Just International

President Obama Accepts Slavery In Order To Win TPP Trade Deal

By Eric Zuesse

So that U.S. President Barack Obama can end a roadblock and win the agreement of other nations for his proposed Trans Pacific Partnership, he has decided to remove one of the nations, Malaysia, from the U.S. State Department’s official list of countries that allow slavery. Malaysia, which recently found over a hundred graves of discarded slaves, has been on the U.S. State Department’s “Tier 3” list of slave nations, along with North Korea, Zimbabwe, Syria, and Iran, but, unlike those other countries, Obama wants Malaysia to be included in his Trans Pacific Partnership; so, he has decided to remove Malaysia from that official list.
This was first reported by Reuters on July 8th, under the headline “Exclusive: U.S. Upgrades Malaysia in Annual Human Trafficking Report.” Reuters announced: “The United States is upgrading Malaysia from the lowest tier on its list of worst human trafficking centers, U.S. sources said on Wednesday, a move that could smooth the way for an ambitious U.S.-led free-trade deal with the Southeast Asian nation and 11 other countries.”

Zach Carter at Huffington Post headlined, later on July 8th, “Obama To Upgrade Malaysia On Human Rights Despite Mass Graves,” and he reported that U.S. Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) issued a statement saying: “If true, this manipulation of Malaysia’s ranking in the State Department’s 2015 TIP report would be a perversion of the trafficking list and undermine both the integrity of this important report as well as the very difficult task of confronting states about human trafficking.”

However, Senator Menendez, himself, has, behind the scenes, pushed for Obama’s TPP and other mammoth ‘trade’ deals, including TTIP and TISA, even despite these deals allowing participating countries to look the other way and not prosecute when international corporations hire killers to assassinate labor union organizers in a given U.S. trade ‘partner’ country. So, Sen. Menendez is in no position to accuse this President of allowing slavery and even mass-murder of slaves, and he is not making any such accusation. In fact, Menendez was a no-show at the key vote in the Senate on Fast-Tracking — reducing from the Constitutionally required 67 down to the ordinary-law-required 51 Senators, which will be needed in order to approve, as constituting a U.S. law, a treaty — each one of this President’s three gigantic ‘trade’ treaties. Menendez did this even though the Obama Administration has acknowledged that it considers a nation’s murders of labor union organizers to be irrelevant to that country’s suitability to be included in a ‘trade’ treaty as a favored nation and ‘trading’ partner, such as will be in the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), or in its Atlantic equivalent, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).

Allowing murder of trade-union officials, and allowing slavery, are not, in either case, matters of law in any given country, because nowhere are those things technically legal. They are instead matters of not enforcing laws that are technically on the books. When corporations can become more internationally competitive by employing such tactics and paying public officials to look the other way, it’s just a matter of economic competition and of minimizing government regulation of the economy. These are unofficial ways of boosting competitiveness, which — the U.S. President and his “Fast Track” supporters in Congress are now on record as accepting — do not disqualify a given country from being included as one of the treaty “Partners.”

Recently, on May 25th, Britain’s Guardian headlined “Malaysia migrant mass graves: police reveal 139 sites, some with multiple corpses,” and reported that the corpses were probably Bangladeshi but that this had not yet been confirmed. “The revelation is likely to focus new attention on Malaysia’s record in battling a scourge that activists say is carried out by criminal syndicates, likely with the complicity of authorities.” It helps Malaysia stay internationally competitive. And the use of foreigners for this, reduces the likelihood of serious domestic political blowback from this particular means of the nation’s increasing its economic competitiveness. This technique additionally helps to drive down wages within the given nation, and by that indirect means, makes the entire nation even more economically competitive. The Obama Administration is now officially categorizing the entire matter as simply expanding “free trade.”

When the United States provides favored-nation treatment to nations where slaves are used, or where labor-union organizers are murdered, the United States is allowing U.S. international corporations to lower their production-costs by “shipping those jobs overseas” to countries where labor is cheaper (or even free, if the cost of bribes is not included). The beneficiaries of those lower (if any) wages are the owners of these international corporations. U.S. consumers might also benefit, if the lower production-costs get passed along to them; but, sometimes, that doesn’t happen, and all of the benefits from other nations’ union-busting and/or outright slave labor go only to the stockholders of the international corporations.

Under the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, which allows corporations to donate unlimited funds anonymously to U.S. political campaigns, there is no longer any way to prevent international corporations from participating in U.S. electoral politics — it’s now “free speech” (no matter where the corporation is headquartered or incorporated), and any corporation is a “person,” which has unlimited “free speech” regarding political matters. If those corporations (or, actually, their controlling stockholders) decide to do business that way, it’s now only a private decision that they are entirely free to make, according to the U.S. Supreme Court.

An independent economic analysis was done of TPP, and it showed that international corporations will benefit enormously, but that the publics everywhere will become far worse off, if it goes into effect. An independent economic analaysis was also done of TTIP, and it produced the very same findings. However, corporate-backed economic analyses have produced contrary findings, and those are the studies that are officially cited. In current economic theory, the more that things are privatized, the better. Some economists personally object, but most economists who have successful careers do not. Endowed chairs in economics are sparse for dissenters. As the late economist Robert E. Prasch noted:

“Positions at the top twenty research universities are simply closed to scholars working outside the mainstream, and the next twenty on the list have every incentive to become caricatures of the top schools. The reason for this de facto policy of exclusion is not solely ideological. In this era of austerity, research faculties are expected to garner substantial outside funding, and these funds are typically granted to scholars whose work serves the funders ends.”

In other words, there is a “free market” in economists, too.

And so, the “free market” will be expanded, no matter what; and there is likely to be considerable public cheering about it, regardless of what slaves, or non-unionized workers, or other possible objectors, might happen to think about it. International corporations might have lots of “free speech,” but the real people who are at the bottom — not nearly as much. And, in Malaysia, perhaps, not at all.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

10 July, 2015
Countercurrents.org

 

Document Shows CIA Reaction To Finding No WMD In Iraq

By David Swanson

The National Security Archive has posted several newly available documents, one of them an account by Charles Duelfer of the search he led in Iraq for weapons of mass destruction, with a staff of 1,700 and the resources of the U.S. military.

Duelfer was appointed by CIA Director George Tenet to lead a massive search after an earlier massive search led by David Kay had determined that there were no WMD stockpiles in Iraq. Duelfer went to work in January 2004, to find nothing for a second time, on behalf of people who had launched a war knowing full well that their own statements about WMDs were not true.

The fact that Duelfer states quite clearly that he found none of the alleged WMD stockpiles cannot be repeated enough, with 42% of Americans (and 51 percent of Republicans) still believing the opposite.

A New York Times story last October about the remnants of a long-abandoned chemical weapons program has been misused and abused to advance misunderstanding. A search of Iraq today would find U.S. cluster bombs that were dropped a decade back, without of course finding evidence of a current operation.

Duelfer is also clear that Saddam Hussein’s government had accurately denied having WMD, contrary to a popular U.S. myth that Hussein had pretended to have what he did not.

The fact that President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and their team knowingly lied cannot be overemphasized. This group took the testimony of Hussein Kamel regarding weapons he’d said had been destroyed years ago, and used it as if he’d said they currently existed. This team used forged documents to allege a uranium purchase. They used claims about aluminum tubes that had been rejected by all of their own usual experts. They “summarized” a National Intelligence Estimate that said Iraq was unlikely to attack unless attacked to say nearly the opposite in a “white paper” released to the public. Colin Powell took claims to the U.N. that had been rejected by his own staff, and touched them up with fabricated dialogue.

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Jay Rockefeller concluded that, “In making the case for war, the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even nonexistent.”

On January 31, 2003, Bush suggested to Blair that they could paint an airplane with U.N. colors, fly it low to get it shot at, and thereby start the war. Then the two of them walked out to a press conference at which they said they would avoid war if at all possible. Troop deployments and bombing missions were already underway.

When Diane Sawyer asked Bush on television why he had made the claims he had about Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction, he replied: “What’s the difference? The possibility that [Saddam] could acquire weapons, if he were to acquire weapons, he would be the danger.”

Duelfer’s newly released internal report on his hunt, and that of Kay before him, for the figments of propagandists’ imagination refers to “Saddam Hussein’s WMD program,” which Duelfer treats as an on-again, off-again institution, as if the 2003 invasion had just caught it in one of its naturally cyclical low tides of non-existence. Duelfer also describes the nonexistent program as “an international security problem that vexed the world for three decades,” — except perhaps for the part of the world engaged in the largest public demonstrations in history, which rejected the U.S. case for war.

Duelfer openly states that his goal was to rebuild “confidence in intelligence projections of threat.” Of course, having found no WMDs, he can’t alter the inaccuracy of the “projections of threat.” Or can he? What Duelfer did publicly at the time and does again here is to claim, without providing any evidence for it, that “Saddam was directing resources to sustain the capacity to recommence producing WMD once U.N. sanctions and international scrutiny collapsed.”

Duelfer claims that former Saddam yes men, rigorously conditioned to say whatever would most please their questioner, had assured him that Saddam harbored these secret intentions to start rebuilding WMD someday. But, Duelfer admits, “there is no documentation of this objective. And analysts should not expect to find any.”

So, in Duelfer’s rehabilitation of the “intelligence community” that may soon be trying to sell you another “projection of threat” (a phrase that perfectly fits what a Freudian would say they were doing), the U.S. government invaded Iraq, devastated a society, killed upwards of a million people by best estimates, wounded, traumatized, and made homeless millions more, generated hatred for the United States, drained the U.S. economy, stripped away civil liberties back home, and laid the groundwork for the creation of ISIS, as a matter not of “preempting” an “imminent threat” but of preempting a secret plan to possibly begin constructing a future threat should circumstances totally change.

This conception of “preemptive defense” is identical to two other concepts. It’s identical to the justifications we’ve been offered recently for drone strikes. And it’s identical to aggression. Once “defense” has been stretched to include defense against theoretical future threats, it ceases to credibly distinguish itself from aggression. And yet Duelfer seems to believe he succeeded in his assignment.

David Swanson is an author, activist, journalist, and radio host. He is director of WorldBeyondWar.org and campaign coordinator for RootsAction.org. Swanson’s books include War Is A Lie. He blogs at DavidSwanson.org and WarIsACrime.org. He hosts Talk Nation Radio. He is a 2015 Nobel Peace Prize Nominee.

10 July, 2015
TeleSUR

 

Greek Government Approves Brutal Austerity Measures In Proposal To EU

By Alex Lantier

Greece’s Syriza-led government agreed to a massive new €13 billion (US$14.34 billion) package of austerity measures yesterday evening, less than a week after Sunday’s landslide “no” vote in a referendum on European Union (EU) austerity.

The proposal would be the deepest package of cuts since the EU austerity drive began in Greece in late 2009. It goes well beyond the proposed €8 to 9 billion in cuts initially demanded by the EU in talks with Syriza.

The 13-page proposal was submitted to the EU, International Monetary Fund (IMF) and European Central Bank (ECB) before the midnight deadline previously set by the institutions. In exchange for cuts, the Greek government is reportedly asking for a €53.5 billion ($59.2 billion) loan to the Greek state and some form of debt restructuring, allowing it to avoid state bankruptcy and remain in the euro currency area.

The austerity measures reportedly include sharp increases in the regressive VAT sales tax and an increase in the retirement age to 67 by 2022. The elimination of additional payments to the poorest pensioners will take place by the end of 2019, a year earlier than previously scheduled.

Plans for the privatization of state assets, including ports and airports, will go forward. The proposal also includes a reported increase of the corporate tax to 28 percent, rather than 29 percent, a reduction requested by the IMF.

In proposing the new austerity package, Syriza has with extraordinary rapidity repudiated the vote in Sunday’s referendum, which Syriza itself had called and presented as a model of democratic accountability. More than 61 percent of the population rejected precisely the measures that the government has now adopted.

Even as Syriza officially called for a “no” vote, Tsipras had no intention of fighting EU austerity. The prime minister expected to lose the vote and, in response, abandon office and leave it to another government to impose the cuts. (See also: Tsipras petitions EU for new austerity deal)

Following the vote, the Syriza-led government has moved as quickly as possible to reach an accommodation with the pro-austerity parties within Greece and approve a deal that would be acceptable to the European banks.

The measures were finalized in discussions between Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras, Deputy Prime Minister Yiannis Dragasakis, Finance Minister Euclid Tsakalotos and Economy Minister Giorgios Stathakis—all from the ruling Syriza (“Coalition of the Radical Left”) party—and adopted by the Greek cabinet on Thursday.

The government is planning to seek a vote in the Greek parliament today, relying on support from the openly pro-austerity New Democracy and PASOK parties. On Saturday, eurozone finance ministers are scheduled to meet to review the proposal, followed by a meeting Sunday of the EU leaders.

The new austerity proposal was rushed through amidst threats from European officials to entirely cut off funding for Greece and force the country out of the eurozone. In response to these threats, Syriza continually refused to take any measures that would threaten capitalist property relations and rejected any appeal to workers throughout Europe for a common struggle against austerity.

It is uncertain whether an agreement will be approved by the EU, even on the surrender terms being offered by Syriza. Sections of the European ruling class are discussing forcing Greece to default on its debts, expelling it from the euro zone, and pushing it through a drastic economic crisis by forcing it to restore a devalued national currency.

German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble said yesterday that any significant restructuring of Greece’s debt was unlikely, as this would violate EU rules.

Other European officials have indicated a desire to reach agreement with the Greek government. Syriza members told the Guardian that French finance ministry officials had worked with Greek Finance Minister Tsakalotos to rewrite the austerity package Athens was proposing, in order to make it acceptable to the EU.

Donald Tusk, the chair of the EU summit, urged European officials to take certain measures to allow Greece to pay back its debt. “The realistic proposal from Greece will have to be matched by an equally realistic proposal on debt sustainability from the creditors,” Tusk said.

Germany has also come under pressure from the Obama administration to ensure that Greece is not pushed out of the eurozone. On Wednesday, US Treasury Secretary Jack Lew publicly intervened to push for an agreement on austerity between Greece and the EU and call for some form of “debt restructuring.”

Criticizing those who “create more of these kind of life-and-death deadlines,” Lew said they were creating far greater economic and political risks, including a broader financial panic across southern Europe and the possible splitting of Europe. The US wants to ensure that Greece remains within NATO and continues to support the campaign of military and economic aggression against Russia.

With Greece’s banks still closed and depositors limited to €60 in daily cash withdrawals amid the crisis, the Greek economy is rapidly grinding to a halt.

The National Confederation of Hellenic Commerce released a report Wednesday that found that consumption had fallen 70 percent since the closure of Greece’s banks, costing €1.2 billion to the economy. Greeks are reportedly stocking up on key medicines as well as non-perishable foods, such as rice and pasta, fearing a possible collapse of supplies of imported food and medicine.

10 July, 2015
WSWS.org

 

Greece And The EU Situation

By Paul Craig Roberts

I doubt that there will be a Greek exit.

The Greek referendum, in which the Greek government’s position easily prevailed, tells the troika (EU Commission, European Central Bank, IMF, with of course Washington as the puppet master) that the Greek people support their government’s position that the years of austerity to which Greece has been subjected have seriously worsened the debt problem. The Greek government has been trying to turn the austerity approach into reforms that would lessen the debt burden via a rise in employment, GDP, and tax revenues.

The first response of most EU politicians to the Greek referendum outcome was to bluster about Greece exiting Europe. Washington is not prepared for this to happen and has told its vassals to give the Greeks a deal that they can accept that will keep them within the EU.

Washington has a higher interest than the interests of the US financial interests who purchased discounted sovereign debt with a view toward profiting from a deal that pays 100 cents on the dollar. Washington also has higher interest than the interests of the European One Percent intent on using Greece’s indebtedness to loot the country of its national assets. Washington’s higher interest is the protection of the unity of the EU and, thereby, NATO, Washington’s mechanism for bringing conflict to Russia.

If the inflexible Germans were to have Greece booted from the EU, Greece’s turn to Russia and financial rescue would put the same idea in the heads of Italy and Spain and perhaps ultimately France. NATO would unravel as Southern Europe became members of Russia’s Eurasian trade bloc, and American power would unravel with NATO.

This is simply unacceptable to Washington.

If reports are correct, Victoria Nuland has already paid a visit to the Greek prime minister and explained to him that he is neither to leave the EU or cozy up to the Russians or there will be consequences, polite language for overthrow or assassination. Indeed, the Greek prime minister probably knows this without need of a visit.

I conclude that the “Greek debt crisis” is now contained. The IMF has already adopted the Greek government’s position with the release of the IMF report that it was a mistake from the beginning to impose austerity on Greece. Pressured by this report and by Washington, the EU Commission and European Central Bank will now work with the Greek government to come up with a plan acceptable to Greece.

This means that Italy, Spain, and Portugal can also expect more lenient treatment.

The losers are the looters who intended to use austerity measures to force these countries to transfer national assets into private hands. I am not implying that they are completely deterred, only that the extent of the plunder has been reduced.

As I have previously written, the Greek “debt crisis” was an orchestration from the beginning. The European Central Bank is printing 60 billion euros per month, and at any time during the “crisis” the ECB could have guaranteed the solvency of any remaining creditor banks by purchasing their holdings of Greek debt, just as the Federal Reserve purchased the troubled mortgage backed “securities” held by the “banks too big to fail.” This easy solution was not taken.

The orchestration was a benefit to Western financial interests in general by enabling enormous speculations on the euro and gambling with derivative bets on sovereign debt and everything connected to it. Each successive “crisis,” such as Sunday’s No vote, became cover for an attack on oil or other commodities. The rigging and manipulation of markets can be hidden by pointing fingers at the latest “crisis.”

John Perkins in his book, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, describes the process by which Western financial interests intentionally over-lend to weaker countries and then use the pressure of the debt to force the transfer of the countries’ wealth, and often sovereignty, to the West. The IMF and its austerity programs have long played a role in the looting.

In exchange for reducing euro debt on Greece’s books, Greece was to turn over to private interests its water companies, ports, and protected islands. Unless the One Percent can purchase the current Greek government as it purchased previous governments (for example, with payoffs to borrow money with which to purchase submarines), the referendum has frustrated the looters.

In my book, The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism, I explained that the Greek “debt crisis” had two other purposes. One was to get rid of the practice of restructuring a country’s debt by writing it down to a level the country could afford and to establish in its place the new principle that people of a country are responsible for the mistakes of creditors who over-lend. The write-down is no longer to occur on the balance sheet of the creditors’ but instead becomes a write-down of pensions, social services, and employment. This, too, is a process of looting.

The other purpose, as Jean-Claude Trichet, the previous head of the European Central Bank, made explicitly clear, was to further reduce the sovereignty of member states of the EU by transferring authority over fiscal policy (tax and spend decisions) from national governments to the EU in Brussels.

Washington favors this centralization of political power in Europe, and Washington favors the One Percent over the people. However, above all Washington favors its own power and has acted to prevent a Greek exit, which could begin the unraveling of NATO.

Russia and China have missed an opportunity to begin the unraveling of NATO by assisting Greece’s departure from the EU. Whatever the cost, it would be tiny in comparison to the military buildup that Washington is forcing on both countries. Russia and China might have decided that Washington could no more accept Greece’s alignment with Russia than Russia can accept Ukraine becoming a member of NATO.

If the Greek situation and the waiting Italian and Spanish situations are now resolved along the lines that this article suggests, it means that the NATO mechanism for Washington’s pressure on Russia remains intact and that the conflict that Washington has created will continue. This is the bad news and the downside of Greece’s victory over the looters.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal.
08 July, 2015
Paulcraigroberts.org

 

Obama’s Pacific trade deal trails behind China’s development vision

By Nile Bowie

Often touted as the centerpiece of the Obama administration’s re-engagement with Asia, a close vote in the US Senate has brought the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) a major step closer to becoming law. Facing significant opposition within his own party, the US president has secured fast-track negotiating authority, limiting Congress’s constitutional authority to regulate the contents of the trade accord.

Though the US Congress and American public will have an opportunity to review the deal before it is voted on, fast-track passage procedure reduces time for debate and prohibits amendments to the proposed legislation, limiting Congress to passing an up-or-down vote on the deal. Negotiated behind closed doors and drafted under tremendous secrecy for nearly a decade, elected representatives have thus far had limited access to the draft text.

The negotiations, intended to eventually create a multilateral trade and foreign investment agreement, involve Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam. Comprising some 40 percent of the world’s economy, the trade pact represents Washington’s response to the rising influence of China, which is not a participant, despite being the region’s largest economy and the largest trading partner of Asia-Pacific economies.

Bringing together a diverse grouping of culturally and economically disparate countries, the pact aims to enforce a common regulatory framework that governs rules for tariffs and trade disputes, patents and intellectual property, banking, foreign investment and more. The deal is widely seen as being representative of Washington’s long-term commitment to the Asia-Pacific region.

Rebranding the Asia Pivot

Described as a “comprehensive trade pact that could help cement our dominance over China in Asia” by a prominent American columnist, Senator Charles E. Schumer claimed the deal’s stated goal is to “lure” other countries “away from China”. If the underlying geopolitics of the deal weren’t clear enough, President Obama himself claimed, “If we don’t write the rules, China will write the rules,” in an interview with the Wall Street Journal. Needless to say, the TPP is no ordinary trade agreement.

Substantial differences have emerged between Democrats and Republicans over trade policy, though the bulk of American policy makers view the deal in terms of its strategic benefits: consolidating a new regional economic architecture in the Asia-Pacific on American terms. Mainstream economists such as Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz have argued that the deal would in fact yield marginal economic benefits for the US, even for the corporate and financial interests that stand to gain most from regulatory liberalizations.

This conclusion likely explains why US stock markets barely reacted to the House’s initial rejection of fast-track, which could have potentially torpedoed the deal. For the United States, the Pacific trade pact is a symbol representing the reversal of declining US dominance and the rebranding of America as a leading market power in eyes of Asia-Pacific nations who have begun casting doubt on Washington’s staying-power.

The terms through which supporters have defended the deal revolve almost exclusively around standing up to China and the reputational damage caused to American prestige if the accord fails to materialize. Truthfully speaking, the notion that a foreign government could shape the global economy through alternative multilateral institutions and displace the US as the world’s dominant economic actor stirs passions in the American psyche, one that is utterly convinced of its own indispensability and exceptionalism.

Far from being an ordinary trade agreement, the Trans-Pacific Partnership is a by-product of 21st century bloc-politics. Of all the countries participating in the negotiations, Southeast Asian nations – Brunei, Malaysia, Singapore, and Vietnam – are the most strategically significant. These small states seek to balance their relations with Washington and Beijing through economic integration without antagonizing either power.

The View from ASEAN

The four participating Southeast Asian nations are opposed to choosing sides and they may potentially have a restraining influence over provocative military activity in the region. If the Pacific deal is perceived as yielding beneficial results in these states, the United States will have greater leverage in bringing second-round entrants onboard, expanding the trade area to incorporate other regional players, which will have repercussions for the Chinese economy.

The deal would give Southeast Asian nations preferential access to US markets, which will initially reduce China’s export competitiveness. Vietnam, for example, seeks to the join the TPP to offset its ballooning trade deficit with China. Its textile and garment industries rely on Chinese inputs, but in order to gain tariff-free access to the US apparel market, the materials used must originate within the TPP area, which would force Vietnamese exporters to restructure supply chains to seek alternatives to Chinese products. It should be recognized that these measures impose costs on developing economies and can undermine their capacity to compete.

For American multinationals, the deal opens doors to low-cost offshoring alternatives that would ease dependence on China. Malaysian manufacturers would be in the same position vis-à-vis the deal’s rules of origin, though its multinationals would stand to gain from greater access to new export markets for its natural resources. The pact’s developing economies see widened foreign direct investments as a major incentive, although greater competition between SMEs and multinationals will put downward pressure on wages.

Small states with extensive investment capital and limited domestic markets such as Brunei and Singapore stand to gain most from the TPP, as evidenced by the latter’s aggressive lobbying in favor of the deal. Singapore’s multinational-friendly tax structure and staunch adherence to regulating intellectual property make it a magnet for investment, spurring domestic job growth as its own companies become better positioned to do business with TPP partners to the benefit of the city-state’s financial, shipbuilding and petrochemical sectors.

The View from Beijing

Facing declining commodity and oil prices, lower international and domestic demand, falling industrial production, and the slowest pace of growth in over two decades, China’s leadership has raised concerns that the TPP will undermine its export competitiveness. Though the country has taken steps to move towards a consumption-led growth model, manufacturing and trade is still the engine of the Chinese economy.

Beijing’s latest manufacturing plan specifically mentions the US-led trade deal, claiming it would “further impair China’s price advantage in the exports of industrial products and affect Chinese companies’ expansion”. China is the top trading partner of over 120 countries. If the TPP exacerbates the slowdown of China’s economy, export markets worldwide would be adversely affected.

China’s Industrial output has contracted for three consecutive years, while declining performance in the productive economy and mounting property sector debts have begun triggering signs of speculative bubbles. The most favorable outcome of these developments for the United States would be a reduction in the operational scope of the internationalization of the renminbi and China-sponsored multilateral institutions, such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), which the US and Japan have shunned.

The question of whether China would eventually join the TPP as a second-round entrant implies that it would have to accept the reorientation of its economy around the agreed upon result of the TPP negotiations that it did not participate in. The deal’s trade rules would demand of China a significant departure from its traditionally incremental approach to liberalizing reforms and strong state-led organization of the economy.

Given prevailing Chinese attitudes toward the deal, which is largely viewed as representing a policy of containment, and the ongoing antagonisms between China and the US over land reclamation issues in the South China Sea, it would be genuinely surprising if Chinese leaders sought TPP membership. Beijing’s primary focus will continue to be developing a parallel regional economic architecture and alternatives to the existing international financial institutions such as the Western-dominated IMF and World Bank and Japan-led Asian Development Bank.

China & the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank

Throughout the Asia-Pacific, the most significant obstacles to regional trade result from inadequate networks of infrastructure rather than high tariffs and other protectionist barriers. A study conducted by the World Economic Forum in 2013 concluded that world GDP would rise over six times the current level by reducing supply chain barriers rather than removing all import tariffs. It is in this context that China’s AIIB initiative offers an approach to regional integration through which the TPP provides no equivalence.

China’s AIIB is set to become operational in 2016 with US$100 billion initial capital, drawing investments from a long list of countries that have opted to become AIIB co-founders. Despite pressure from the United States, some of its closest allies – Australia, France, Germany, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, and the United Kingdom – have joined Beijing’s new multilateral development bank, which seeks to reduce the vast gaps in economic infrastructure worldwide.

Beijing has garnered one of the world’s most impressive track records in infrastructure development over the last two decades. Building on this experience, the AIIB will play a key role in China’s “One Belt, One Road” initiative, which aims to modernize two ancient trade routes – the Silk Road Economic Belt linking China with Europe via Central Asia, and the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road connecting China with Southeast Asia – that would serve as two prongs in an evolving global trading regime under Beijing’s auspices.

The success of these initiatives would make China, with its whooping US$4 trillion in foreign currency reserves, the central player in the global development landscape. In the prevailing circumstances, where the powers of the region are competing to achieve their own strategic outcomes, it must be asked whether there is any parity between the United States and its path to regional integration through the Trans-Pacific Partnership in comparison to the vision put forward by the Chinese leadership.

Assessing the Trans-Pacific Partnership

A paper published by the East West Center estimated that the projected gains from the TPP for the countries involved would only result in a 0.5 per cent increase of income. The deal’s focus is on dismantling “nontariff barriers” to business, such as regulatory measures to protect labor, consumers and the environment. Countries involved would be required to adopt new regulatory practices built to cater to the needs of multinational business interests, of which American firms – which stand to gain most from radically enhanced protection for patents and copyrights – will be most advantaged.

American manufacturers, large Silicon Valley firms, Hollywood studios and the pharmaceutical industry have been the most vocal proponents of the sweeping intellectual property provisions in the TPP, which would negatively impact developing countries. A study conducted by the Australian National University found that enhanced protections for pharmaceutical corporations would limit access to antiretroviral drugs for an estimated 45,000 Vietnamese HIV patients who would no longer be able to afford their medication.

A panel of UN experts have recently objected to the potentially adverse impact of the TPP, arguing that the deal’s provisions cater disproportionately to the business interests of pharmaceutical monopolies. The most egregious aspect of the trade deal is the Investor-State-Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism, which would allow corporations to seek restitution against states in an international arbitration court for the alleged diminution of their potential future profits as a result of government regulations.

This provision was used by tobacco giant Phillip Morris to sue the South American nation of Uruguay for US$25 million when it enacted health warnings on its cigarettes and laws designed to discourage children and pregnant women from smoking. The ISDS subjects the participating developing countries to expensive arbitration suits that hinder their ability to adopt regulations that protect labor, the environment and public health.

There is no mandate to speak of for ushering in policies that so demonstrably neglect public interest. Granting multinationals new powers that allow national laws and regulations to be challenged in international tribunals represents a step toward a new interpretation of sovereignty: one that shifts away from national governments toward that of an international-corporate sovereignty. The proponents and beneficiaries of the Trans-Pacific Partnership must ask themselves whether this deal truly serves the people of the region.

1 July 2015

“Islam” As A Conduit For Western Terrorism

By Ghali Hassan

“Western governments no longer hide the fact that they’re using jihadists [a.k.a. foreign terrorists] and NATO forces to overthrew Mouamar al-Qadhafi by using al-Qaeda as its only ground forces; Israel displaced the UN Forces in the occupied Golan Heights, and replaced them with al-Nusra [terrorists]; the international anti-ISIS Coalition allowed Palmyra to fall in order to cause more problems for Syria. But while we can understand Western interests, we fail to grasp why and how the jihadists can serve Uncle Sam in the name of Islam”. Thierry Meyssan, Voltaire Network.

In his recent address to a summit on “countering violent terrorism” in Washington, President Barack Obama repeatedly stressed the need to talk “squarely and honestly” about the “root causes” of terrorism. As a master of deceit, President Obama did his best to cover up the U.S. vicious role in global terrorism. In the Middle East, terrorism is a U.S. tool to justify U.S. imperialist war.

Obama’s big lie was when he told his audience: “The notion that the West is at war with Islam is an ugly lie”. His aim was to deflect attention away from Western government crimes against Muslims and to co-opt those people who buy into his rhetoric. The truth, of course, is that Muslims are not at war with the West. It is the West and Israel that are at war with the Islam and Muslims. Whether in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen or Palestine, Western-Zionist armies have killed millions of innocent Muslims and left their nations in ruin and mired in violence. If premeditated violent aggression and wanton destruction are not terrorism, what is it? Who is benefiting from terrorism?

Terrorism

First, let’s look at terrorism. Herman and O’Sullivan (1990) show that, “terrorism is mainly an instrument of the powerful, which have the resources to terrorise, a frequent interest in using terror to keep opponents of their rule under control, and the cultural power to define terrorism to exclude themselves and pin the label on their enemies and targets”[1]. The powerful Western governments make no apology for their crimes. We are always the innocent victims of terrorism, never its perpetrator. Today’s enemies and targets are Muslims, home and abroad. Anytime a crime is committed, the accused is depicted as “Islamist” to associate the crime with Muslims and Islam. Modern terrorism is a Judeo-Christian invention exported not only to the Middle East but also around the world by the U.S. and its allies (vassals) including, Israel, Britain, France, Germany and the rest. Terrorism is a Western instrument that has always been used to serve Anglo-Zionist interests. It is a fact that, “in western political culture, it is taken to be entirely natural and appropriate that the ‘Leader of the Free World’ [claimed by successive U.S. regimes] should be a terrorist rogue state and should openly proclaim its eminence in such crimes“, writes Noam Chomsky. It is true that, American ruling elites believe that they have right to terrorise, and inflict suffering on defenceless nations that are no subservient to U.S. imperialist dictates.

A plethora of research on terrorism shows that, the U.S. is the biggest terrorist state in the world, and poses the greatest existential threat to world peace and humanity today. The U.S. is terrorism dinosaur. The fascist state of Israel, U.S. closest ally, comes second. All major terrorist operations originated (planned and financed) in Washington D.C. and Tel Aviv. “While the U.S. perpetually invokes international laws to blame others, it repudiates any life – protective law applied to its actions, or [the criminal actions of] its key ally Israel”, writes John McMurtry, author and fellow of the Royal Society of Canada. As long as the terrorists are serving U.S.-Zionist interests, they will be financed, armed and defended by the U.S. and its allies. The U.S.-Israel proxy terror network, the so-called “Islamic state” is a good example.

ISIS: The Proxy Terror Network

The name “Islamic State” (IS) or “Islamic State in Iraq and Syria” (ISIS), is the brainchild of the U.S. CIA and the Israelis, and is designed to associate (connect) all Muslims and anything Islamic with violence and terrorism. ISIS is a foothold the U.S. keeps in the region to blackmail any nation with independent aspirations.

The U.S. created and nurtured ISIS in Iraq in early 2006 to counter the Iraqi Resistance to U.S. occupation. The U.S. and U.S. allies made it possible for ISIS to traverse international borders – from Iraq to Libya to Syria and to Iraq. ISIS was created, funded and armed by the U.S. and U.S. allies, namely Britain, Turkey, Israel, Jordan, France, Qatar and Saudi-Arabia. In fact, according to a recent Russian Foreign Ministry statement; the “UN Security Council’s al-Qaida Sanctions Committee, the United States, Britain, France, and Jordan have blocked Syria’s request – supported by Russia – to include ISIS terrorist group in the sanctions list as a separate group”. (For more, see Ben Swann, The Origin of ISIS). Western governments and the media have also managed to create a fictitious ISIS leader. The so-called al-Baghdadi was created by the CIA and then described as a “native of Baghdad, a fact reflected in his name”. The NYT reported that al-Baghdadi is a fiction.

By creating ISIS and associated it with Islam and “extremism”, the U.S. and its allies are demonising Muslims and Islam, and justifying U.S.-led aggression in the region to protect Anglo-Zionist interests. In fact, ISIS violence is deliberately criminal and designed to demonise Islam. However, if one compares ISIS violence with U.S.-led Western violence, ISIS terrorists have done nothing compared to the barbaric war crimes committed by the U.S. and its allies in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Vietnam, and North Korea.

There is nothing Islamic about ISIS. ISIS is a U.S.-Israel proxy terrorist network of foreign mercenaries collected from various countries around the world. The majority of ISIS terrorists are from Western and U.S.-allied countries. Their main duties are “to wreak havoc and destruction on Syria and Iraq, and distort the name of Islam acting on behalf of their U.S. sponsors. The Washington Post, revealed that, “the flow of foreign fighters [a.k.a. terrorists and mercenaries] making their way to Syria remains constant, so the overall number continues to rise”. In October 2014, the Guardian newspaper obtained a report by the UN Security Council, which finds that 15,000 mercenaries from more than 80 countries travelled to Syria and Iraq to fight alongside ISIS and similar extremist groups. It is a fact that, many of ISIS terrorists are recruited in the West, including Australia, Britain, Canada, France Germany, and the Scandinavian countries. They are leaving and returning with ease. “The Western propaganda offensive encouraged extremists to join in a virtual holy war against Syria. No Australian was detained or deterred from travelling to Syria in the first two years of the crisis. The first few killed were often praised as ‘humanitarian workers’ or victims of the regime’s ‘indiscriminate bombing’”, writes Tim Anderson of the University of Sydney.

ISIS ideology is an Anglo-Zionist ideology designed to distort Islam and depict Islam as a violent religion and justify attacks on Islamic nations and the persecution of Muslims. Hence, Western media and Western politicians frame ISIS violence in a religious dimension. While ISIS uses Islam as a cover, it has nothing to do with religion. The so-called “war on ISIS” is a rebranded open-ended “war on terror” with the same Anglo-Zionist agenda targeting any country. In other words, ISIS is a cover to disguise U.S. imperialist war.

It is a documented fact that ISIS terrorists are trained, armed and financed by the U.S. and U.S. closest allies. In fact, the U.S. and its allies – Turkey, Israel and Jordan in particular – recruited, equipped, trained, and financed ISIS terrorists. In spite of all the pretentious facades in combating these mercenary terrorist forces, the U.S. and U.S. allies have been supporting them all over the Middle East. In a recent speech at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, U.S. Vice-president Joe Biden he stated clearly that: “Our allies in the region [Israel, Turkey, Jordan Qatar, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia] were our largest problem in Syria. The Turks were great friends… [and] the Saudis, the Emirates, etcetera. What were they doing?…They poured hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of tons of weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad — except that the people who were being supplied, [they] were al-Nusra, and al-Qaeda, and the extremist elements of [ISIS] who were coming from other parts of the world”. You can’t be serious, Joe? It is unfair to blame the vassals. Your U.S. regime is the world’s biggest sponsor of terrorism. Like al-Qaeda, ISIS wouldn’t exist today as a major force either in Syria or in Iraq if it wasn’t for the U.S. and U.S. allies.

President Obama has just approved funds to train 20,000 ISIS terrorists to mount terrorism attacks against the Syrian legitimate Government. According to Western media, the U.S. and Turkey have signed an agreement to openly train and arm anti Syria’s “moderate rebels”, masquerading as “rebels”, and the majority of whom are members of ISIS. The deal was signed by U.S. ambassador John Bass and a senior Turkish official. The U.S. and its allies are careful not to call ISIS terrorists. A detailed search of Western media show that ISIS is often called, “ISIS fighters”, “ISIS group”, “moderates rebels”, and “Daesh organisation”, but never terrorists because Western allies are not terrorists; they are something else. We know that, there are no such things as “moderate rebels”. According to Alexey Borodavkin, the Russian Federation ambassador to the UN: “Armed groups qualified as ‘moderate’ [by the U.S.] are closely coordinating their activities with terrorist groups”. He added that Syria is facing a “huge army of trained, armed terrorists.”

ISIS serves as the perfect pretext to justify U.S.-Zionist aggression. The U.S. and its allies, namely Australia, Britain, Canada, and France use ISIS to justify domestic repression and imperial rule. The propaganda from both sides shapes not just the perception of the “war on terror,” but on-the-ground conflicts as well. Dissecting the propaganda shows why ISIS is not a grave threat, and how the West uses ISIS to perpetuate a U.S.-sponsored war that shows little sign of ending. ISIS exists as a smokescreen for U.S. war agenda against Syria and Iraq. As Garikai Chengu, a scholar at Harvard University rightly observes: “America is using ISIS in three ways: to attack its [Muslim] enemies in the Middle East, to serve as a pretext for U.S. military intervention abroad, and at home to foment a manufactured domestic threat, used to justify the unprecedented expansion of invasive domestic surveillance”.

It is relevant to note that, the U.S.-led attacks on Iraq and Syria have nothing to do with “defeating” ISIS terrorists. The West alleged efforts to “degrade and ultimately destroy” ISIS are in fact strengthening ISIS and increased their terror. The criminal destruction caused by the terrorists designed to soften Syria for the current U.S.-led attacks on the country. Since the U.S.-led coalition began their “cosmetic” air strikes to “defeat” the terrorists, ISIS went from strength to strength in Iraq and in Syria. The Syrian Arab Army and their Iraqi counterparts bear the brunt of the fighting.

“The U.S. treats the Islamic State like an attack dog, restrained in Iraq where its interests (protection of the Kurdish state and its oil wealth) are threatened but let off the leash in western Iraq and Syria. The U.S. did nothing to prevent the capture of Mosul last year and stood by again when the ISIS terrorists captured Ramadi recently and paraded through the streets in more captured U.S. army pickups. Neither did it take any action to stop ISIS as they streamed across the desert in the direction of ancient city of Palmyra in Syria. In both cases ISIS columns were an open target which could have been obliterated from the air yet nothing was done to stop them”, writes Jeremy Salt of the Bilkent University in Ankara, Tukey. Indeed, oonly when ISIS came close to capture the headquarters of the Kurdish Mafia in Irbil, the U.S. and U.S. allies, including Israel rushed to their defence. The U.S. support for the Kurds is part of the U.S.-Zionist strategy to partition Iraq.

ISIS serves two of U.S.-Zionist objectives: 1) ISIS is used as a U.S.-Israel proxy terrorist force in the war on Syria with the final aim of toppling the Syrian Government – the Libyan model, and 2) ISIS is used to blackmail and compel the U.S.-installed Iraqi government to allow the U.S. to have permanent military presence in Iraq. For example, ISIS was used to intimidate the former Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki to resign because he was not obedient enough to U.S. colonial diktats. ISIS terrorists are only doing what al-Qaeda under the U.S. command did in Afghanistan in 1980s and then in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s.

IRAQ

The on-going U.S.-led aggression in Iraq that began in 1991 shows that the U.S.-Zionist project – the complete destruction of Iraq as a unified, strong and prosperous nation – has failed. The U.S. war on Iraq killed more than 3 million Iraqi civilians, most of whom women and children. (For more, see Nafeez Ahmed in MEE, 08 April 2015).

According to the United Nations’ own statistics, every month throughout the 1990s, 6,000 children under the age of five in Iraq were dying from malnutrition and lack of access to simple medicines. Meticulous UN figures show that 1.7 million Iraqi civilians died due to the West’s (U.S.-UK) barbaric economic sanctions regime, half of whom were children. “If the U.S. wants to impose military sanctions on Iraq, let them do it, but don’t deprive our children of milk, health, medicine,” said the then Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister, the late Tariq Aziz. Three senior UN officials resigned in protest, including Denis Halliday, the UN assistant secretary general. At the time, Halliday was serving as the humanitarian coordinator in Baghdad. In his own words, Halliday said: “I had been instructed to implement a policy that satisfies the definition of genocide: a deliberate policy that has effectively killed well over a million individuals, children and adults.” The aim was “to reduce Iraq and Iraqis to the preindustrial age”, as the former U.S. Secretary of State, the violent James Backer threatened to do.

Katherine Hughes, a court watcher with the ACLU observed: “Prior to the 1991 U.S. war, Iraq was a wealthy country, had a First World standard of living. The government of Saddam Hussein provided universal health care and education – including university education – for all Iraqi citizens, [regardless of ethnic or religious affiliation]. There was virtually no illiteracy and the education system and health system were the best in the region. Women enjoyed equal rights and religious minorities were respected.

The second phase of the Iraqi genocide was the 2003 Anglo-American criminal invasion and murderous occupation of Iraq. The international supreme crime culminated in the murder of President Saddam Hussein and the destruction of Iraq as a progressive state. As a consequence of the invasion and occupation, more than 1.5 million Iraqis; the overwhelming majority of them were women and children. The Anglo-American invaders have deliberately destroyed and looted a relatively advanced developing country whose people were largely prosperous. Close to five million Iraqis were displaced by the invasion out of a population of 31 million, and five million Iraqi children became orphans. Women suffered the greatest losses in education, professions, child care, nutrition, and safety. Sexual violence against women and girls in Iraq (and now Syria) has increased exponentially. More than one-fourth of Iraq’s population died, became disabled, or fled the country as refugees. The Americans and their British boodles left Iraq in ruin and in a state of lawlessness.

Before the Anglo-American aggression, Iraq “had the highest level of education in the Middle East. When you point this out you’re accused of being a President Saddam Hussein’s apologist, but Baghdad University in the 1980s had more female professors than Princeton did in 2009; there were crèches to make it easier for women to teach at schools and universities. In Baghdad and Mosul there were libraries dating back centuries. The Mosul library was functioning in the eighth century, and had manuscripts from ancient Greece in its vaults. The Baghdad library, as we know, was looted after the occupation, and what’s going on now in the libraries of Mosul is no surprise, with thousands of books and manuscripts destroyed” with the visible hands of the Anglo-Zionist imperialism (Tariq Ali, LRB, 09 April 2015).

The occupation of Iraq is one of the most destructive acts of terrorism in modern history. Even though Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuked, the social and political structure of the Japanese state was maintained; although the Germans and Italians were defeated in the Second World War, most of their military structures, intelligence structures, police structures and judicial structures were kept in place, because there was another enemy already in the offing – communism. But Iraq was treated as no other country has been treated before. Indeed, U.S.-led barbaric aggression against Iraq left the region in chaos.

Furthermore, “prior to the 2003 U.S.-Britain criminal invasion, Iraq had no history of extremism. The Kurds had done territorial and political deals; Sunni and Shia had class and sectarian differences, but they were at peace; intermarriage was common. Three years before the invasion, I drove the length of Iraq without fear. On the way I met people proud, above all, to be Iraqis, the heirs of a civilization that seemed, for them, a presence”, writes John Pilger, a rare exception in Western journalism.

In order to completely destroy Iraq as a nation, the U.S. planted the seeds of violence and division in Iraq and incited Iraqis against each other. Furthermore, the U.S. annulled the progressive Iraqi Constitution and replaced it with a U.S.-Zionist crafted constitution which endorses sectarianism and denies women equal rights. The U.S. Occupation forces disbanded the Iraqi Army and security forces and replaced them with U.S.-trained and armed sectarian militias to achieve U.S.-Israel objective of turning Iraq into a divided, subservient and weaker Iraq. The so-called “New Iraqi Army” is under the control of the Pentagon. Hence, the U.S. supply the New Iraqi Army with weapons and Humvees, and the New Iraqi Army passed the weapons and Humvees to ISIS terrorists, and no one blames the U.S. for arming ISIS terrorists. “ISIS is now better armed than the New Iraqi Army. And this all happened with the U.S. support”, said President Vladimir Putin of Russia.

It is a fact that ISIS terrorists invaded Iraq from Syria and Turkey in broad daylight with the full knowledge of the U.S. regime and in full sight of U.S. reconnaissance. If the U.S. and its allies had wanted to destroy ISIS mercenaries, they could have obliterated their convoys of Toyota pickup trucks when they crossed the desert from Syria into Iraq in June 2014.

Commenting on U.S. Defence Secretary Ashton Carter’s comment that, “the Iraqi army shows no will to fight” ISIS terrorists in Ramadi, the Head of Iraqi Parliament’s National Security and Defence Committee, Hakem al-Zameli dismissed the claim as: “unrealistic and baseless.” He said: “The U.S. failed to provide good equipment, weapons and aerial support. The U.S. is trying to deflect the blame”. Al-Zameli also disclosed that the anti-ISIS coalition’s planes have dropped weapons and foodstuff for the ISIS in Salahuddin, al-Anbar and Diyala provinces. In January, al-Zameli underlined that the coalition is the main cause of ISIS’s survival in Iraq. “There are proofs and evidence for the U.S.-led coalition’s military aid to ISIS terrorists through air (dropped cargoes),” he told FARS News Agency (FNA) at the time. “We don’t trust the Americans; they have targeted our forces many times in so-called mistakes,” al-Zameli said. Former U.S. Secretary of States, Henry Kissinger have publicly stated on Fox Business that: ”The Iraqi intelligence sources have claimed that the U.S. military planes have airdropped several aid cargoes for ISIS terrorists and only to those terrorists that cooperate with the Pentagon to help them resist the siege laid by the Iraqi army, security and popular forces”.

On March 29 2015, the U.S. fighter jets struck the positions of Iraq’s popular forces during their fierce clashes with ISIS terrorists near Tikrit, injuring a number of fighters. “The U.S. planes have dropped weapons for the ISIS terrorists in the areas under ISIS control and even in those areas that have been recently liberated from the ISIS control to encourage the terrorists to return to those places,” Coordinator of Iraqi popular forces Jafar al-Jaberi told FNA. “Two coalition planes were also seen above the town of al-Khas in Diyala Province and they carried the ISIS terrorists to the region that has recently been liberated from the ISIS control,” al-Jaberi said. In Tikrit, which has been recently liberated from ISIS terrorists, the U.S.-led coalition has conducted eight airstrikes, but they hit the popular forces’ positions instead of ISIS. ISIS success is U.S.-orchestrated to provide a pretext for a second U.S.-led invasion. The common theme is, “we can’t win against ISIS unless we have troops on the ground”.

The U.S. is playing a game by fuelling both sides to serve its own Zionist interest. It is reminiscent of the Iran-Iraq war when the U.S. openly supported Iraq while at the same time provided weapons to Iran. It is an irony that, most Iraqis today view Iran as their best friend in the war against ISIS terrorists not the U.S. and its allies.

The Obama regime used ISIS to blackmail the former Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouril al-Maliki to resign. Only after al-Maliki has resigned, the U.S. and its allies, including Australia embarked on a military invasion to “save” Iraq from ISIS. It was a pretext to reoccupy Iraq and set the stage for a U.S. colonial dictatorship. Next, it will be Syria.

Syria

Since 2011, a reign of terror has descended on Syria by an array of Western-sponsored foreign mercenaries and terror networks, including ISIS entering Syria from Turkey and Jordan. It is part of the West’s violent “regime change” masquerading as the “Arab Spring”. The criminal “Libyan model” orchestrated by U.S.-NATO armies with UN complicity was to be replicated in Syria. As Carla Stea, an accredited journalist at the UN and the U.S. Department of State, accurately observed: “Had Russia and China not vetoed a number of draft UN Security Council resolutions on Syria, they would have resulted in military attacks against Syria, culminating in the collapse of President Assad’s government, a ‘failed state,’ and no doubt, in the extrajudicial murder of President Assad [and his family], following the pattern of ‘Regime Change’ coveted by U.S./NATO governments” against Iraq and Libya. She continued: “These new draft UN resolutions always masqueraded sanctimoniously as concern for ‘human rights’, in an attempt to obscure and justify the naked and brutal power grabs such draft resolutions actually sought to make possible. But this time, both Russia and China repeatedly vetoed these new draft resolutions, thereby denying UN Security Council authorization for mass murder”. The UN is not only a tool to legitimise U.S.-Zionist aggression, the UN is complicit in U.S.-sponsored terrorist attacks on Syria (for more on the UN complicit role in U.S. war on Syria, see: Tim Anderson, OpEdNews, 29 August, 2012; Eva Bartlett, RT, 04 February 2015).

The U.S. and its closest allies (the so-called “friends of Syria”) have been openly recruiting, training, arming and financing these foreign and terrorists against the Syrian Government. “The ‘covert’ U.S. training [of the terrorists] at bases in Jordan and Turkey began months before President Obama approved plans to begin directly arming the opposition to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, according to U.S. officials and rebel commanders”, revealed the LA Times on 21 June 2013.

Writing in The Intercept, Glen Greenwald observes: “Now the Obama administration and American political class is celebrating the one-year anniversary of the failed Bomb Assad! Campaign by starting a new campaign to bomb those fighting against Assad—the very same side the U.S. has been arming over the last two years. It’s as though the U.S. knew for certain all along that it wanted to fight in the war in Syria, and just needed a little time to figure out on which side it would fight…. Something very similar happened in Libya: the U.S. spent a decade insisting that a Global War on Terror—complete with full-scale dismantling of basic liberties and political values—was necessary to fight against the Unique Threat of al-Qaeda and ‘Jihadists,’ only to then fight on the same side as them, and arming and empowering them” (Greenwald, The Intercept, August 27, 2014). Greenwald points out that Obama wanted to go to war against Syria just a year ago as a matter of allegedly urgent national security, but was stopped by public opinion, a failed British parliamentary vote, and the intervention of peacemaker “villain” Vladimir Putin.

More than 200,000 innocent Syrians have been killed and another nine million have become refugees inside and outside their country in a U.S. proxy war that only achieved death, destruction and suffering. As Dr Bouthaina Shaaban, an adviser to President Bashar al-Assad told the English Zionist, Robert Fisk: “Right from the beginning of this crisis, I never truly felt that the issue was about President Assad. It was about the weakening and destruction of Syria. There has been so much destruction – of hospitals, schools, factories, government institutions, you name it. I think the Americans take their battles against leaders and presidents – but only as a pretext to destroy countries. Saddam was not the real target – it was Iraq. And it’s the same for Libya now – America told everyone it was about Gaddafi. The real issue is about weakening the Arab armies, whoever they are. When the Americans invaded Iraq, what was the first thing they did? They dissolved the Iraqi army,” followed by the complete destruction of Iraq and the Iraqi society.

Western propaganda is that the ISIS terrorists are against Jews and Christians, but the overwhelming majority of ISIS victims are Muslims in countries considered not aligned with the U.S. and Israel. If ISIS terrorists are truly Islamic, they will try to topple the un-Islamic and murderous dictatorial regimes in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Kuwait, Qatar or liberate Palestine from murderous Israeli occupation. ISIS terrorists, on behalf of their handlers, are destroying and ransacking everything in their path, including Islamic and ancient civilisation cultures just like the U.S.-British invaders did in Iraq. For the Anglo-Zionists, cultures transcend national identity. The past influence the present, and by destroying the past, ISIS are destroying the present and future of the nation as well. Moreover, the U.S. and its allies (namely Israel) are attacking the nations and movements that are fighting against ISIS.

A series of reports to the UN Security Council by the UN Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF), show that Israel is coordinating with terrorist groups, including ISIS by providing them not only medical care but also other military and ammunition supplies. In addition, Israel provides ISIS and other anti-Syria terrorists with a safe haven – for their tanks and artilleries – along its “border” with Syria in the illegally-occupied Golan Heights. One report reveals that Israel is using the terrorists not only against the Arab Syrian Army, but also to harass and ultimately expel the UN monitors in attempt to prevent any reporting of Israel’s terror activities in the area.

The on-going Western campaigns, including sanctions and support for terrorists against Syria are a gift to Israel. Israeli leaders have been calling on the U.S. and European governments to support ISIS. Benjamin Netanyahu was not ashamed to use the old saying of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” to call for war on Syria, Iran and Hezbollah using ISIS terrorists. “[T]he fact of the matter is that ISIS actually benefits Israel by causing problems for those very states that do actively oppose Israel’s terror in Palestine and support the Palestinians, such as Syria. What ISIS is causing in the Middle East is perfectly attuned with the view of the Israeli Right — as best articulated by Oded Yinon in 1982 — which sought to have Israel’s Middle East enemies fragmented and fighting among themselves in order to weaken the external threat to Israel,” observes Stephen Sniegoski (Consortium News, 05 November 2014). With the unconditional support provided by the U.S. and U.S. allies, the Israeli fascist regime have continuously conducting terrorists attacks against Syria, bombing key Syrian military installations and vital civilian infrastructures. The Israeli aggression is in flagrant violation of international law and proves Israel’s direct involvement in the on-going terror attacks against Syria.

As Syrian President Bashar al-Assad told RT: “There is no serious effort to fight terrorism, and what is being achieved by the Syrian forces on the ground equals in one day what is being achieved by these states in weeks,” Assad said. “An anti-terrorist coalition cannot consist of countries which are themselves supporters of terrorism.” The U.S. and U.S. (U.S.-led coalition) are attacking the countries that are at war with ISIS terrorists.

According to Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) report about Syria: “internally, events are taking a clear sectarian direction. … The salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and al-Qaeda are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria. … The West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition [i.e., al-Qaeda, ISIS, whatever]; while Russia, China, and Iran support the legitimate Syrian Government.” The report show that the U.S. gun-running operation created “the ideal atmosphere” for the terrorists and the rise of ISIS in the Middle East. The report also confirms much of what President Bashar al-Assad told Western media about the danger of supporting terrorists inside and outside Syria.

The U.S. and its allies are not at war with ISIS; they are allies. Arwa Damon, CNN international correspondent reported that; “15-20 days before the airstrikes, ISIS buildings were evacuated, and fighters then mixed in with the local population”, which suggests that ISIS terrorists have advanced warning before the U.S. air strikes on Syria. It was a slip of the tongue by the U.S. most insidious global propaganda organ. The U.S.-led air strikes on Iraq and Syria has already caused thousands of civilian deaths and hundreds of thousands to flee their homes.

Furthermore, U.S.-led coalition airstrikes have destroyed grain silos and food storage facilities and killed innocent civilians in Manbij in Northern Syria were not aimed at ISIS. The destruction of the grain silos was aimed at preventing the Syrian Government from retaking much needed resources to provide for the Syrian people and Syrian Army after long fought battles with ISIS. In addition, the bombing of Syrian oil refineries before they were retaken by the Syrian Army was designed to deny the Syrian Government needed oil revenues. It is a well-known U.S. strategy, to destroy Syria’s vital civilian infrastructure, as it was in Iraq. In fact, the highly publicised airstrikes by the U.S.-led coalition of more than 60 vassal states did nothing to stop ISIS terror. Ten airstrikes a day by 60 states is nothing when compared by the daily air strikes of a small nation like Syrian. The Syrian air force conducts hundreds of airstrikes a day. Mounting evidence shows that the U.S.-Israeli-Saudi Arabia cooperation has not only created but continues to finance, arm and train al-Qaeda and ISIS. (Mohamed Elmasry, 08 March 2015, The Canadian Charger). Whether in Iraq or in Syria, U.S. military continues to supply ISIS terrorists with regular air drops of arms, ammo and food supplies. In addition, in Tikrit, U.S. air strikes provided air cover to ISIS and targeted Iraqi forces advancing to liberate the recently occupied town.

It is evident that, the on-going U.S.-.led war is not against ISIS, but against the people of Syria and the Syrian Government. It is in flagrant violations of international law and Syrian sovereignty. Ask yourself, who is arming and financing ISIS? How does ISIS sell its oil and get its money while Syria and the Syrian people are under strict and illegal sanctions? Oh, we have been told “ISIS sells oil on the black market”. Why the legitimate Syrian Government is denied access to this open and lucrative “black market?” Moreover, Western media reported that, President Obama contemplating to enforce a no-fly zone over north-eastern Syria to deprive the Syrian Air Force of its legitimate airspace, and more importantly protects ISIS terrorists and other terrorist groups attacking the Syrian Government.

If U.S. politicians and their allies are concern about ISIS threat, they should stop arming and financing ISIS and other terrorist groups. Furthermore, “if Obama is truly wanted to target ISIS, he would have included Syria, Iran, and Russia in his anti-ISIS “coalition.” These nations were excluded because Obama’s coalition is the exact same one [“friend of Syria”] that only months before was a U.S.-led coalition against the Syrian government”, writes Shamus Cooke of Workers Action. The same old wine in a different bottle to foul the people. The aim remains the same: to topple the Syrian Government of President Bashar al-Assad. Indeed, Obama told the recent UN meeting in New York that the US will train and arm the Syrian opposition” (a.k.a. ISIS) to be counterweight to the Syrian Government of President Assad. Western countries, including Australia are in league with ISIS terrorists and the whole purpose of this is to allow the U.S. to illegally and unjustifiably bomb Syria and reoccupy Iraq. The attacks are unlawful act of aggression in violation of the UN Charter.

According to Turkish sources, the Turkish government (the White Turks) is protecting and cooperating with ISIS and al-Qaeda terrorists, and providing free medical care to their leaders. Moreover, Turkey’s leading daily newspaper, Today’s Zaman, Turkish nurses are sick of providing free medical treatment to ISIS terrorists in Turkish hospitals. Opposition Turkish lawmakers revealed that the Turkish Government is protecting and cooperating with ISIS and al-Qaeda terrorists (Hurriyet Daily News, 13 June 2014). According to Barney Guiton of U.S. News week Magazine, the Turks have been providing logistical, financial and military support by allowing ISIS fighters to ‘travel through Turkish territory to reinforce fighters battling Kurdish forces in Kobane. And despite the ubiquity of the Turkish armed forces in the border region and the closure of the border by a wall of Turkish tanks, ISIS mercenaries are moving cross the border from Turkey into Syria in large numbers — in some cases even in broad daylight, and without any problem (Deutsche Welle, 14 May 2014).

In fact, the white Turks have been colluding with ISIS since 2010 in a dual attempt to oust its regional nemesis, the Syrian Government, and at the same time undermining the Kurdish autonomy in Syria. Turkey — the second largest military force in NATO and an obedient U.S. lapdog — continues to provide open borders to ISIS and other terrorist groups trying to attack Syria, even allowing ISIS terrorists to cross back into Turkey to regroup, receive medical treatment, and sell Syrian and Iraqi oil on the black market.

A recent reporting by Eric Schmitt of the New York Times (June 2012), revealed that, “a small number of CIA officers are operating secretly in southern Turkey”, delivering arms to the terrorists in Syria, including “automatic rifles, rocket-propelled grenades, ammunition and some antitank weapons.” In another report published by the New York Times in March 2013, the CIA noted the arms deliveries had “grown to include more than 160 military cargo flights by Jordanian, Saudi and Qatari military-style cargo planes”. The German broadcaster, Deutsche Welle, just published a video report (‘IS’ supply channels through Turkey) confirming that ISIS is supplied not by “black market oil” or “hostage ransoms” but billions of dollars’ worth of supplies carried into Syria across NATO member Turkey’s borders from the direction of the U.S. military base by hundreds of trucks a day.

According to the Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu, the U.S. had agreed to provide air cover for the “moderate” terrorists (ISIS and al-Qaeda in U.S. parlance) being trained in a US-funded camp in Turkey, once they cross the border into Syria to attack the Syrian Government. “There is a principle agreement on providing air support. How it is going to be provided is in the responsibility of the army”, (The Turkish Daily Sabah, 25 May 2015), conforming earlier statement by U.S. Secretary of Defence Ashton Carter that, the U.S. “would have some responsibility to help the terrorists if they come in contact with the Syrian troops”.

Furthermore, the French daily l’Humanité reported that the Turkish military (NATO) is supporting ISIS mercenaries capturing the Syrian border town of Ain al-Arab, also known as Kobane in Northern Syria and several villages close to the Turkish border with Syria by preventing thousands of Turkish Kurds from crossing the border and joining their compatriots in the defence of Kobane, even firing teargas at Kurdish refugees fleeing from Syria. The U.S.-led coalition has conducted waves of bombings in Kobane, but ISIS positions remained undisturbed. It never targeted positions of the ISIS and has caused it no loss. Only occasionally the coalition forces carry out bombing missions that seem to be essentially theatrical, or just for the record. It is worth noting that the violence against Kobane was deliberately prolonged to divert public attention away from ISIS violent invasion of Iraq. The U.S.-led coalition forces of some 60 nations, including Australia did not deter ISIS terrorists’ advances in Iraq and Syria.

Australia as a Case Study

While across Europe and North America, anti-Muslim sentiment coupled with the rise of mainstream fascist politics is widespread, Australia makes a very good case study. In Australia, ISIS is used as the perfect pretext to terrorise the alienated and marginalised Muslim Community and justify domestic repression. Hostile racist media and political establishments are leading an anti-Muslim fearmongering hate campaign of demonising the Muslim Community.

The Liberal (a substitute for neo-Fascist) Government of Prime Minister the bigoted Prime Minister Tony Abbott has turned Australia into a totalitarian police-state run by the Australian Police and ASIO (Australian Security Intelligence Organisation). In addition to the 60 anti-Muslim oppressive laws, the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Act 201s is now law allowing for a vast expansion of [aggressive and invasive mass] surveillance and oppression (J. Holmes, The Age, 22 April 2015). An Australian-wide survey of 800 Muslim Australians conducted (14 focus groups across Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne in 2014) by the University of Queensland (UQ) found that “counter terrorism” policy in Australia was generating anger, backlash, distrust and a siege mentality. Muslims are fed up with systemic racism, police terror, injustice and discrimination.

The claim that these repressive laws are aimed primarily at countering terrorism is a lie. The truth, they are well-known to be “ineffective” against terrorists. As journalist Glenn Greenwald observes, it allowed the government to “exploit the fear of terrorism to get more and more powers for itself” and pry into the lives of law abiding citizens, and instil fear in the population by cracking-down on freedom and civil liberties. The aim is to play on community fears and thereby gain a bit of political popularity and justify aggressive war abroad. “If politicians can make a country fearful and make them think that they are being protected from something fearful, they will gain political support,” said Julian Burnside QC, a leading human rights lawyer. Politicians and the media are telling Australian that ISIS is Islamic, and Islam is ISIS. The primary aim is to connect all Muslims to the Middle East and to Western-sponsored ISIS terrorists.

Members of the Muslim Community are under siege and living in fear. The Government is telling Muslim Australians: “You are either with us or with the terrorists”. Australian political and media establishments are seemingly “with the terrorists”. In 2012, the Australian government (under Labor) expelled the Syrian ambassador to Australia and was contemplating recognising ISIS terrorists as the de facto Syrian government in exile. The Former Foreign Minister, Bob Carr, told ABC TV that and end to the war on Syria needed “an assassination” of President Bashar al-Assad or “defections” among the Syrian Arab Army. Carr’s unwise (criminal) comment showed that Australia is a major supporter of ISIS war on Syria.

The Abbott’s Government is doing its best to associate every Muslim with ISIS. The Police and ASIO have planted paid informants among the Muslim Community to spy on their fellow Muslims and “inform” them on any “suspicious behaviour”, leaving the Community divided and full of suspicion and mistrust. In addition, the Police have “National Security Hotline” which can be used by anyone to accuse someone (a Muslim) of preparing for or planning an act of terrorism. In the State of Victoria, the Police are “judge, jury and executioner”. In Melbourne, the so-called Australia’s “multicultural capital” – better known as, Australia’s most racist anti-Muslim capital –, Muslim Australian men have been arbitrarily arrested, and charged without evidence.

Family homes are raided on a large-scale by an army of Special Forces employing Israel’s version of terror. Young Muslim men were arrested and thrown in high security prisons without the evidence that a verifiable criminal act has been committed. Muslims make up to 6 percent of the prison population in Victorian and 9 percent of the prison population in the State of NSW. Muslim Australians constitute 2.2 percent of the total Australian population. This shows that the Police and the Australian justice system is racist to the core and cannot function without a daily dose of anti-Muslim racism. The Police, magistrates and judges hate Muslims. They will do anything to show they are tough on Muslims, by picking on innocent Muslims. Bashing Muslims is deemed popular in this very backward and racist society where Anti-Muslim sentiment is on the rise.

Furthermore, the Abbott’s Government has introduced law to allow teenage Muslims to be tried in adult courts, a flawed process used in the U.S. to imprison children for life. The only evidence is that, the teenagers “might be preparing for or planning” an act of terrorism, is the Police claim. As Mike Head writes (WSWS, 14 May 2015); “For the second time in two weeks, alarming police claims and racist media reports about teenagers planning imminent terrorist attacks – first on April 25 (the “Anzac Day plot”) and then May 10 (the “Mother’s Day plot”) – have proven to be dubious” and nothing more than anti-Muslim racist propaganda.

The plots were allegedly being masterminded by a 14-year-old British boy in London. Police claims are nothing more than false Police claims. There has been no existential threat to the wider Australian society from Muslim Australians. Innocent Muslims were targeted for political reasons and as a pretext to terrorise the Muslim Community. While the Police are chasing Muslim teenagers who the police allege they might be preparing or planning acts of terrorism, forty Australian women have been killed this year in sexual violent acts – more than double (16.4 %) the global average.

As I write these lines, the Abbott’s Government has introduced another draconian law giving the minister for immigration the power to strip Muslim Australians with dual citizenship of their Australian citizenship without reference to a court of law. The law, rightly described as “deeply flawed”, applies retrospectively to any Muslim Australian whose behaviour deems by the Abbott’s Government as “endangering Australian security”, even visiting places like Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Yemen considered an act of terrorism. It is not known why the Government wants to revoke people citizenship when it is much easier to cancel their passport. The law is reminiscent of Nazi Germany’s policy of stripping of German citizenship from Slavic people, Roma people (gypsies) and Jews. In stark contrast, Jewish Australians (always dual citizens with loyalty to Israel) who travel to Israel to participate in Israel’s daily terror against the Palestinians is welcomed back “home” with open arms. Moreover, Australians who the Abbott’s Government accuses them of fighting with ISIS are not at war with Australia; they are fighting alongside U.S.-led coalition which includes Australia against the legitimate Syrian Government.

In order to manipulate and mislead the public into supporting Australia’s anti-Muslim propaganda and Australia’s involvement in U.S.-led aggression in the Middle east, the Australian Government and the racist media have co-opted and bribed academics, the so-called “counter-terrorism experts” to spread Government’s propaganda. One of these corrupted academics, who built their careers on disinformation and anti-Muslim bigotry, is Professor Greg Barton of Monash University. Employs sound bites to mislead the public, Professor Barton has become the “expert” on Islam, “counter terrorism”, security, woman’s rights, same-sex marriage, citizenship, Asia Pacific, etc. For months now, Barton has been a fixture on the Government’s mouthpiece, the Zionist ABC. He has built a career on falsification of history, distortions of reality, war propaganda and outright bigotry. According to Barton’s distorted theory, people engage in “extremism” once they start changing their ideas, cutting off old friends and making new ones. This means, students who study at Monash, where Barton is employed, have no rights to engage in critical analysis and no rights to make new friends. Another expert on “terrorism and deradicalisation” is Clarke Jones of the Australian National University. Jones is calling on the Government to “rehabilitate” returning veteran terrorists and allow them to work with the Government and the Police on the “deradicalisation” of youth. Apparently, Dr Jones is calling form more funding for “counter terrorism” research. Obviously, Barton and Jones are only regurgitating the Government’s policies. They would do well to focus their research on the rise of racism among white Anglo Australians, injustice, police terror and marginalisation of Muslim Australians.

Unlike Barton and Jones, Muslim scholars and any Muslim who disagrees with the Government’s false propaganda are banned from appearing on the “Australian” racist media. Only Whites, non-Muslim (men) have “expertise” on Islam and what they call “humanitarian wars”, a euphemism for Western terrorism. In the words of Ramesh Thakur, a professor of Public Policy at the Australian National University; “If you are Western, you can tackle any topic or region. If you are non-western you are expected to inhabit the intellectual ghetto of your own country or continent.” In short, only those who can tell lies, agree with the government’s false propaganda and mislead the public are rewarded with TV interview and a space in the mainstream print media. Unfortunately, this false propaganda has manipulated not only Anglo-Australians but also Muslim Australians to accept the Government’s fabricated and false narrative.

Terrified by the Australian Government’s anti-Muslim hate campaign and Police terror, many Muslim Australians, especially the self-appointed “community leaders” have fallen for the Government’s false propaganda. Muslim stooges and informants have been bribed and offered highly-paid jobs to spread the Governments’ anti-Muslim propaganda and spy on their fellow Muslims. Some are calling on Muslim Australians to buy into the Abbott’s Government’s false propaganda of associating the violence of ISIS terrorists with Islam. Mr Abbott and his ministers are telling Muslim Australians that, ISIS is an Islamic “death cult” and had “declared war on the world”, and that all Muslims must take responsibility for ISIS violence. It is a falsehood that forms part of Western governments’ false propaganda to associate ISIS with Islam and Muslims.

Furthermore, Muslim Australians are in a dilemma; they are mistrusted if they condemned terrorism, and they are attacked if they condemn Western anti-Muslim propaganda. As with the fraudulent “War on Terrorism”, Muslims have one choice, either to be with “Abbott’s team” or with the “terrorists”. Julie Szego, a columnist for The Age, ranted that Muslim “community leaders” and Muslims in general have no right to associate ISIS with the West. She alleges that, she knows the “truth” about ISIS; “it is Islamic”, anything else is a lie. She is regurgitating the Government’s anti-Muslim propaganda that, Muslims, not Western politicians and Western media, must take responsibility for crimes committed by individuals who the Government associates them with Islam. Moreover, she also accused Muslims of “anti-Semitism”, a Christian hate crime associated with “Western values”, not with Islam and Muslims. Australian journalists and columnists are not known for their intelligence and honesty. From Julie Szego and Miranda Devine to Paul Monk and Paul Sheehan to Greg Sheridan – to name just a few – they have shown to be anti-Muslim bigoted racists, like the propaganda organs they work for.

The Abbotts’ Government anti-Muslim hate campaign pays dividends. Australia obligingly complied with U.S. demand and joined the U.S.-led aggression on Syria and Iraq. There was deafening public silence as Australian troops start departing. ISIS is used to justify Australia’s military involvement.

In Iraq, the Iraqi government did not request that Australia become involved in U.S. attacks on Syria. Rather, it appears that it was completely at the initiative of the Abbott’s Government that Australian troops have joined the latest U.S.-led “coalition of the willing” in Iraq. On their part, the Iraqi people and Iraqi parliamentarians are against the presence of Australian troops. They have called on “Aussies to go home”. The Iraqi government has asked Australia’s Foreign Minister Julie Bishop that Australia send humanitarian, rather than military assistance. Iraqis made it clear that they do not need Western “advisers”. “We have more than enough manpower to fight and we are worried about the objectives of this American coalition of more than 40 nations”, said Adnan al-Shahmani, an Iraqi in Baghdad. “You can’t be too optimistic about today’s Australian political leaders, because they have no foreign policy framework and seem frightened of big ideas. They don’t even feel able to debate critical policy decisions, such as going back to Iraq with the U.S.”, writes Stephen Fitzgerald, former Australian Ambassador to China.

Finally, terrorism is an instrument used by powerful Western governments to justify violent aggression and geopolitical domination. If the U.S. and U.S. allies really want to defeat terrorism, including ISIS terrorists in Iraq and Syria, they would stop arming and financing the terrorists and stop participating in terrorism.

Ghali Hassan is an independent researcher and writer living in Australia.
06 July, 2015
Countercurrents.org

 

If ISIS Doesn’t Liberate Palestine… Who Will?

By Franklin Lamb

Ein el Helwe Palestinian camp, Lebanon: This is one of the questions ricocheting between Palestinians in Syria and Lebanon, posed also by ISIS (Da’ish) operatives, as the hot summer months and plummeting quality of existence raise tensions in the refugee camps and social gatherings.

With its resilience, on-the-ground “achievements”, adaptability, global franchising, copy-cat knock-offs, chameleon-like adaptations, combinations and permutations, and slick honing of medium and message, ISIS is offering oppressed and desperate populations in this region both hope and fantasy for escaping their deepening misery. The dream is to escape abject poverty and indignity by any means necessary, and joining ISIS or other like-minded cash-flush groups, which seem to appear out of thin air these days, is the most promising way to do it.

Some people in Lebanon and Syria are wondering why it took ISIS so long to present a detailed plan to Palestinian refugees to liberate their country, now in its 67th year of brutal Zionist occupation. This subjugation has has created an Apartheid state that, according to South African leader Bishop Desmond Tutu and others, exceeds even the crimes of the Afrikaner National Party. And like the Israelis, the ANP also began their racist occupation of a majority-indigenous “less civilized” population in 1948. South African apartheid ended in 1994, but in Palestine it continues to metastasize. ISIS representatives in the camps are pledging to destroy the Zionist occupation and boast about opening up Palestine to Full Return within two years.

Who is listening to Da’ish (ISIS)?

In the early days of the crisis in Syria, many Palestinians fleeing to Lebanon quickly returned to whatever fate held back in Syria after they saw the conditions in Lebanon’s camps. But as the fighting between Syrian rebels and government forces intensified in Damascus, they became trapped in the camps. Alongside their fellow Palestinians in Lebanon, these new refugees sank ever more deeply into dire poverty.

During recent discussions with a sampling of refugees from several camps in Lebanon and Syria, it’s not surprising that the main part of the conversation quickly moves to subjects long familiar to those of us who have lived among Palestinians in this region. The list of grievances is ever-expanding and ISIS supporters and recruiters take advantage of this in order to round up recruits and sympathizers to join their growing ranks.

These grievances include frustration and anger over the perceived pervasive corruption among political and religious “leaders” who basically speak gibberish while urging patience for the next life, or promise the fruits of countless ‘dialogue’ sessions among sworn political enemies that to date have achieved absolutely nothing to help those most in need. Lebanon’s Parliament has recently ruled against the right to work and home ownership, and this now ranks near the top of any list of refugee grievances. One could also add: severe camp overcrowding, lack of hygienic infrastructures, declining health care, rising illnesses among children due to respiratory diseases and more than a dozen easily preventable communicable illnesses, shortages of medicines, drugs and drug gang violence, increasing tension and gun battles among militia (this is almost weekly – most recently in the Ein el Helwe camp in Saida and this week, in the infamous Shatila camp), domestic violence, petty crime, increase in school dropout rates, and the almost total inability of UNWRA to fulfill its mandate. Typical of the latter, is the closure of some 700 schools in Gaza, which will impact UNRWA’s work in Jordan, Gaza, the West Bank, and Syria. There are also worries here that some UNWRA schools, even those now operating on two shifts, may soon close in Lebanon and Syria.

One of the most urgent crises in Lebanon’s camps is the fact that the few remaining Palestinian hospitals are also nearing collapse, particularly Haifa Hospital in South Beirut’s Burj al Barajneh camp. The two main Palestine Red Crescent Hospitals, Gaza and Akka, closed decades ago. These problems are just a sampling of what life has become for Palestinians currently living in Lebanon, and for almost 50,000 more that have come from Syria and are still stuck here.

Da’ish – ISIS – has started to capitalize on these problems, as pressures mount under the long hot summer days and adequate water and electricity becomes ever more scarce. Some camp residents speculate about what kind of ‘explosion’ will happen during or after Ramadan begins…

What is Da’ish (ISIS) offering Palestinians?

First and foremost, Da’ish pledges Full Return for the nearly 12 million Palestinian refugees scattered around the world. Approximately 6.4 million Palestinians had their homes and lands occupied in 1948 (55% of the total population), 4.5 million now live outside historic Palestine, and some 1.8 million live in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Da’ish is also offering an alternative to the half-century of fake “peace processes” and an alternative what increasing numbers of refugees claim is the quisling position of the current PLO leadership.

Understandably, jihadist appeals are finding an audience. The reason for this was best expressed recently by Dr. Mohsen Saleh, of the Zaytona Center in Beirut: “The refugee issue is the core of the Palestinian issue… the issue of a people who were uprooted from the land in which they lived for thousands of years. These people existed before the Israelites came to Palestine, and were present during their existence in Palestine and after they were gone. The Zionist project could only materialize after destroying the social fabric of these people, destroying more than 400 (531 villages: Ed.) of their villages and cities, confiscating most of their land, and usurping their properties, buildings, factories, and endowments.”

On 29/10/2013, the London-based al-Hayat newspaper published a report, based on Zionist sources, documenting that the Palestinian ‘negotiating team’ had given its Israeli counterpart a “position paper” on the core issues of the conflict. Eyewitness accounts claim that the Palestinian team actually offered to waive the right of return for Palestine refugees to their land, stolen in 1948. The Palestinian ‘negotiating team’ would give the refugees several choices: return to the West Bank and Gaza Strip, accept cash reparations, move to a third country, or stay put in one of the 59 camps and three dozen settlements.

On 8/23/2013, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, speaking to an Israeli delegation from the Meretz Party that visited him in Ramallah, reassured and guaranteed the Israelis that the PLO will not ask to return to Jaffa, Acre (on a clear day visible from villages, including Maron al Ras, in South Lebanon) and Safad (home for one third of the 1948 Nakba refugees who were forced to leave to Syria and Lebanon).

ISIS is making plain to all who will listen that they reject this ‘sellout position’ and that every Palestinian on this planet has the inalienable right of Full Return. This right can never be ceded by any leader and the Zionist regime which has put colonials from the West on their land has no right to even one grain of Palestinian soil.

There is fierce competition between Jabhat al Nusra and ISIS to woo Palestinians. Both groups vow that soon “the Zionist invaders will experience Allah’s wrath until they have been destroyed and Palestine is liberated.”

Meanwhile, Anthony Glees, Director of the Center for Security and Intelligence Studies at the University of Buckingham, is warning that Zionists will be among the jihadis’ main targets in the coming days. Daesh spokesman Abu Mohammed al-Adnani predicts that Ramadan will be a “calamity for kuffars.”

Peter Neumann, director of International Center for the Study of the Radicalization and Political Violence at King’s College London claimed this week that Jewish institutions in Europe and in Occupied Palestine will also pay the price for the growing battle for influence between Al Qaeda (al Nusra) and ISIS.

Jobs for all who need them?

Young, fit Palestinians are at last being offered a job in a country where they are forbidden by law to work or own a home. Da’ish is reportedly paying an average of $300 a month, promising two and sometimes three days off each week to visit one’s family, cash bonuses for marriage and one-time child subsidies of $400 per child. Subsidies for food of $70 a month are also being offered, in the face of the fact that UNWRA has just reduced monthly cash for food stipends to a mere $30 per month. One can imagine what some of the camp residents are thinking: which horse is the best bet for an improved life and for full return to our own country?

Based on conversations with recently-arrived Palestinian refugees from Syria, as well as old friends in Lebanon’s camps, this observer is confident that today only a small percentage of Palestinians are responding to the siren-call of ISIS.

But tomorrow?

Franklin Lamb’s most recent book, Syria’s Endangered Heritage, An international Responsibility to Protect and Preserve is in production by Orontes River Publishing, Hama, Syrian Arab Republic.

04 July, 2015
Countercurrents.org

 

Ecuador Fights For Survival – Against Its Elites

By Andre Vltchek

To overlook tremendous progress that Ecuador registered under the current administration, would take great determination and discipline.

New airports, highways, hospitals and culture centers are everywhere, and they are impressive. Cities are counting with wide sidewalks, and public parks are equipped with all sorts of playgrounds for children, some extremely innovative.

There are public libraries in some of the parks, armed with free Wi-Fi zones. Buses and trolleybuses are running on dedicated lanes and are heavily subsidized (25 cents per ride), while Quito is planning to build its first line of metro.

Government puts great emphasis on health, education and culture.

You want to check your pulse before a powerwalk in the park, or are you a single mother who wants to talk to a nutritionist? Help is always there, available. Not only at the hospitals, but in small, modern health centers. And help is always free!

While, when I used to live in this part of the world some two decades ago, most theatres were out of reach for indigenous people, now cultural institutions, including the National Theatre, are celebrating great culture of the original owners of this land. 85% of all cultural events in Ecuador are free of charge and even those that are charging some entry fee are heavily subsidized.

But above all, it is confidence and optimism on the faces of common people that is impressive. While in 1990’s it was all doom and gloom, young and old people coming from once deprived neighborhoods of the cities, as well as countryside, are now smiling assertively. Once again, this is their country, and their home!

***

It is great news for majority of Ecuadorian citizens – but terrible nightmare for the ‘elites’.

They no longer feel unique, no longer is this country their huge, private playground and a milking cow. The ‘elites’ still have money and their villas, as well as servants, luxury cars and regular trips to those lands they are faithfully serving – North America and Europe.

But their status is diminishing. No longer they feel admired, no longer they are feared. Increasingly they are forced to play by rules and to respect local laws. That would be unimaginable just ten years ago. For some, this is the end of the world!

The rich, the ‘elites’, are sour losers. In fact, they have no idea how to accept defeat. Never before in the history of this country they actually had to. To them this is new reality, this nation ruled by the government, which is working on behalf of the people. The ‘elites’ feel let down, cheated, even humiliated. They have no idea how to respect democracy (rule of the people). They only know how to make decisions, and to give orders, and to loot.

This could lead to inevitable conflict, and Ecuador is not an exception. To greater or smaller extend, the same is happening in Venezuela, Bolivia, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and even in Chile. Immediately after people vote a socialist government in, immediately after the government begins working for the majority, the elites start reacting. Their goal is clear and predictable: to discredit the administration and to reverse the course.

Attacks can be performed through ‘nonviolent’ means, including protests, disinformation campaign through mass media, even hunger strikes. Or they can be conducted by extremely aggressive means: economic sabotage, creation of shortages; things that extreme right wing used so successfully against the socialist government of Salvador Allende in Chile, before the 1973 military coup.

If everything else fails, ‘elites’ unite their forces with the military and with the West, commit treason, and attempt to overthrow legitimate left-wing government, through direct actions.

This happened on several occasions in Venezuela, and now, such violent scenario could not be excluded in Ecuador and elsewhere.

***

Lately, in Ecuador, right-wing ‘elites’ are continuously protesting against the administration, accusing it of corruption and other ills.

The latest chapter was related to proposed progressive inheritance tax law, which would order those who own houses priced over 1 million dollars, to pay 70 percent to the state. Poor people would pay nothing, if their houses cost lesser than 35.000 dollars. Those whose dwellings are priced under US$100.000 would still pay very little.

Rich Ecuadoreans see this as unacceptable. They began stalking government offices. They protested all over the capital. They launched tremendous propaganda campaign against the government. And they threatened to disrupt the visit of the Pope Francis, to Ecuador. Fearing huge scandal, the government postponed passing of the law. That calmed down passions for a day or two, but in no time the protesters returned to the streets of Quito.

“We will not rest until this government collapses!” A man taking his family to one of protest sites told me. Entire family dressed in black, crosses hanging on their chests.

And then again, before leaving Ecuador, I was approached by a well to do family, as I was walking towards my hotel:

“Please, our daughter is writing an essay in English… It is her homework, for her English language class… Private school, you know… She was asked to approach a foreigner, and encourage him or her to describe everything negative that is happening in this country.”

How did they know I was a foreigner? Oh yes, I was holding a novel written in English.

I patted their cute private-school daughter on the head.

“I will teach you a nice song”, I said, in Spanish.

Then I clenched my right fist and began singing “International”, loudly and clearly, in Russian.

In horror, they fled. One passer-by applauded.

***

Corruption is one of the main rallying cries of the ‘elites’. They claim that the government is mismanaging the country.

They can get away with such statements only because they are controlling mass media – most of the television networks and newspapers. Otherwise, entire country would die from laugher.

When right wing was in charge, it grabbed everything. Like in Paraguay where 2% of the population is still controlling well over 75% of land. Like in Chile, where, after Pinochet was forced to step down, his country was suffering from the greatest income disparity in South America. Like in Venezuela, where, before Hugo Chavez became the President, ‘elites’ grabbed billions, using oil deposits as collateral for insane loans that were happily supplied by the West and its institutions. Corruption and theft had been synonymous with the upper class rule, everywhere in Latin America.

It should not be forgotten that John Perkins, author of “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man”, was actually working mainly in Ecuador and Indonesia, when he was administering sex, alcohol and cash as tools to persuade local elites to take more and more unnecessary loans, because indebted nation is easy to control from Washington or London.

Entire nations, including Ecuador, were robbed, plundered, forced into perpetual underdevelopment. By whom?! By those damned elites who are now talking about corruption in the government ranks!

Instead of being grateful that they are not facing treason trials, ‘elites’ in places like Ecuador are now, once again, on the offensive, selling their souls and their country to the Empire!
In an indigenous city of Riobamba, I speak to Pablo Narvaez, director of culture, and to his wife Carina.

Pablo and Carina created impressive regional youth orchestra, not unlike those in Venezuela. But here, they did it first with almost no help, by training poor boys and girls from the villages, turning them into impressive professional musicians.

Local house of culture, under their management, is inspiring, as a building but mainly because of what it is offering: high quality art, most of it political: pigs devouring dollar bills, while poor indigenous children are watching in desperation and spite. In another room, great satirical painting demonstrates that indigenous people from Amazonia are not pure, anymore, squeezing their VAIO computers and mobile phones.

After discussing local art, we all walk to the market, where countless cheeky women serve local delicacy – suckling pigs.

“Hey!” they scream at me and at my friend Walter Bustos, who used to be part of the government, and who is still deeply involved in the ‘process’. “Hey, eat my pig and then marry me!”

These are not shy, depressed indigenous women, anymore. These are confident good-hearted matrons living in the country that gave them back their dignity, and sense of humor.

Pablo, originally concert pianist and professor, is not always holding the same political line as the President of Ecuador, but they agree on many issues:

“Ideologically, I come from the left. But I do not belong to any political party. We are all human beings, and so I intuitively believe in equality. I share many believes with the government, when it comes to social inclusivity and education, as well as the infrastructure. The process is long, we all have to be patient…”

We talk about the progress that had been already made: great improvement in health, water supply, electricity, education and culture.

Riobamba has only over 200.000 people. Before Pablo and his wife came on board, the city had 50 live events annually.

“Now we arrange over 750 events per year”, says Pablo. “We utilize all infrastructure that we have here: theatres, museums, even churches…. Markets, too, as well as public squares.”

Culture and arts always form important part of the Latin American revolutions. On this continent, it is not only about ideology, ideas and hard work; it is also about heart and dreams.

“And what about the taxes?” I ask, before we part. I know that Carina used to work in this field. I told her, that on the way to Riobamba, we stopped in a village, where people complained even about symbolic one dollar per month taxation.

Carina smiles: “Taxes always existed. I used to help collecting them. But now they are formalizing the tax system. Here, until now, there is no ‘culture’ of paying taxes, formally…”

And this is what the right wing is using for its own political gains. Their propaganda shouts: “Let us win and you will pay nothing!” They dare to say this to the poor whom they were robbing for centuries!

Before we leave, youth orchestra is blasting old traditional Quechua tune, to celebrate out visit. It is all touching and we all feel optimistic.

Pablo gives me several books of poetry published in Riobamba, his own and those of other poets. All of them are published in two languages: in Spanish and in local language – Quechua.

We drive back to Quito, part of our long journey on a perfect, new 6-lane highway.

Countryside is stunning. On the left, spectacular volcano Cotopaxi, one of the highest in the world, is hiding its snow-capped peak in the clouds. Ecuador, President Correa often says, is like a paradise on earth. It has tall mountains, stunning coastline, jungle of Amazonian basin, and Galapagos Islands, overflowing with pristine fauna and flora.

It also has natural great resources. If there is no sabotage from ‘elites’, if there is no intervention from the West, this country could continue flourishing under progressive, people-oriented, socialist government.

But there is sabotage, there is subversion, and there are interventions.

And all this could collapse, if not defended!

***

Back in Quito, I speak to Sonya Maria Bustos and her husband Norberto Fuertes, both journalists, now working for the magnificent Ecuadorian Cultural Center.

They offer to connect me to some top government officials, including Oscar Bonillo, the secretary general of Allianza.

I refuse. Next time, yes, but during this visit I want to travel and see with my own eyes; I want to hear directly what people of Ecuador have to say.

Sonya is sad:

“Because of ‘elites’, country is now unstable, despite the fact that so many things changed for better! No more hospitals full of poor children! Do you remember – before, sick people were everywhere! New hospitals are growing all over the country. But some very rich people are trying to get into the government – to infiltrate it…. In order to stop the progress.”

She pauses. We are both lost in thoughts. Then she continues:

“Now rich people get out of their Hummers in order to protest. 8 years of great progress, but they are still protesting. They have no shame… People like Guillermo Lasso, who has definitely some sort of contract with the United States…”

***

My friend Tamara Pearson, an Australian journalist who spent many years living in and covering Venezuela, is now working for TeleSUR in Quito. Like myself, she is impressed by developments in Ecuador, under Correa:

“If you ask people in Ecuador: in Quito, in the big and small towns around it, how they feel about the current government, almost all of them are positive – in stark contrast to the people in Honduras and Guatemala, for example. Often the first thing they’ll mention is the roads: a lot of infrastructure has been improved, and roads mean a lot to so many communities, many of them indigenous, that were cut off and isolated with only harsh dirt roads, often broken up by landslides from the constant rain, to connect them to larger towns and to food and gas supplies. Though there is much still to do, poverty has decreased, corruption has notably decreased, and people feel that things are decent, dignified, and stable and want that to continue. Most remember the greedy presidents of the past who lied and stole, and unlike Correa, did not speak Quechua, and don’t want to return to those days. Like Chavez, Correa has his weekly show (though on Saturdays here – in Venezuela it was on Sunday mornings). The show goes for hours, and Correa discusses issues and provides information on what the government is doing. A summary is given in Quechua at the end. Though there is much less of a push towards political participation here than in Venezuela – I’d say almost none – its clear that this is a government that puts people first, the poor majority first, and Correa at least prioritizes informing people of what the government is doing, – something the Australian government for example, doesn’t even bother to do.”

But many others, including Walter Bustos, worry about the future. Walter worries that President Correa does not have the military covering his back. He also worries that dollarization of Ecuadorean economy could prove to be a weak point for political resistance against the West. He worries that many young people are turning into technocrats, and that, at the end, as long as they keep their good jobs, they wouldn’t care for whom they are working, for Correa or for someone else.

His friend Paola Pabon, Assembly member representing Pichincha, worries as well. She supports President Correa, and she sees him as a great regional leader, but she also admits that Ecuadorian revolution is fragile, and that there is lack of unity between the government and the military.

Both agree that the US is behind the recent protests.

***

At the end of my work in Ecuador, I fly to Cuenca, to that beautiful colonial city, and from there I hire a car and drive to the hard of Cañari land, to Ingapirca, where massive Inca castle still dominates gentle landscape, and where old Inca and pre-Inca road systems are still connecting villages and towns.

Miguel, a local comrade, is travelling with me. He also translates when we enter deep villages that are lost at the bottom of valleys, or are hugging steep green hills.

“Spaniards robbed everyone here,” I am told. “They took everything. They destroyed castles and settlements. Then capitalism took the rest.”

“People were forced into Christianity”, I say. “They were ruined by Christianity. Do they really still believe in it?”

I am told that Christianity is just a ritual, for the majority here. People do not attach much importance to it, anymore. Their lives go on, and their original culture is once again prevailing.

Near Ingapirca I am witnessing people celebrating The Inti Raymi, “Festival of the Sun”, dating back to Inca Empire.

I am told about determined government drinking water projects and schemes, and about improvements in both health and education. Most of the people here, as well as around Riobamba, are benefiting from those revolutionary changes.

But many are not able to formulate their support for Correa. They take recent developments for granted.

And Correa and his men and women are not very good at propaganda, or with mobilizing the people, definitely not as good as President Chavez used to be in Venezuela.

Here, the revolution is gentle and shy, as is the accent of Cañari people near Cuenca.

And there lies the danger.

Ecuadorean ‘elites’ are not gentle at all. Their arrogance, greed and selfishness are ready to smash all achievements of the revolution. Their message is clear: to hell with Ecuadorian people, especially those who are poor, as long as we can keep our villas, Hummers and our kids in those private schools!

Just recently, President Correa warned that the plan of destabilizing the government is being put in action.

Leaders of the “opposition” will wait until arrival of Pope Francis, or perhaps they will wait bit longer, until his departure from Ecuador. Then they will hit. And they will hit hard. The mayor of Quito leads the anti-government forces in the capital.

The government should not follow the path of President Allende. It has to counter-attack, before it is too late! Treason is serious crime in all societies. And treason is exactly what Ecuadorean elites are now committing!

Andre Vltchek is a novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist.

04 July, 2015
Countercurrents.org

USA Celebrates Profitable Genocide Enslaving Africans To Destroying 6 Muslim Nations!

By Jay Janson

Independence Holiday in the USA becomes a time when citizens tend to reflect on the nations 238 year history. It is a history typical of six European empires in the areas of genocide and plunder. Genocide: the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation. plural: genocides; review of USA’s; update on present and future prosecution thereof.

Independence Holiday in the USA becomes a time when citizens tend to reflect on the nations two hundred and thirty-eight year history. It is a history typical of six European empires in the areas of genocide and plunder.
– genocide: 1. the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation. plural: genocides [Google Dictionary]

Americans hoping to make US mass murderous crimes against humanity that are prosecutable under Nuremberg Principles law appear to be less than genocide,
attempt to employ the old and outdated dictionary meaning of genocide wherein its scope and intention is defined as the utter and complete extermination of a group, race or nation.

The USA, like its parent colonial power the British Empire, before it, has had its undeservedly wealthy elite through their private speculative investment banks continually investing in genocide inorder to both maintain its power over society and accumulate capital extend its power wherever and whenever regardless of laws, including regardless of common law.

If genocide means killing people of a group, race or nation until a desired profitable arrangement is accepted by them, then US banks have invested in profitable genocide non-stop over the entire life of the nation up to today and have their CIA and Pentagon laying plans for more genocide as we read.

-USA’s AFRICAN genocide 1776-1864: New England banks financed deadly but lucrative slave trade, forced labor in the North, before massive forced labor in South; millions died during seizure and transport from Africa and millions died in forced labor. (For the first time in recorded history of slavery, inhumanity toward slaves as practiced in the USA and Colonial Powers, eventually became based on having inculcating society with fear-fostered ignorance and a preposterous insistence of racial superiority, sanding on its head white feelings of inferiority in the face of the far more accomplished cultures pale-skinned Europeans had conquered. [5]

-NATIVE AMERICAN 1776-onward: Genocidal theft of habitats of a thousand Native American nations instigated by banks speculating in land; forced captive marches, broken treaties, wars, deaths from malnutrition certainly reached more than one million deaths already long ago.

MEXICO 1836 US rapes away half of Mexico through merciless war. Mexicans are made aware that Americans will keep killing Mexicans until USA demands are met. “2014 U.S. ‘intelligence’ assistance is larger than anywhere outside Afghanistan” [Washington Post]

-PHILIPPINES 1898-1902: Invasion and massacres during Filipino war for independence – upwards of a million lives savagely taken. The overseas investment community propagated the racist concept of ‘Manifest Destiny’ make genocide tolerable.

-CHINA 1900 murderous sacking of Beijing, orgy of killing and stripping away all the cultural treasures for sale that the American and British could load into a few boxcars of a train.

-EUROPE and Millions die world wide as US banks through the Federal Reserve financing and entry of US Armed Forces into WW I; 1934-36 Senate Nye Committee investigates allegations that the U.S. entered WW I to make big profits. Senator Nye created headlines by drawing connections between the wartime profits of the banking and munitions industries to America’s involvement in World War I; investigation of these “merchants of death” documents the huge profits that arms factories made during the war; found bankers had pressured Wilson to intervene in the war in order to protect their loans abroad; arms industry had been price fixing; held excessive war investor influence on American foreign policy leading up to and during the war.

-SOVIET UNION 1917-20: Two US Armies invade along with armies of thirteen other capitalist nations, participate in, aid, foster and support of8civil war; seven to nine million new Soviet citizens die, three million just from typhoid.

-ITALY 1922 -1936: Fascist Mussolini frequently lionized in both the New York Times and Washington Post, Fortune Magazine; Morgan Bank’s Thomas Lamont, served as the international chief of Mussolini’s finances; Mussolini received considerable investment aid from US bankers, as well as his own banker, Bank of America head A.P. Giannini. Otto Kahn, a leading banker with Kuhn, Loeb and Pres. Franklin Roosevelt expressed admiration. In 1935 Fascist Italy invaded Ethiopia bringing death to more than a million Ethiopians, tens of thousands from mustard gas dropped from planes on civilian population. [Angelo Del Boca, The Ethiopian War 1935–1941 (1965)]

-GERMANY 1933-37: US investments and joint-ventures of 50 largest US corporations build the Nazi Wehrmacht up to world’s #1, facilitating WW II and Holocaust, the magna return on investment making USA the single superpower, the investments and joint-venturing done in full knowledge of Hitler’s continually announced plans for ridding Germany of Jews and communists uand to fulfill Germany’s historic ‘Drang nach Osten’ [Push to the East] into the Soviet Union; circa 40 million die, just in Europe./ 1945 US makes sure Nuremberg Trials do not indict Nazi industrialists and bankers with whom American corporations, investors and banks had partnered.

-CHINA 1944-49: US funding and military aid draws out civil war. CIA incursions; many millions starve.

-JAPAN 1945: Two cities of civilians Atom-Bombed, sixty fire-bombed, nearly one million civilian lives taken. At Tokyo Trials of Japanese War Criminals, a US general of highest rank, commented off the record, “If the Japanese had won the war they would have tried us.”

-VIETNAM 1945-1960: Truman criminally brings back French Army (which as Vichy French, had murderously run its Indochinese colonies for the Japanese Empire profit during WW II), in US ships to reconquer a Vietnam declared independent by US decorated ally Ho Chi Minh with US major in attendance. Tens of thousands of Vietnamese are killed by the French while they are being up to 80% funded by USA.

-KOREA 1950-2014: Two and half million Koreas will perish as US bombs both south and north flat, after US Army invaded, criminally cutting the nation in two, overthrowing a democratic Korean government and installing a murderous dictator in the south, whose police and special forces would butcher nearly two hundred thousand before the army of the north swept south reuniting Korea. Perhaps another million deaths as a result of crippling sanctions on the northern part. [see Prosecutable US Crimes against Humanity in Korea “Dissident Voice.org click here]

PALESTINE: 1947-2014 US forces through with threats a UN approval of a farcical and outrageously thieving plan to partition the Holy Land, a colonial crime against humanity against the residents of the Palestine, in full knowledge that permanent civil war would result and obviously intended to create deadly conflict, permanent hostilities, destabilization and facilitate Western imperialist penetration. The financial establishment in the US has its colony in the heart of Middle East oil reserves at the cost of tens of thousands of lives, some of which from families of Jewish survivors of the Holocaust denied US refuge before, during and after the Holocaust which itself would have been impossible without the heavy US investment and joint venturing in Nazi Germany. [US Economic Facilitation of Holocaust and Middle East Destabilizing Partition
click here ]

-USA ITSELF 1947 onward: Operation MOCKINGBIRD — CIA recruits news organizations and journalists to become spies and disseminators of propaganda. Washington Post becomes a major CIA player. Eventually CIA’s media assets include ABC, NBC, CBS, Time, Newsweek, Associated Press, United Press International, Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, Scripps-Howard, Copley News Service and more.

-IRAN 1953 & 1980-88 1953 Oil coup; CIA and British M16 false-flag overthrow of Iranian democracy, many deaths./1980 air attack/1980-88 US backs Saddam Hussein invasion-war – more than half million Iranians lives lost/CIA and British M16 false-flag overthrow of Iranian democracy, many deaths/1979- US sanctions and threats of nuclear attack from US presidents.

-GUATEMALA 1954 President ‘Ike’ Eisenhower ordered CIA overthrow bombing of first elected democracy; years of mass murders follow. [1964 Author performing and learning, read Noble laureate Asturias’ horribly descriptive “El Señor Presidente”.]

-VIETNAM 1955-1975: Upwards of 4 million die. Twice the bomb tonnage dropped in all of WWII/1973 CIA Operation Phoenix murders 20,000 Vietcong/ [1993-99 Author periodic Assist. Conductor Ho Chi Minh founded National Symphony Orchestra in Hanoi and on tours; every member of orchestra lost family “killed by Americans” spoken with Buddhist equanimity.]””-TURKEY 1955: Istanbul Pogrom a false-flag plot by Turkish branch of Operation Gladio, a clandestine anti-communist initiative created by the US; many Greeks, Armenians die; Turkish communists arrested/[Author visiting Istanbul forced to room in safe UK WMCA during provoked riots]

-Laos 1957-63 The CIA carries out approximately one coup per year trying to nullify Laos’ democratic elections. The problem is the Pathet Lao, a leftist group with enough popular support to be a member of any coalition government. In the late 50s, the CIA even creates an “Armee Clandestine” of Asian mercenaries to attack the Pathet Lao. After the CIA’s army suffers numerous defeats, the U.S. starts high-altitude carpet bombing, dropping more bombs on Laos than all the U.S. bombs dropped in World War II; Tiny Laos will become the most bombed country in history; A quarter of all Laotians will eventually become refugees, many living in caves. [Steve Kangas, A Timeline of CIA Atrocities www.huppi.com/kangaroo/CIAtimeline.html]

-ETHIOPIA 1960s: US huge military arms sales build up for Emperor Selassie /1977 US switches and backs and arms Somalia invasion of People’s Democratic Republic of Ethiopia/Late 1980s US Heritage Foundation involvement ending in bloodbath civil war; for using Ethiopia and Somalia as pawns in Cold War a million est. starve to death.

-WORLDWIDE 1960s-2014: CIA involved in lives-destroying illegal drug cultivation and trafficking has cause impossible-to-estimate loss of life worldwide – also CIA hypocritical anti-narcotics programs mean to spread further CIA penetration and covert violence for political-economic control in Latin America.

-CONGO 1961-2014: Assassination of popular Pres. Lumumba, CIA US Air Force Interventions, overt and covert operations, have fostered civil wars; it is estimated between 15 and 20 million have died from warfare and famine, and if one goes back to the US destruction of the new nation, all this was to retain Congo governance profitable for US investors.

If the reader wishes to go on revisiting the subsequent decades of US genocide for profit, see the OpEdNews published article the beginning of a very long list is taken: look at:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/July-4-Weekend-Reality-Che-by-Jay-Janson-Banking_Capitalism-Over-Humanity_Genocide_Humanity-140706-669.html
July 4 Weekend Reality-Check Chronology of US Speculative Investment Banking Instigated Genocide

Before and after July 4, 2015, genocide for profit (In speculative investment driven Western Colonialism never was a different reason for it) is taking place thanks to participating and cooperating Americans in uniform and CIA in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia and Yemen, and surely further lives are being planned to be taken in the Ukraine and Venezuela and elsewhere as profits therefrom appear sure.

This article closes with a reminder that all the above mentioned are prosecutable crimes against humanity under Nuremberg Principles law and US economic power wanes in the world economy, lawsuits for indemnity, reparations and compensation by survivors can be expected to be so enormous in number as to make American investment in genocide unprofitable and thus inoperable.

The reader is invited to check out the website of a strong lawsuit against American citizens by an Iraqi mother that is being assisted by former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark at the lawsuits website below and spate of articles:

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/support-first-us-iraqi-lawsuit-against-bush-administration-about-the-iraq-war#/story

Why an Iraqi Single Mom Is Suing George W. Bush for War Crimes
Why an Iraqi Single Mom Is Suing George W. Bush for Wa…
An Iraqi single mom and a tech lawyer believe they can prove the Iraq War was a “crime of aggression” under U.S. law.
View on www.yesmagazine.org
Preview by Yahoo
Why an Iraqi Single Mom Is Suing George W … – Truthout
www.truth-out.org/news/item/18295-why
Truthout
Aug 20, 2013 – Why an Iraqi single mom and a tech lawyer think they can prove the Iraq War was a “crime of aggression” under U.S. law.
Chris Hedges | The Crucible of Iraq – Truthout
click hereiraq
Aug 20, 2013 – 9 posts – “5 authors
Why an Iraqi Single Mom Is Suing George W. Bush for War Crimes by … a long- time Iraq activist who cofounded the conference, told Truthout.
Jim Dean VT 6-18-15… “Ramsey Clark leads lawsuit against …
https://kauilapele.wordpress.com/…/jim-dean-vt-6-18-15-ramsey-clark-le…
Jun 18, 2015 – “Ramsey Clark leads lawsuit against US Iraq War Officials” … Attorney General Ramsey Clark told Truthout that Saleh’s case represents a crucial struggle … The team was assembled by Sundus Saleh, an Iraqi single mother.
Former US Attorney General Joins Lawsuit Against Bush for …
realitieswatch.com/former-us-attorney-general-joins-lawsuit-against-bush…
Federal judge tosses Iraqi woman’s suit against George W …
www.sfgate.com/…/Federal-judge-tosses-Iraqi-w…
San Francisco Chronicle
Dec 25, 2014 – An Iraqi woman’s suit against former President George W. Bush and other … 19 ruling, U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar of San Francisco said the suit had … Her suit, filed last year as a proposed class action on behalf of other …
Support first US-Iraqi lawsuit against Bush Administration …
https://www.indiegogo.com/…/support-first-us-iraqi-lawsuit-ag…
RT
Jun 18, 2015 – Former US Attorney General brings legal challenge against Iraq War officials … Benjamin Ferencz, the last living prosecutor of the Nuremberg trials and advocate for … Saleh’s suit was dismissed in December 2014 by the United StatesDistrict …. How about, “men, women, and children”, as God defines us?
Witness Iraq | Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/WitnessIraq?fref=photo
Iraqi Mom Seeks To Sue Bush, Cheney For War Crimes
Iraqi Mom Seeks To Sue Bush, Cheney For War Crimes
Sundus Shaker Saleh believes she can make the case that former President George W. Bush and key members of his administration are guilty of war crimes in planning t…

View on www.huffingtonpost.com
Preview by Yahoo
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/support-first-us-iraqi-lawsuit-against-bush-administration-about-the-iraq-war#/story

Why an Iraqi Single Mom Is Suing George W. Bush for War Crimes

Iraqi Mom Seeks To Sue Bush, Cheney For War Crimes

Jay Janson is an archival research peoples historian activist, musician and writer; has lived and worked on all continents; articles on media published in China, Italy, UK, India and the US; now resides in NYC

04 July, 2015
Countercurrents.org

 

The Surreal Quality Of American Racism

By Romi Mahajan

I’ve been mulling over this article for weeks, knowing that there is absolutely no way I’ll be able to pull it off without offending some or many; usually I would be given pause by this in any way- all writing of any significance whatsoever offends some and delights others. But what if my writing offends good people who are unceasingly victimized? That was the question that dogged me until I concluded that the reasons for writing about a recent experience are profound and that the good that can come from it outweighs the possible –even the likely- offense.

So dear reader, please understand this if you care to proceed.

I was recently on a business trip in a major city and was walking back to my hotel when two white homeless men got into a scuffle in front of me. They exchanged words, a minor blow or two, and started yelling all manner of insults at each other. Finally, one of them (the lighter skinned one) called the other “Nigger.” He meant this as an insult. The darker-skinned (but white) man responded by saying that he was not a “Nigger.” This exchange went on in that vein (“You are an N”..”I ain’t an N.”….) for some time until the men separated and went their own ways.

I was shocked. So many thoughts rushed through my mind. The incident was dense with a surreal insanity. A class elitist could dismiss this as the ranting of homeless men. But rantings they were not. The “insult” and the “defense” were conscious and clear. You can hit me, call me names, but when you venture to call me “N” you really mean business. And that epithet is so thorough, so insulting that I can let other things got but must defend myself against it. And that too even from folks scraping the bottom of the economic barrel (which, elitist or not, indicates “status” in increasingly hierarchical America.)

For some, this might be bewildering, for others not so much. For both groups, however, incidents like this indicate at once the deep, tectonic racism that defines American society and its surreal quality. For African-Americans, the message from White America is clear- even those we discard, even those outside the economic system are better than you. Being you is the lowest state imaginable, worse even than destitution.

Clearly, not all White Americans are consciously racist and many are no more racist than anyone else. Certainly, most don’t “want” to be racist. But “wants” are matters of what’s conscious and what’s conscious needn’t reflect reality. Racism in America is deep-seated, fundamental, and normative; it is in effect unconscious, built into behavior, into assumptions, into the very imagination.

Imagine the following – two African-American men are fighting. They hurl abuses at each other. They push each other. Finally, after much frustration, they call each other “White”—the ultimate insult. That pushes each other the limit and they escalate. Seems far-fetched but that is exactly what happened in the incident I recounted above, though inversely. It’s not that African-Americans don’t have their own race-hate but the prejudices they harbor are not the ones that form the fundamental fulcrum of American society.

Power allows prejudice to translate into material outcomes. For African-Americans these outcomes are palpable, countable, and real- poverty, health woes, incarceration, death. The list goes on- humiliation, soul-crushing stasis, rejection, depression.

Racism in America is both real and surreal.

Romi Mahajan is the founder of KKM Group a marketing firm, an author, an investor, and an activist.

03 July, 2015
Countercurrents.org