the teaching, engineering, banking, and medical sectors in Arab Gulf countries.

However, due to the coronavirus, the severe financial hardship suffered by UNRWA and to new Lebanese government regulations, all doors are now being shut in the face of Palestinian refugees.

For thousands of those refugees, the only remaining option is sailing the high seas in search for a better refugee status in Europe. Yet, sadly, tens of thousands of those refugees are now living a miserable life in European camps, or stranded in Turkey. Hundreds drowned while undertaking these perilous journeys.

According to a recent survey by the Lebanese Central Administration of Statistics, conducted jointly with the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, only 175,000 (from nearly half a million) Palestinian refugees still reside in Lebanon.

That said, the Palestinian refugee tragedy in Lebanon is only a facet in a much larger ailment that is unique to the Palestinian refugee experience.

Syria’s Palestinian refugees arrived in the country in waves, starting with the Zionist ethnic cleansing of Palestine during the ‘Nakba’, or Catastrophe. Others fled the Golan Heights after the Israeli invasion in 1967. Many more fled Lebanon during the Israeli 1982 invasion.

The relatively safe Syrian haven was ruptured during the ongoing Syria war started in 2011. UNRWA’s mission, which allowed it to provide the nearly half a million Palestinian refugees in Syria with direct support was made nearly impossible because of the destructive war, and the fact that hundreds of thousands of Palestinians either fled the country or became internally displaced.

The devastating impact of the Syrian war on Palestinian refugees was almost an exact copy of what had transpired earlier during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 and the American invasion of Iraq in 2003.

In the case of Iraq, where most of the country’s 35,000 refugees fled, the Palestinian refugee crisis was particularly compounded. While Palestinians enjoyed a permanent residence status (though no ownership rights) in Iraq before the war, they were still not recognized as refugees as per international standards, since UNRWA does not operate in Iraq. Post-2003 Iraqi governments exploited this fact to the fullest, leading to the displacement the country’s Palestinian population.

Since its advent, the US Administration of President Donald Trump has waged a financial war on the Palestinians, including the cutting of all aids to UNRWA. This infamous act has added layers of suffering to the existing hardships of refugees.

On May 5, UNRWA, somberly declared that it only has enough cash to sustain its operations until the end of the month.

The truth is that, long before Trump targeted the UN agency, UNRWA has functioned for over 70 years with an inherent vulnerability.

UNRWA was established exclusively with a UN mandate that provided the organization with a “separate and special status” to assist Palestinian refugees.

Arab governments, at the time, were keen for UNRWA to maintain this ‘special status’ based on their belief that lumping Palestinian refugees with the burgeoning world refugee crisis (resulting mostly from War World II) would downgrade the urgency of the Palestinian plight.

However, while that logic may have applied successfully in the immediate years following the ‘Nakba’, it proved costly in later years, as the status and definition of what constitute a Palestinian refugee remained historically linked to UNRWA’s scope of operations.

This became clear during the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, but, especially, since the start of political upheavals and subsequent wars in the Middle East in the last decade.

This is precisely why the US and Israel are keen on dismantling UNRWA, because, according to their logic, if UNRWA ceases to operate, the Palestinian refugee ceases to exist with any status that makes him/her unique.

Such precarious reality calls for an urgent and creative solution that should be spearheaded by Arab countries, UN-registered NGOs, and friends of Palestine everywhere.

What is needed today is a UN-adopted formula that would allow the legal status of Palestinian refugees under international law to remain active regardless of UNRWA’s scope of operation, while providing Palestinian refugees with the material and financial support required for them to live with dignity until the Right of Return, in accordance to UN Resolution 194 of 1948, is finally enforced.

For the rights of Palestinian refugees to be maintained and for the Lebanon, Iraq, and Syria scenarios not to be repeated, the Arab League must work within the framework of international law – as determined by the UN General Assembly – to safeguard the Palestinian refugees’ legal status which is currently under an unprecedented attack.

Palestinian refugees must not have to choose between forfeiting their legal and unalienable right in their own homeland and accepting a life of perpetual degradation and uncertainty.

Ramzy Baroud is a journalist and the Editor of The Palestine Chronicle.

14 May 2020

Source: countercurrents.org

By Countercurrents Collective

The world’s nuclear powers are increasingly streaming money into their nuclear arsenals, and the U.S. is leading the trend, says a new report.

The U.S. has also exited a major arms control treaty and deployed a new tactical weapon.

The report – Enough is Enough: 2019 Global Nuclear Weapons Spending (May 2020) – by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) said: Nine nuclear-armed nations spent an estimated $72.9 billion on their 13,000-plus atomic weapons in 2019. At $35.4 billion in spending, the U.S. accounts for nearly half the global total.

The ICAN pointed out, all this money spent for nuclear armaments have done nothing to protect any of these countries from Covid-19.

“It’s clear now more than ever that nuclear weapons do not provide security for the world in the midst of a global pandemic, particularly when there are documented deficits of healthcare supplies and exhausted medical professionals,” said Alicia Sanders-Zakre, the lead author of the report.

The ICAN estimates that the nine nuclear-armed countries’ nuclear spending in 2019, equals $138,699 every minute of 2019, and a $7.1 billion increase from 2018.

The report said:

These estimates (rounded to one decimal point) include nuclear warhead and nuclear-capable delivery systems operating costs and development where these expenditures are publically available and are based on a reasonable percentage of total military spending on nuclear weapons when more detailed budget data is not available.

The ICAN has urged all nuclear-armed states to be transparent about nuclear weapons expenditures to allow for more accurate reporting on global nuclear expenditures and better government accountability.

It said:

Due to lack of reliable and consistent information, these estimates do not include the costs to remediate the environment contaminated by nuclear weapons or to compensate victims of nuclear weapon use and testing, although these are also important markers of the added financial and human cost of nuclear weapons.

A 2011 Global Zero cost estimate, which added “unpaid/deferred environmental and health costs, missile defenses assigned to defend against nuclear weapons, nuclear threat reduction and incident management” found that this “full” cost of global nuclear arsenals was over 50% higher than just the cost of nuclear weapons system maintenance and development.

U.S.: $35.4 billion

The report said:

The United States has 5,800 nuclear weapons, which it can launch from land-based missiles, submarines and aircraft. The Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and the Department of Defense divide responsibilities for the nation’s nuclear weapons. The NNSA is responsible for the research, development, production and dismantlement of the nuclear warheads themselves, while the Department of Defense manages the development of warhead delivery systems, such as missiles, aircraft, and submarines. The Department of Defense also manages the deployment of nuclear weapons once they are fully produced. This figure combines Department of Defense and NNSA enacted funding for nuclear weapons in 2019. NNSA spent $11.1 billion in 2019 on weapons activities. The Defense Department requested $24 billion for nuclear weapons systems in fiscal year 2019, including $11 billion for nuclear force sustainment and operations, $7 billion for replacement programs, and $6 billion for nuclear command, control, and communications. Congress added another $319 million to the Defense Department’s request in the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act, bringing enacted Defense Department spending on nuclear weapons to $24.3 billion. Adding $11.1 billion to $24.3 billion results in a total of $35.4 billion spent on nuclear weapons in the United States in 2019. This is roughly five per cent of total U.S. military spending in 2019. The United States spent $67,352 every minute of 2019 on nuclear weapons. The United States spent $29.6 billion in 2018 on nuclear weapons, $19 billion requested for the Department of Defense and $10.6 billion enacted for the NNSA.

China: $10.4 billion

The report said:

China has 320 nuclear weapons and can launch nuclear weapons from land-based missiles, aircraft and submarines.

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) estimated that in 2019 China spent $261.082 billion on military expenditures. Four per cent of $261.082 billion is $10.4 billion, our estimate for Chinese nuclear spending in 2019. This means China spent $19,786 every minute of 2019 on nuclear weapons. Based on this methodology, China spent $10 billion in 2018 on nuclear weapons.

UK: $8.9 billion

The report said:

The United Kingdom (UK) has 195 nuclear weapons, which it can launch from submarines. It cooperates closely with the United States to produce its nuclear warheads and loans its Trident II (D-5) submarine-launched ballistic missiles from the United States. Its primary nuclear weapon costs, therefore, consist of nuclear operating costs and the development of the Dreadnought-class submarine to replace its current Vanguard-class nuclear submarine. A 2016 Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament report calculated that the overall cost to replace the UK nuclear submarine program will be £205 billion.

A 2018 BASIC report calculated that annual UK nuclear operating costs are £2 billion and reported that the United Kingdom is scheduled to spend £5.2 billion on its Dreadnought development program from 2018-2019. The Dreadnought program costs include£1.8 billion for the submarines, £1.4 billion for the missiles and warheads, £790 million for propulsion systems and £220 million in management costs. There is little public information about what is included in £2 billion operating costs for the UK nuclear arsenal. Adding those two components together leads to an estimated £7.2 billion spent on nuclear weapons in the United Kingdom in 2019, or $8.9 billion. £7.2 billion is 19 per cent of 2019 United Kingdom defense spending, estimated at £38.093 billion. This means the United Kingdom spent $16,933 every minute on nuclear weapons in 2019. Based on this methodology, the UK also spent about $8.9 billion in 2018 on nuclear weapons.

Russia: $8.5 billion

Russia has 6,370 nuclear weapons, which it can launch from land-based missiles, submarines and aircraft. A 2018 SIPRI report found that Russian spending to maintain and develop new nuclear warheads and delivery systems has in recent years (in 2010 and 2016) cost about 13 per cent of total defense expenditures. SIPRI estimated Russian nuclear spending at $65.103 billion in 2019. 13 percent of $65.103 billion is $8.5 billion, our estimate for Russian nuclear spending in 2019. This means Russia spent $16,172 every minute on nuclear weapons in 2019. Based on this methodology, Russia spent $8 billion in 2018 on nuclear weapons.

France: $4.8 billion

France has 290 nuclear weapons and can launch nuclear weapons from aircraft and submarines. The 2019 French military programming law allocated €4.45 billion for “dissuasion” or nuclear deterrence. The law does not break down the costs within this line item, but does state that it includes the annual costs for French nuclear warheads, modernization of its nuclear-capable cruise missiles, submarine-launched missiles and submarines. Notably not included in the deterrence budget are costs associated with the Rafale aircraft, which can be used to launch nuclear weapons. Given that these costs are not publicly available, our estimate assumes that the deterrence budget covers the bulk of French nuclear spending and does not include the costs of the Rafale. €4.45 billion converted to USD is $4.8 billion. France spent roughly 15 per cent of its total military budget (€30.249 billion) on nuclear weapons in 2019.11 This means France spent $9,132 on nuclear weapons every minute in 2019. France spent €4.04 billion ($4.4 billion) in 2018 on nuclear weapons.

India: $2.3 billion

The report said:

India is estimated to have 150 nuclear weapons, can launch nuclear weapons from land-based missiles and likely from aircraft, and is developing a submarine-launched nuclear capability. While little is known about Indian nuclear weapon spending, a October 2016 Stimson Center report shed some light on Indian nuclear spending by looking at parliamentary oversight documents and creating a methodology to calculate annual spending on nuclear weapons. The report notes that a 2016 Indian parliamentary report stated that India spent 46% of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO)’s budget on its nuclear-capable delivery systems. Given that about half of the U.S. nuclear budget goes to nuclear delivery systems, the Stimson Center report assumed that India’s total nuclear spending would be about twice what it spent on nuclear-capable delivery systems. ICAN’s research thus followed the Stimson Center’s methodology by taking 46% of the 2019-2020 DRDO budget (19,021.02 crore Indian rupees) to get 8749.669 crore Indian rupees and doubling it to reach 17,499.3384 crore Indian rupees. A crore is 10 million, so 17,499 crore is 174.990 billion Indian rupees. Converted into USD this total is $2.3 billion, our estimate for Indian nuclear spending in 2019. This is roughly three per cent of the $71.125 billion India spent on its military in 2019. India spent $4,376 every minute of 2019 on nuclear weapons. Based on this methodology, India spent $2.1 billion in 2018 on nuclear weapons.

Pakistan: $1 billion

The report said:

Pakistan is estimated to have 160 nuclear weapons and can launch them from land-based missiles and aircraft and is developing the ability to launch them from submarines. Analysts in the past decade have estimated that Pakistan spends about ten per cent of its total military spending on its nuclear arsenal, which appeared to be confirmed by a parliamentary report in 2016 revealing that Pakistan spent 9.8 per cent of its official military budget on nuclear weapons that year. Ten per cent of Pakistan’s 2019 military spending ($10.256 billion) is $1 billion, our estimate for Pakistani nuclear spending in 2019. This means Pakistan spent $1,903 spent every minute on nuclear weapons in 2019. Based on this methodology, Pakistan spent $1.2 billion in 2018 on nuclear weapons.

Israel: $1 billion

The report said:

Israel is estimated to have 90 nuclear weapons and is believed to be able to launch nuclear weapons from land-based missiles, submarines and aircraft. There is no reliable public information about Israeli nuclear spending, given that it publicly denies possessing nuclear weapons. Therefore, ICAN used an average percentage (five per cent) of what nuclear-armed countries spend on nuclear weapons out of total military spending. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute estimated that in 2019 Israel spent $20.465 billion on its military. Five per cent of $20.465 billion is 1 billion, our estimate for Israeli nuclear spending in 2019. This means Israel spent $1,903 every minute on nuclear weapons in 2019. Based on this methodology, Israel spent $1 billion in 2018 on nuclear weapons.

The report’s Conclusion part said:

“The nuclear-armed states spent nearly three-quarters of one hundred billion dollars in 2019 on building and maintaining nuclear warheads and delivery systems. The incalculable human and environmental costs of nuclear weapons only add to this shocking figure. From 2018 to 2019, there was an estimated $7.1 billion increase in nuclear weapon spending, and these totals will only continue to rise in the next decade according to documented nuclear weapon programs and budgets in several nuclear-armed countries.

“Nuclear weapon spending is always a choice, and an opportunity cost.”

The report questioned:

“Will citizens and leaders choose to continue to throw away $73 billion on nuclear weapons, or will they join the majority of the world’s countries in choosing to ban these weapons of mass destruction all together?

According to the latest figures from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), the U.S. contributed the lion’s share of the world’s $7.1 billion increase in nuclear expenditures between 2018 and 2019, with $5.8 billion in additional spending. This is actually higher than the U.S. share of global military spending, which amounted to 38 percent in 2019.

According to ICAN’s report Russia, which ICAN estimated had more warheads than the U.S., spent $8.5 billion on them in 2019. Russia’s spending is a quarter of the nuclear expenditure by the U.S. Russia is trailing China ($10.5 billion) and the UK ($8.9 billion).

Alarmed by U.S. efforts to bolster its nuclear arsenal, some experts in China have called for a drastic nuclear build-up of their own, in order to pressure the U.S. to the negotiating table.

Fears of medium-range ballistic missiles in Europe triggering a global nuclear war led to the 1987 INF arms control treaty, which banned such weapons from the continent – but U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration exited the treaty last year. Officially, the U.S. claimed Russia had been violating the treaty, but the U.S. provided no evidence in support of the claim. U.S. officials further argued the INF was obsolete anyway, because it did not apply to other nuclear powers, such as China.

Earlier this year, the U.S. Navy fielded new low-yield warheads for submarine-launched missiles, arguing in a series of position papers that this made nuclear war less likely because it would inject uncertainty into Russian efforts to “escalate to deescalate,” a concept apparently based not in actual Russian doctrine but in Western Cold War-era military fiction.

While ICAN noted that their figures are estimates based on a consistent methodology, the true cost of nuclear weapons would have to include the expenses of compensating the victims of testing and cleaning up the environmental contamination.

14 May 2020

Source: countercurrents.org

By Sam Bahour

Anyone following the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is sitting on the edge of their seat waiting to see if the new Israeli coalition government currently being formed will act on the green light the Trump administration has given it for additional acts of annexation of parts of the West Bank. Another act of annexation or not, Israel has already lost.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s 16-hour trip to Israel last week raised red flags for some. Could it be that the Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, drunk on power and impunity, was taking Trump’s “Deal of the Century” and implementing it faster than the U.S. administration desires? Clearly, the world did not buy any part of Trump’s “Peace to Prosperity” fiasco — not the Palestinians, not the Arab states, not the EU, and not many Israelis and devoted supporters of Israel as well.

The New York Times’ David M. Halbfinger and Lara Jakes reported that “If the United States, with President Trump’s peace proposal, gave Mr. Netanyahu a green light on annexation, it may have now changed to yellow.” They went on to note that “A key, officials and experts said, was in the timing. [Pompeo’s trip] came on the eve of Israel’s seating its new government, one that appears divided over the immediacy of annexing about 30 percent of the occupied West Bank.”

Big words
From the Palestinian side, Prime Minister Mohammad Shtayyeh said that President Mahmoud Abbas will chair a meeting of the leadership on Saturday to take the appropriate decision.” Speaking about the new Israeli government about to be sworn in Shtayyeh said, “we will listen to its political program that calls for annexation of Palestinian lands and the imposition of [Israeli] sovereignty over the settlements.” The assumption here being if such a political program is announced the Palestinians will act without waiting until July 1, the date the Israeli coalition parties agreed to before implementing further annexation.

Such bravado statements have become commonplace in Palestine, but this time around the Palestinian public’s feeling is that the Palestinian leadership is finally acknowledging that it has reached the end of the Oslo Accords rope and may be in a hurry to finally act, so as not to be hung by that rope once Israel formally lets go.

The European Union, that underwrote most of the past 25 years of U.S. failures in the Middle East Peace Process, is also up in arms about Israel’s possible annexation moves. Hugh Lovatt, a policy fellow with the Middle East and North Africa programme at the European Council on Foreign Relations, wrote “West Bank annexation will bring an end to the EU’s cherished two-state solution. International norms and the EU’s own laws will now need to underpin post-annexation relations with Israel.” He goes on noting that, “Annexation — whether it starts with one settlement block or most of Area C — will cross a threshold which will be almost impossible to reverse back on. The full repercussions that such a move will trigger may be slow in coming, but they are real. This will challenge EU credibility and relevance. It will also undermine the fundamentals of the international rules-based order — in particular, the prohibition on the acquisition of territory through force.” He speculates that post-annexation, “Palestinians [will] live under an increasingly explicit system of apartheid.” It is no wonder that the EU, for the first time, is speaking about possible economic sanctions on Israel if they proceed with any form of annexation.

So what?
Whether it is a political survival tactic of a Palestinian leadership fearing total irrelevance, the EU’s supreme concern with being compliant with their own laws, or pro-Israel organizations and many Israelis who are shocked that their hollow motto of an Israel that is “Jewish and democratic” is rapidly unraveling for all to see, they all miss the point. It is past time that all stakeholders take note that the Palestinian struggle for freedom, independence and return home of refugees are the issues. Until these are addressed head-on for the just case they constitute, the conflict will not end. If annexation happens, yet again, it makes sense for Palestinians to remain on track in their long-haul struggle and not play into the U.S.-Israel annexation game. Other than the U.S., a longtime accomplice in this ongoing crime against Palestinians, no other meaningful country will recognize Israeli annexation.

Cornered
In his full-court press to stay out of jail on the three corruption indictments Netanyahu he is facing, he is taking Israel down a very deep hole, one they may never exit. If annexation proceeds, as most expect it will, albeit incrementally as is Israel’s trademark, its rogue status around the world will continue to deepen in places unexpected — think Jordan, Egypt, and EU. Worse yet, for Israel, is its flagrant racism, structural discrimination, and blatant disregard for a rules-based world will be publicly visible for all to see.

Sam Bahour is a Palestinian-American business consultant from Ramallah/Al-Bireh in Occupied Palestine.

16 May 2020

Source: palestineupdates.com