Archives: Articles

By Ilan Pappe

Those of us who know the nature of the beast could not have been surprised by the results of the Israeli election.

Like many of my friends, I was also relieved that a liberal Zionist government was not elected. It would have allowed the charade of the “peace process” and the illusion of the two-state solution to linger on while the suffering of the Palestinians continues.

As always, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu himself provided the inevitable conclusion when he declared the end of the two-state solution — inviting us all to the long overdue funeral of an ill-conceived idea that provided Israel with international immunity for its colonialist project in Palestine.

The power of the charade was on show when the world and local pundits unrealistically predicted a victory for liberal Zionism, an Israeli ideological trend that is near extinction — embodied by the Zionist Union list headed by Isaac Herzog and Tzipi Livni.

The exit polls compiled by Israel’s finest statisticians reinforced the wishful thinking, leading to a huge media fiasco as expectations of the “liberal” camp’s victory turned into shock and dismay over Netanyahu’s triumph.

Debacle

It is worthwhile to begin an initial analysis of the Israeli elections with closer attention to this debacle.

An important segment of those who vote for Netanyahu’s Likud Party belong to the second generation of Jews who came from Arab and Muslim countries.

They were joined this time by settler communities in the occupied West Bank who voted as a bloc for Netanyahu. The Arab Jews voted for Likud much more then they voted for Netanyahu. The settlers did so at the expense of their new political base — Naftali Bennett’s Jewish Home party that promises outright annexation of the West Bank — so as to ensure that Likud would be the largest party in the next parliament.

Neither group was entirely happy with their choice and were not so proud to wear on their sleeves their decision to vote yet again for Netanyahu. That is perhaps why many of them did not admit to the exit polls who they really voted for.

The result was quite catastrophic for all the renowned pollsters. They missed the headline that should have been announced when the exit polls were done — a smashing victory for the Likud in 2015 and a disappointing result for the liberal Zionist camp. The more exciting news was the success of the Palestinian citizens of Israel who united to form the Joint List and won the third largest bloc of seats after the Likud and the Zionist Union.

Likud’s victory

The three outcomes — an invigorated Likud, a defeated Labor Party (the Zionist Union is a partnership of Labor and Livni’s “Initiative” list) and a united Palestinian representation — can either be ignored by the international community or serve as a catalyst for new thinking on the evergreen question of Palestine.

The victory of Likud, despite the social unrest in Israel over growing economic hardships, and the unprecedented low standing of the Jewish state in the international community, indicate clearly that there will be no change from within Israel in the near future.

Labor, meanwhile, has maximized its potential: it is not likely to do better and hence it does not offer an alternative. The main reason for this is that it is not an alternative. Israel in 2015 is still a settler-colonialist state and a liberal version of this ideology cannot offer a genuine reconciliation to the indigenous people of Palestine.

Ever since Likud took power for the first time after its historic 1977 victory, Jewish voters have preferred the real thing, so to speak, steadily turning away from the paler, liberal version of Zionism.

Labor was in power long enough for us to know that it could not offer even the most moderate Palestinian leaders any deal that would have granted them genuine sovereignty — not even in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which form only a fifth of historic Palestine.

The reason is very simple: the raison d’etre of a settler-colonialist society is displacement of the natives and their replacement by settlers. At best natives can be confined in gated enclaves, at worst they are doomed to be expelled or destroyed.

Decolonization

The conclusion for the international community should be clear now. Only decolonization of the settler state can lead to reconciliation. And the only way to kick off this decolonization is by employing the same means exercised against the other long-standing settler state of the twentieth century: apartheid South Africa.

The option of BDS — boycott, divestment and sanctions — has never looked more valid than it does today. Hopefully this, together with popular resistance on the ground, will entice at least some of the second and third generation of the Jewish settler-colonial society to help stop the Zionist colonization project.

Pressure from outside and from the resistance movement within are the only way to force Israelis to reframe their relationship with all the Palestinians, including the refugees, on the basis of democratic and egalitarian values. Otherwise, we can expect Likud to win forty seats in the next elections, perhaps on the back of the next outraged Palestinian uprising.

There are two reasons why this approach is still feasible. One is the Joint List. It will have no impact whatsoever on the Israeli political system. In fact, like the Palestinian Authority, the days of Palestinian representation in the Knesset, Israel’s parliament, are numbered. If a united list can have no impact, and if a disempowered PA does not satisfy even liberal Zionists, then the time has come to look for new forms of representation and action.

The Joint List’s importance lies elsewhere. It can ignite the imagination of other Palestinian communities about the possibilities of unity of purpose. That Islamists and secular leftists can work together for a better future is an example that can have far-reaching implications not only for Palestinians and Israelis, but for an increasingly polarized Europe. The Joint List represents a group of native Palestinians who know the Israelis well, are deeply committed to democratic values and have risen in importance among the rest of the Palestinians after years of being marginalized and almost forgotten.

The second reason for hoping that new alternatives will emerge is that despite all its nastiness and callousness, the Zionist settler-colonial project was not the worst in history.

With all the horrendous suffering it has caused, most recently during the summer massacre in Gaza, it did not exterminate the local population and its dispossession project remains incomplete. This does not mean that it will not get worse or that one should underestimate the suffering of the Palestinians.

Vision

What it means is that the main impulse among Palestinians is not for retribution but for restitution. Their wish is to live normal lives — something Zionism denied all the Palestinians ever since the ideology’s arrival in Palestine in the late nineteenth century.

Normal life means an end to the discriminatory apartheid policies against the Palestinians in Israel, the end of the military occupation and siege of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and recognition of the right of the Palestinian refugees to return to their homeland.

The quid pro quo is accepting the Jewish ethnic group that emerged in Palestine as part of a new, decolonized and fully democratic political dispensation based on principles that would be agreed on by all concerned.

The international community can play a positive role in bringing this vision about if it adopts three basic assumptions. The first is that Zionism is still colonialism and hence anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism but anti-colonialism.

The second is that if it leaves behind the exceptionalism it granted Israel over the years, mainly in the realm of human rights, it has a better chance of playing a constructive role towards safeguarding these rights in the Middle East as a whole.

And finally, we should all be aware that the window of opportunity for saving innocent lives in historic Palestine is rapidly closing — if Israel’s power remains unchecked a repeat of the massacres of recent years is all but certain. It is urgent to forsake old formulas for “peace” that did not work and start looking for just and viable alternatives.

The author of numerous books, Ilan Pappe is professor of history and director of the European Centre for Palestine Studies at the University of Exeter.

21 March, 2015

Electronic Intifada

 

By Andrew Korybko

Recent decisions by South Korea raise the question of whether its leadership is becoming more pragmatic in its dealings with Beijing at the expense of Washington.

South Korea is a long-time US ally, but its support for the US is no longer as blind as it once was. Growing economic ties with China through the forthcoming free trade agreement are making the country’s foreign policy more balanced, as well as its strategic ambivalence about the US’ THAAD missile defense system. While South Korea may not fully switch sides, it looks to be on a trajectory of neutrality and pragmatism, which in and of itself is a relative loss for the US in its Pivot to Asia policy.

Who Wants What?

Let’s take a cursory look at what each of the three main players in this game want to achieve, as this can help give a clearer picture as to why South Korea made the recent economic and military choices that it did:

US:

Ideally, the US wants to integrate the 28,000 troops it has in South Korea into the ‘Chinese Containment Coalition’ (CCC) it’s building in East and Southeast Asia. It would like to prolong its military presence in the country indefinitely, and hopefully bring South Korea on board its containment plans through a formalized three-way military relationship between Seoul, Washington, and Tokyo. The US doesn’t have a real interest in seeing the two Koreas reunified, since this could likely lead to the removal of its half-century-long occupation forces.

China:

Beijing’s dream is to see the US completely leave the Korean peninsula, and for the CCC to be broken down or neutralized. It doesn’t want to see any destabilization on the Korean peninsula, since this would inevitably carry over into China itself. If the two Koreas reunify, China would cautiously monitor developments to ensure that united Korea doesn’t pose an economic or military threat that can be turned against it one day. Still, Beijing would rather have the US leave the peninsula today and deal with any challenges surrounding a united Korea tomorrow than have the Pentagon continue to provoke North Korea in China’s backyard.

South Korea:

The most important thing for Seoul is to see a resolution of the two North Korean issues, that is to say, Pyongyang’s denuclearization and reunification between both parties. Ideally, it would also like to pursue its historical ‘third way’ in balancing between its colossal Chinese and Japanese neighbors, which would entail a policy of neutrality and stability. While South Korea has obviously been under intense American influence since the end of World War II, it appears to be wising up to the fact that a more multipolar policy is the most efficient way to pursue its objectives.

Deciphering Seoul’s Decisions

Now it’s time to look at the four latest decisions that South Korea made which have led to talk of a potential pivot (and against it):

Indefinite OpCon Delay:

The US and South Korea agreed last October to delay America’s transfer of war-time operational control (‘OpCon’) to Seoul until an undetermined time in the future, with the idea being that South Korea is currently incapable of commanding its own forces in the event of a war. The effect has been to prolong direct American control over South Korea’s military affairs, meaning that it would literally control its forces in the event of a war with North Korea or China. Even if peace prevails in the long-term, US forces will not be leaving the country for quite some time until then, in what is a clear victory for Washington.

The China-South Korea Free Trade Agreement:

It was only natural that the two sides would reach such an agreement, set to enter into force later this year, since China is South Korea’s largest trading partner and South Korea is China’s third largest. According to the South China Morning Post, “Chinese investment in Korea jumped 374 per cent to US$631 million last year from US$133 million in 2013” in anticipation of the deal, in a clear demonstration of China’s eagerness to expand its business dealings in the country. If economic relations further intensity, then South Korea could potentially enter into China’s Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific (its counter to the US-led TPP) and even the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (China’s response to the Western-led World Bank that it’s invited South Korea to join if it drops THAAD), which would be an enormous setback for Washington’s influence over the peninsular state.

Turning Down THAAD…:

South Korea has been strategically ambivalent about allowing the US’ THAAD missile defense system to be deployed on its territory. Seoul acutely understands that the US simply wants to build an East Asia version of its missile defense shield, and by hosting the infrastructure, it would become a complicit member of the CCC. South Korea seems to have misgivings about this, understanding that its relations with China would deteriorate as rapidly as Poland’s did with Russia after the former accepted the US’ analogous Eastern European counterpart. Should South Korea decide not to become the ‘Asian Poland’, then it would be a big blow against the US Pivot to Asia.

…To Be Tricked Into It Later?:

But the US has a trick up its sleeve, in that it’s talked South Korea into allowing THAAD to be deployed in the country in the event of vaguely described ‘emergency situations’, which could realistically be manipulated North Korean responses to staged American-South Korean war game provocations (as is the norm). Once THAAD is deployed in the country, it’s not likely it’ll leave after tensions de-escalate, thereby providing the backdoor method for the US to sneakily deploy its missile defense shield inside the country.

Remixing The Region

Other than South Korea’s move towards multipolarity, two other largely unreported trends are also transforming the region. These are South Korea’s worsening relations with Japan and North Korea’s move towards Russia. The former is the result of renewed Japanese nationalism and militarism, while the latter is due to behind-the-scenes spates between Pyongyang and Beijing. If they continue along their trajectories and are taken to their logical conclusions, these three regional trends will redefine Northeast Asia’s geopolitical arrangement in the future, which would lead to three possible developments:

America At Arm’s Length:

Although the American military presence will likely remain in the foreseeable future, Washington will be less able to influence South Korea to the same extent as it previously did, meaning that its relative power there will decline.

Japanese Redirection:

The failure of Japan to restore favorable ties with South Korea would render the CCC ineffective in Northeast Asia, and Tokyo would thus redirect all of its CCC energy southward to Vietnam and the Philippines. Tokyo’s already planned these moves, but with South Korea no longer a viable ally, it can focus more efforts southwards.

Peace Talks Part II:

With South Korea moving closer to China and North Korea doing the same to Russia, the entire dynamic of peninsular politics could be entering a watershed moment. Whereas in the past, the North Korea-China and South Korea-US duality didn’t achieve peace after over 50 years, the new arrangement might be more suitable for making progress.

Andrew Korybko is a political analyst, journalist and a regular contributor to several online journals.

20 March 2015

 

By Neve Gordon

Benjamin Netanyahu is truly a magician. Just this past Friday, most polls indicated that his Likud party would likely receive around 21 seats in the Israeli Knesset, four seats less than Yitzhak (Bougie) Herzog’s Zionist Camp (Labor Party’s new name). Revelations of corruption at the Prime Minister’s residence followed by a damning comptroller report about the real estate crisis, alongside industrial downsizing, union strikes, predictions of a weakening economy, a diplomatic stalemate, and increasing international isolation all seemed to indicate that Netanyahu was on his way out. But just when it seemed that the Zionist camp would replace the nationalist camp, the crafty campaigner began pulling rabbits out of his hat.

As if his decision to alienate the Obama Administration over the Iran negotiations was not enough, Netanyahu began pandering to the right by notifying the world that Palestinians were destined to remain stateless since he no longer believed in the creation of another Arab state alongside Israel. He presented the Likud party as the victims of a leftist media conspiracy aimed at ousting the right-wing government, while conveniently ignoring that his ally Sheldon Adelson owned Yisrael Hayom, Israel’s most widely circulated paper. He entreated his voters to return “home” promising to address their economic needs. And on Election Day itself, he frightened the Jews by declaring that Israel’s Palestinian citizens were rushing to the polls in droves, thus presenting Palestinians who cast votes for their own representatives as an existential threat.

Pandering and fear mongering together with hatred for Arabs and the left are the ingredients of Netanyahu’s secret potion, and it now appears that many voters were indeed seduced. Within a matter of a few days Netanyahu garnered almost ten additional seats for his party, cannibalizing two of his extreme right allies: Avigdor Lieberman’s Yisrael Beiteinuand Naftali Bennett’s Habayit Hayehudi. Owing to his magic, the Likud did much better than expected, and together with the ultra-Orthodox parties and a new party recently formed by a former Likud minister, Kulanu (All of US), an extreme right wing bloc with 67 out of 120 seats will almost certainly be created (and this even before the soldier’s votes have been calculated, which are usually right of center).

The outcome is clear: the people of Israel have voted for Apartheid.

It is now extremely likely that a spate of anti-democratic laws that had been shelved will soon resurface. These include laws that monitor and limit the financing of human rights NGOs, restrict freedom of the expression, reduce the authority of the Supreme Court, cancel the official status of Arabic, and, of course, bring to a vote the nation-state law. This bill, which was originally drafted by a Likud member, defines Jewishness as the state’s default in any instance, legal or legislative, in which the state’s Jewishness and its democratic aspirations clash. This means that Laws that provide equal rights to all citizens can be struck down on the pretense that they violate the state’s Jewish character. Moreover, this law reserves communal rights for Jews alone, thus denying Palestinian citizens any kind of national identity.

Alongside anti-democratic legislation, we can also expect an array of discriminatory policies to be enacted. The new government will likely implement some variation of the Prawer plan, which intends to forcefully relocate thousands of Palestinian Bedouins and take over their land. It will continue pouring billions of dollars on Israel’s settlement in the West Bank and Golan Heights and expropriate more houses and land in East Jerusalem. And it will probably imprison thousands of refugees and “illegal” migrant laborers from Africa currently workers in Israeli cities.

There is, however, one clear advantage to the election results: clarity. At least now there will be no liberal Zionist façade, camouflaging Israel’s unwillingness to dismantle its colonial project. The Israeli refrain that a diplomatic solution with the Palestinians cannot be achieved because the Palestinians lack leadership will ring even more hollow. Finally, the claim that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East will exposed for what it is: a half truth. While Israel is a democracy for Jews it is a repressive regime for Palestinians.

We can also expect little resistance to the right-wing government, since Herzog’s Zionist Camp and Yair Lapid’s Yesh Atid are also Arabphobes and therefore less against the substance of such a government and more against Netanyahu’s blatant right wing style. After all it was a political pac associated with Herzog’s party that in the days leading to the elections paid for large billboards with a picture of (Bibi) Netanyahu and his extreme right contender Naftali Bennett warning the viewers that “With Bibibennet we will remain stuck with the Palestinians for eternity.” The pac must have overlooked the fact that 20 percent of Israeli citizens are Palestinians.

And yet, during these elections there was one ray of light that shimmered through the darkness. The attempt by most of the Jewish parties to sideline the Palestinian citizens produced an unintended result. Creating a united front, the Palestinians garnered 14 seats, almost 25 percent more than they received in the previous elections, and they are now the third biggest faction in the Knesset. Unlike many of his counterparts, Ayman Odeh, the head of the new Joint Arab List, is a true leader. Extremely incisive, he often uses irony and wit to undermine his detractors while advancing an egalitarian vision for the future. In a moment of candor, a well-known Israeli commentator characterized his demeanor as a serious threat: “He’s really dangerous,” she said, “he projects something every Israeli can relate to.”

Will this threat be able to stop the imminent entrenchment of a tide of new Apartheid laws? I sincerely doubt it.

Neve Gordon is the author of ‘Israel’s Occupation’ as well as ‘The Human Right to Dominate’ (co-authored with Nicola Perugini, forthcoming June 2015). Prof. Neve Gordon teaches at Dept. of Politics and Government, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer—Sheva, Israel

19 March, 2015
Countercurrents.org

 

By Farooque Chowdhury

Latin America again sets example of solidarity and unity against imperialist intervention as the Empire threatens Venezuela with sanctions. In this moment of anti-imperialist struggle, Fidel Castro expresses solidarity to Venezuela, and Venezuela debunks a mainstream manufactured myth – the mismanaged country is on the brink of defaulting – as the republic recently serviced its debt with a US$1 billion payment.

Venezuela expresses its preparedness to talk to the US in a peaceful and civilized manner. At the same time, the republic has expressed unequivocally: Venezuela will never tolerate threats or impositions of sanctions.

Fidel: Last drop of blood for homeland

Fidel Castro, the leader of the Cuban revolution, in a message to Nicolas Maduro, the president of Venezuela, said: Venezuela is prepared to confront US “threats and impositions”. The March 16 message said: The US could no longer count on the Venezuelan military to do its bidding.

Referring to the ALBA summit scheduled to be held in Caracas Fidel’s message said: The summit will analyze the outrageous policy of the US toward Venezuela and ALBA.

Fidel’s message cites background of ALBA that tells enormous possibilities in the region:

“The idea of creating this organization came from Chavez himself, wanting to share with his Caribbean brothers and sisters the enormous economic resources with which nature had blessed his native homeland, the benefits of which had however landed in the hands of powerful US corporations, and a few Venezuelan millionaires.”

The Cuban revolutionary leader cites the old days the Venezuelan people have thrown away: “Corruption and squandering were the fundamental motivations of the first oligarchy with fascist tendencies, addicted to violence and crime. The violence and crime committed against the heroic Venezuelan people was so intolerable that it can never be forgotten, and a return will never be allowed to the shameful past of the pre-revolutionary era which led to attacks on commercial centers and the murder of thousands of people, the number of which no one can today confirm.”

He referred to Venezuela’s oil resources: “With less than 1% of the world’s surface area, Venezuela possesses the world’s greatest oil reserves. For a full century, the country was obliged to produce all the fuel which European powers and the United States needed.”

Today’s imperialist interference in Venezuela, and propaganda by the mainstream turns clear if the old days of corruption and squandering of the Venezuelan rich class, their external alliance, and Venezuela’s resources are not forgotten.

Fidel, in the message, raises a question that actually is an answer: “Why are the fabulous means of communication not used to inform and educate about these realities, instead of promoting trickery, which everyone in their right mind should recognize?”

He mentions Venezuela’s preference to peaceful approach: “Venezuela has stated in a very precise manner that it has always been disposed to talk with the United States, in a peaceful and civilized fashion, but will never tolerate threats or impositions on the part of this country.”

The position exposes the opposite propaganda being carried out by the mainstream media. Countries that face imperialist interference have the same experience.

There is always a question in countries like Venezuela: Imperialist power use armed forces against government elected by people. Countries are “rich” with this experience.

Fidel mentions the factor in his message: “Whatever the US imperialism may do, it will never be able to count on” the armed forces of Venezuela “to do what they did for so many years. … [T]hey were ready to give their last drop of blood for the homeland.”

On March 9, 2015, in another message to Maduro, Fidel said: “I congratulate you on your brilliant and courageous speech against the brutal plans of the US government. Your words go down in history as proof that humanity can and must know the truth.”

On the same day in a statement the Cuban government told its position on the US aggressive measure against Venezuela. Earlier, an executive order by the US president against the Venezuela government declared the Bolivarian republic a threat to US national security. The order is a reprisal for the measures taken by Venezuela in defense of its sovereignty against the US interventionist actions.

The interventionist actions were exposed as the Cuban statement said: “[S]uch a statement during a year in which legislative elections will be held in Venezuela reaffirms once again the interventionist nature of US foreign policy.”

It questioned: “How does Venezuela threaten the United States? Thousands of kilometers away, without strategic weapons and without employing resources no official to plot against US constitutional order,” the US executive order “is unbelievable, and lays bare the intentions of those who have come up with it.”
Not only Venezuela, other countries have also experienced similar interventionist actions. But, unfortunately, all of those were not exposed. Even, parts of political forces claiming to be anti-imperialist have not discussed those. People have not been made aware of imperialist intervention. Rather many of the interventionist measures and announcements are considered “helpful” to democracy.

Reiterating unconditional support to the Venezuela government and the nation of Venezuela the statement said: “Nobody has the right to intervene in the internal affairs of a sovereign state or to declare it, without grounds, a threat to its national security.”

The statement declared: “Just as Cuba was never alone, Venezuela will not be either.”

In January 2014 at a summit in Havana, governments of Latin America and the Caribbean countries declared the region a Zone of Peace. But imperialism persists with its interventionist design.

Fidel’s messages and Cuba’s statement are reflection of the situation in the hemisphere, which has experienced imperialist interventions for years. It’s still continuing. Still there are imperialist threats, subversions and interventions.

Imperial interference rejected

But the region is different today. The stand the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) has taken is a reflection of the changed reality. The union extended strong support to Venezuela. UNASUR in an emergency summit addressing the aggressions from the US president Obama extended the support.

A statement issued after the meeting said: UNASUR rejects the US government’s executive order declaring Venezuela a threat to national security. The statement described the US executive order as “interference” and a “threat to sovereignty and to the principle of non-intervention.” It called upon the US “to evaluate and implement dialogue as an alternative” and for the “derogation of the Executive Order.”

The rejection shows the empire’s isolation in the hemisphere, and repudiation of imperialist practice.

The significant position of the union was made clear as the statement said: UNASUR believes “the internal situation in Venezuela shall be resolved through the democratic mechanisms established in the Venezuelan Constitution.”

“Democracy” defined by imperialism, and its practices to impose that “democracy” are also rejected as the union emphasized the democratic mechanism detailed in the constitution of Venezuelan.

Later, Delcy Rodriguez, foreign minister of Venezuela, said in an interview: “UNASUR has stood firm against imperialism”, and the union is “aware of the seriousness” of the threat “not only for Venezuela but for the whole region”.

Referring to the UNASUR statement Rodriguez said: “We know Venezuela is not alone”.

The important part of the situation was indicated as she said: “If there were to be an intervention on Venezuela, we wouldn’t know when it would move beyond our borders.”

It’s not only the union, Cristina Fernandez, Evo Morales, Rafael Correa, Daniel Ortega, presidents of Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaraguan respectively, and other leaders in the region have also rejected the US measure.

With the position expressed in the statements a broader perspective emerges. Unity of the countries in the region is one part of the perspective. Isolation of the empire is another part.

It’s not a group of leaders’ unity. A people across the region or peoples in countries in the region have made the unity possible. It would have been impossible for the leaders to take the position without the peoples’ aspiration, urge and support. A long political work is required for such a support by people.
A long period of imperial subjugation, dictation, control, political and military intervention, plunder, and the imperial backing to murderous regimes played a part in political education of the peoples in countries. There were other parts including non-sold out and non-stupid leaders and organizations in the political education process.

$1 billion

A bold step has been taken by Venezuela while implementation of the design for intervention by its opponents is going on. The highly efficient mainstream media failed to report the Venezuelan step although scarcity of toilet paper in Caracas is repeatedly reported by it. Its reports over the last few weeks show the toilet paper-trend.

Venezuela serviced its debt with a US$1 billion payment in mid-March, 2015. The mainstream manufactured myth – Venezuela is on the verge of a default – has been busted. Maduro said: “Venezuela will continue to meet its international obligations in 2015 … one by one.” Rodolfo Marco Torres, the country’s finance minister, said: “The Bolivarian government meets all of its national and international obligations.” Torres also informed: Venezuela made an interest payment on its 2015 Euro bonds.

Violation of sovereignty

The Bolivarian republic’s position is expressed in an open letter to the US people. The March 17, 2015 letter by Maduro said: Venezuela is not a threat. It said: “[O]ur people believe in peace and respect for all nations…. [O]ur fathers founded a Republic on the basis that all persons are free and equal under the law….Our nation made the greatest sacrifices to guarantee South American people their right to choose their rulers and to enforce their own laws today.” Referring to history the letter said: “In two centuries of independence, we have never attacked another nation. Our people live in a region of peace, free of weapons of mass destruction, and in freedom to practice all religions. We uphold respect for international law and the sovereignty of all people of the world.”
Citing present condition the letter said: “We have freedom of press and we are enthusiastic users of social media.”

Indicating to historical relationship between the peoples of the US and Venezuela the letter said: “The histories of our people have been connected since the beginning of our struggles for freedom. Francisco de Miranda, a Venezuelan hero, fought with the American people during their independence fight. We share the idea that freedom and independence are fundamental elements for the development of our nations.”

It referred to business relations between the two countries: “Historically, we have shared business relations in strategic areas. Venezuela has always been a responsible and trustful energy provider for the American people. Since 2005, Venezuela has provided ‘heating oil’ through subsidies for low-income communities in the United States … This contribution has helped tens of thousands of American citizens survive in harsh conditions, giving them relief, and necessary support in times of need …”

The letter cited the executive order issued by Obama as “a disproportionate action”, “unilateral and aggressive measure … in violation of basic principles of sovereignty and self-determination under international law”.

It referred to the unanimous rejection of the US measure by all 33 nations of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) and the 12 member-states of the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR).

It termed the US executive order issued “without any authority to interfere in our internal affairs … with potentially far-reaching implications”, and “interfering in our constitutional order and our justice system.”

It further said: “[O]ur world must be based on the rules of international law, without interference in the internal affairs of other countries.”

The letter said: “Never before in the history of our nations, has a president of the United States attempted to govern Venezuelans by decree. It is a tyrannical and imperial order and it pushes us back into the darkest days of the relationship between the United States and Latin America and the Caribbean.”

Addressing the US people it said: “We alert our American brothers and sisters, lovers of justice and freedom, of the illegal aggression committed by your government on your behalf.”

The letter made the following demands:

(1) Immediately cease hostile actions against Venezuelan people and democracy.

(2) Abolish the executive order that declares Venezuela a threat to US national security.

(3) Retract US government’s libelous and defamatory statements and actions against the Venezuelan officials who have just obeyed laws and constitution of Venezuela.

The letter said: “Our sovereignty is sacred.” It reiterated Venezuela’s position: “The defense of our freedom is a right we shall never give up …. Independence or nothing”

The Venezuelan position shows path to countries that face imperialist interference. For the “poor” world, it’s the path to follow that requires making people aware of imperialist interference, mobilizing people, creating space for people’s participation in social, economic and political life.

Farooque Chowdhury is Dhaka-based freelancer.

18 March, 2015
Countercurrents.org

 

By Countercurrents.org

In the face of imperialist intervention Venezuelan people are mobilizing themselves.

Thousands of citizens in capital Caracas have joined in marches protesting US interference in Venezuela. Venezuelan social movements took to the streets to oppose US aggression. Over 100,000 Venezuelans were mobilized throughout the country for a series of national military exercises in defense of their national sovereignty. A contingent of Russian soldiers and naval craft participated in the exercise. And, thousands of Cubans gathered at the University of Havana’s Grand Stairway to express their unconditional solidarity with Venezuela and opposition to US aggression.

The last several days have seen large marches in solidarity with Venezuela staged in capitals in countries including Argentina, Paraguay, Bolivia, Ecuador, Cuba, Nicaragua, Spain, China, and Russia.

A report by Lucas Koerner said:

Thousands of Venezuelans filled the streets of the capital on March 15, 2015 in support of a new constitutional enabling law that authorizes the Venezuelan president Maduro to pass legislation in defense against US threats to national sovereignty. The law was approved in a special session of the National Assembly on that very day.

Waving banners that read “peace” and “Yankees go home,” the seemingly endless columns of demonstrators reached Miraflores Palace, where they were addressed by Maduro.

Praising the displays of national unity and international solidarity that have been witnessed in Venezuela and diverse countries around the world, the Venezuelan leader called for mobilizations in defense of Venezuelan sovereignty to continue.

“In name of the Venezuelan people, I call on all the popular movements, all of the solidarity movements, all of our sister peoples in the world, especially in Latin America and the Caribbean, […] to stay mobilized in order to speak the truth and demand throughout the world that president Barack Obama revoke the [executive] decree threatening Venezuela.”

For his part, the Venezuelan head of state emphasized his government’s willingness to dialogue with the Obama administration, “wherever, however, and whenever […] with respect, with equality, without pretence, without arrogance.”

President Maduro urged Venezuelans to communicate directly with the US president, calling on 10 million people to sign a letter addressed to Mr. Obama demanding the repeal of his latest executive order.

“I propose that we take this letter […] to all of the public plazas of the country in order for no less than 10 million Venezuelans to sign,” announced the Venezuelan president, outlining a popular and democratic response to US aggression.

An earlier Caracas datelined report by Lucas Koerner said:

Venezuelan social movements converged in Plaza Venezuela in the center of the capital on last week to manifest their firm rejection of the latest round of US sanctions.

The latest move by the US has been roundly condemned by a host of nations and regional bodies, including Cuba, Ecuador, Bolivia, Argentina, UNASUR, CELAC, and most recently China and Russia.

Among the movements assembled in the center of Caracas were collectives such as the Pioneers Encampament, government-affiliated social missions such as the Great Housing Mission and Barrio Tricolor, as well as a plethora of people representing their neighborhood communal councils.

Chanting “Yankee go home” and “Venezuela respects itself”, thousands of Venezuelans of all ages filled the streets with their characteristic red shirts, exhibiting national pride and indignation in response to the White House’s announcements.

“We are here to defend the motherland left to us by Chávez, Bolívar, Zamora, and all of our heroes and heroines, because we’ve also had many heroines, many barefooted women who defended this country. We’re following in the same legacy as all of them,” Lies Guzmán of the Socialist Environmental Workers’ Front told Venezuelanalysis.

“We are steeled for anything that happens, with the women in the vanguard, prepared on all fronts, including the diplomatic, military, and guerrilla fronts if necessary.”

Olenia Quintana, 32, of the Pioneers Encampment collective challenged what she perceives to be a clear double standard underlying the US president’s accusations.

“If you’re talking about human rights, the first thing that Obama needs to do in his country is revise all of the laws. [The United States] is the only country [in the hemisphere] with the death penalty. Here there is no death penalty.”

This critique has been repeated on numerous occasions by president Maduro who has denounced the U.S. government’s human rights record vis-a-vis its own people.

The Venezuelan leader called on Obama to defend the rights of US citizens including “Black people killed in US cities every day, the thousands of people who don’t have a place to sleep and die of cold on the streets of New York, Boston, or Chicago, and those detained in Guantánamo.”

Venezuelans attending the rally were keen to distinguish between the actions of the US government and its people.

“The message to the people of the United States is that they should rise up,” declared José Zegarra, 36, a construction worker and general coordinator of the Revolutionary Hugo Chávez Workers’ Front.

“In the United States, there are many dignified people who know that their government has regrettably interfered in the affairs of other countries, believing itself the world policeman. But the average North American person isn’t any kind of world policeman, but a person who has to work to eat, work to pay the mortgage, work to pay the heat and everything else.”

Guzmán echoed this sentiment, underscoring the need for social and political transformation in the US.

“[The US people] must organize and make the necessary changes in their country, which is a noble but subdued country, whose people are much more subdued than our own [people].”

Military exercise

Organized by the Ministry of Defense, the military exercise participated by more than 100,000 Venezuelans comes in response to an executive order issued by the Obama administration branding Venezuela an “unusual and extraordinary threat” and sanctioning seven top Bolivarian officials.

“The defense of the motherland is the duty of all Venezuelans, which should be taken up by private enterprises, public institutions, and all instances of the government and the state,” declared defense minister Vladimir Padrino López from the capital’s principal military installation at Fuerte Tiuna.

The exercise featured the participation of 20,000 civilian volunteers who joined an additional 80,000 soldiers of the Bolivarian National Armed Forces in nationwide preparations for a potential US aggression against the Bolivarian Republic.

Alongside active duty soldiers members of the Bolivarian Militia participated in the exercise. The militia was expanded by over 35,000 members by President Chávez in 2010. The Bolivarian Militia represents the foundation of a popular “civic-military alliance” that has kept the Bolivarian Revolution in power amid repeated efforts to overthrow the government, including the reversed 2002 coup backed by the US.

“These exercises are not a bellicose demonstration of our armament systems, but are more than anything about bringing our people together,” added Padrino López.

Bolivarian soldiers and civilians welcomed the participation of a contingent of Russian soldiers and naval craft, who assisted in exercises testing Venezuela’s air defense system, which included the launching of Russian-made BM-30 Smerch ground to air missiles.

The defensive preparations will continue over the course of ten days, encompassing approximately 30 exercises.

The defensive military exercise that began on March 14, 2015 plans to identify key defensive points in the country.

Solidarity concert

Thousands of Cubans gathered at the University of Havana’s Grand Stairway to express their unconditional solidarity with Venezuela and opposition to US aggression.

The evening concert began with the two country’s national anthems – the Venezuelan heard in the voice of Commandante Hugo Chávez, via a recording made during the final days of his 2012 election campaign.

In the name of Cuba’s youth, Yosvany Montano, president of the Federation of University Students (FEU) welcomed the crowd to the event saying that Cuba’s youth sings for peace and self-determination for the peoples of Our America; that at a time when the Bolivarian Revolution is attacked, Cuba’s youth reaffirms its unconditional support to the Venezuelan people and government.

18 March 2015
Countercurrents.org

By Ali Abunimah

Many had hoped that Benjamin Netanyahu would be defeated in yesterday’s Israeli election. I was not one of them.

Many had already written him off – pre-election polls showed his Likud Party lagging behind the allegedly center-left Zionist Union, headed by Yitzhak Herzog and Tzipi Livni.

But I kept in mind the 1996 election where Netanyahu was universally thought to be the loser well after the votes had been cast.

In the wake of the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, it had been expected that his “dovish” successor Shimon Peres, who had launched a bloody invasion of Lebanon months earlier in the hope of proving to the electorate his tough “security” credentials, would easily win.

But on that election night, Netanyahu told his supporters, “The hour is still early and the night is long.” As the votes were counted, he pulled ahead beating Peres and securing his first term as prime minister.

Netanyahu did it again on Tuesday. With virtually all the votes counted, Likud has thirty seats, the Zionist Union has 24 and the Joint List of predominantly Arab parties is in third place with fourteen.

It seems all but certain that Netanyahu will retain his post as Israel’s prime minister and head another fanatically right-wing government.

Truth in labeling

Let me be clear: I am not happy that Netanyahu won, as such. Netanyahu is a blood-soaked killer. He should be put on trial for his many crimes, from the relentless theft of Palestinian land to last summer’s massacre in Gaza – and I yearn to see that day.

But reveling in the murder of Palestinians and calling it “self-defense” barely distinguishes him from his rivals. Livni, a fugitive war crimes suspect, was one of the proud and unrepentant architects of Israel’s massacre in Gaza in 2008-2009, that undoubtedly served as Netanyahu’s model.

Her partner Herzog has faulted Netanyahu for not attacking Gaza viciously enough.

Netanyahu’s ugly election-day incitement that the “Arabs are advancing on the ballot boxes,” revealed once again his true feelings that Palestinian citizens of Israel are not legitimate citizens deserving full rights. But Tzipi Livni has frequently expressed the same view.

And while he is absolutely committed to the theft and colonization of occupied Palestinian land, that too does not distinguish Netanyahu from his ostensibly dovish predecessors.

A recent interactive feature published by The New York Times shows that Israeli settlement construction in the occupied West Bank (excluding occupied Jerusalem) was often far higher under the supposed peace-seeking governments of Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert.

But what has distinguished Netanyahu is that he strips away the opportunities for the so-called “international community” to hide its complicity with Israel’s ugly crimes behind a charade of a “peace process.”

Moreover Netanyahu’s open alliance with the most racist, white supremacist, Islamophobic and bigoted elements of the North American and European right – his speech to Congress earlier this month was a manifestation of this – place Israel in the correct ideological camp. Israel can no longer practice apartheid at home, while falsely presenting itself as a beacon of liberalism around the world.

In short, Netanyahu’s re-election is like the “Nutrition Facts” label on a box of junk food: it tells you about the toxic ingredients inside.

No Palestinian state

Netanyahu’s clear declaration days before the vote that he will not allow a Palestinian state was simply an affirmation of the real policy of every Israeli government since 1967, to which Herzog and Livni would have adhered.

Herzog and Livni would not have permitted a Palestinian state worthy of the name. Rather, with international support, they would have attempted to draw Palestinians back into “negotiations” over what would at most be a ghetto-like bantustan designed to legitimize Israel’s theft of vast tracts of land, its annexation of Jerusalem and its abrogation of the rights of Palestinian refugees. (Ben White’s analysis of this horrifying plan for permanent apartheid is a must read.)

Herzog too had vowed to continue building settlements on stolen Palestinian land. But he would hide this expansionist policy behind one of the cosmetic and fraudulent “freezes” during which colonization continues unabated.

Had the Zionist Union won, there was a very grave danger that the Palestinians would have been dragged back a decade into fruitless Oslo-style “negotiations” that would have served as a cover for continued sugbjugation and colonization.

Such negotiations have provided the principal excuse for the so-called international community to endlessly defer holding Israel even minimally accountable.

The refrain from gutless officials is always some version of “yes, isn’t it terrible what’s going on, but there’s a peace process and we support the peace process.”

The one positive outcome of Israel’s election is that path seems to be closed.

Step up BDS

We should be under no illusion that with Netanyahu’s re-election, European, North American and Arab governments are suddenly going to end their complicity with Israel.

There’s every reason to believe that the Obama administration, for instance, will continue its relentless campaign of opposing Palestinian rights and efforts to hold Israel accountable in any forum.

But the Israeli Jewish public’s choice to re-elect Netanyahu should make it clear to people around the world that Israel does not seek peace and does not seek justice. It will continue to oppress and ethnically cleanse Palestinians until it is stopped.

Negotiating with such a regime is pointless when its power over its victims remains vast and unchecked. The message we should take away is simple: the proper treatment for a polity committed to occupation, apartheid and ethno-racial supremacy is to isolate it until it recognizes that it must abandon those commitments.

Palestinians have asked the world to do that through boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS). Netanyahu makes the case a little easier, so it’s time to step it up.

Ali Abunimah is Co-founder of The Electronic Intifada and author of The Battle for Justice in Palestine, now out from Haymarket Books.
18 March, 2015
Electronicintifada.net

 

By Paul Craig Roberts

Press Club Of Mexico Awards Paul Craig Roberts International Medal For Journalism Excellence

Last week in Mexico at the annual awards conference of the Club De Periodistas De Mexico I was given the International Award For Excellence In Journalism. In my speech I emphasized that Truth is the country of real journalists. Unlike presstitutes, the loyalty of real journalists is to Truth, not to a government or corporate advertiser. Once a journalist sacrifices Truth to loyalty to a government, he ceases to be a journalist and becomes a propagandist.

The speech is published in English and Spanish here: http://vocesdelperiodista.mx/nacional/discurso-completo-del-doctor-paul-craig-roberts-ingles-y-espanol/
The translators missed a few bits. Here is the intact speech:

Truth Is Our Country
Paul Craig Roberts
Club De Periodistas De Mexico, March 12, 2015

Colleagues,

Thank you for this recognition, for this honor. As Jesus told the people of Nazareth, a prophet is without honor in his own country. In the United States, this is also true of journalists.

In the United States journalists receive awards for lying for the government and for the corporations. Anyone who tells the truth, whether journalist or whistleblower, is fired or prosecuted or has to hide out in the Ecuadoran Embassy in London, like Julian Assange, or in Moscow, like Edward Snowden, or is tortured and imprisoned, like Bradley Manning.

Mexican journalists pay an even higher price. Those who report on government corruption and on the drug cartels pay with their lives. The Internet encyclopedia, Wikipedia, has as an entry a list by name of journalists murdered in Mexico. This is the List of Honor. Wikipedia reports than more than 100 Mexican journalists have been killed or disappeared in the 21st century.

Despite intimidation the Mexican press has not abandoned its job. Because of your courage, I regard this award bestowed on me as the greatest of honors.

In the United States real journalists are scarce and are becoming more scarce. Journalists have morphed into a new creature. Gerald Celente calls US journalists “presstitutes,” a word formed from press prostitute. In other words, journalists in the United States are whores for the government and for the corporations.

The few real journalists that remain are resigning. Last year Sharyl Attkisson, a 21-year veteran reporter with CBS resigned on the grounds that it had become too much of a fight to get truth reported. She was frustrated that CBS saw its purpose to be a protector of the powerful, not a critic.

Recently Peter Oborne, the UK Telegraph’s chief political commentator, explained why he resigned. His stories about the wrongdoings of the banking giant, HSBC, were spiked, because HSBC is an important advertiser for the Telegraph. Osborne says: “The coverage of HSBC in Britain’s Telegraph is a fraud on its readers. If major newspapers allow corporations to influence their content for fear of losing advertising revenue, democracy itself is in peril.” http://www.globalresearch.ca/why-i-have-resigned-from-the-telegraph/5432659

Last summer former New York Times editor Jill Abramson in a speech at the Chautauqua Institution said that the New York Times withheld information at the request of the White House. She said that for a number of years the press in general did not publish any stories that upset the White House. She justified this complete failure of journalism on the grounds that “journalists are Americans, too. I consider myself to be a patriot.”

So in the United States journalists lie for the government because they are patriotic, and their readers and listeners believe the lies because they are patriotic.

Our view differs from the view of the New York Times editor. The view of those of us here today is that our country is not the United States, it is not Mexico, our country is Truth. Once a journalist sacrifices Truth to loyalty to a government, he ceases to be a journalist and becomes a propagandist.

Recently, Brian Williams, the television news anchor at NBC, destroyed his career because he mis-remembered an episode of more than a decade ago when he was covering the Iraq War. He told his audience that a helicopter in which he was with troops in a war zone as a war correspondent was hit by ground fire and had to land.

But the helicopter had not been hit by ground fire. His fellow journalists turned on him, accusing him of lying in order to enhance his status as a war correspondent.

On February 10, NBC suspended Brian Williams for 6 months from his job as Managing Editor and Anchor of NBC Nightly News.

Think about this for a moment. It makes no difference whatsoever whether the helicopter had to land because it had been hit by gun fire or for some other reason or whether it had to land at all. If it was an intentional lie, it was one of no consequence. If it was a mistake, an episode of “false memory,” why the excessive reaction? Psychologists say that false memories are common.

The same NBC that suspended Brian Williams and the journalists who accused him of lying are all guilty of telling massive lies for the entirety of the 21st century that have had vast consequences. The United States government has been, and still is, invading, bombing, and droning seven or eight countries on the basis of lies told by Washington and endlessly repeated by the media. Millions of people have been killed, maimed, and displaced by violence based entirely on lies spewing out of the mouths of Washington and its presstitutes.

We know what these lies are: Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. Assad of Syria’s use of chemical weapons. Iranian nukes. Pakistani and Yemeni terrorists. Terrorists in Somalia. The endless lies about Gaddafi in Libya, about the Taliban in Afghanistan. And now the alleged Russian invasion and annexation of Ukraine.

All of these transparent lies are repeated endlessly, and no one is held accountable. But one journalist mis-remembers one insignificant detail about a helicopter ride and his career is destroyed.

We can safely conclude that the only honest journalism that exists in the United States is provided by alternative media on the Internet.

Consequently, the Internet is now under US government attack. “Truth is the enemy of the state,” and Washington intends to shut down truth everywhere.

Washington has appointed Andrew Lack, the former president of NBC News, to be the chief executive of the Broadcasting Board of Governors. His first official statement compared RT, Russia Today, the Russian-based news agency, with the Islamic State and Boko Haram. In other words, Mr. Lack brands RT as a terrorist organization.

The purpose of Andrew Lack’s absurd comparison is to strike fear at RT that the news organization will be expelled from US media markets. Andrew Lack’s message to RT is: “lie for us or we are going to expel you from our air waves.”

The British already did this to Iran’s Press TV.

In the United States the attack on Internet independent media is proceeding on several fronts. One is known as the issue of “net neutrality.” There is an effort by Washington, joined by Internet providers, to charge sites for speedy access. Bandwidth would be sold for fees. Large media corporations, such as CNN and the New York Times, would be able to pay the prices for a quickly opening website. Smaller independent sites such as mine would be hampered with the slowness of the old “dial-up” type bandwidth. Click on CNN and the site immediately opens. Click on paulcraigroberts.org and wait five minutes.

You get the picture. This is Washington’s plan and the corporations’ plan for the Internet.

But it gets worse. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which attempts to defend our digital rights, reports that so-called “free trade agreements,” such as the Trans Pacific Partnership (and the Trans Atlantic Partnership) impose prison sentences, massive fines, and property seizures on Internet users who innocently violate vague language in the so-called trade agreements.

Recently, a young American, Barrett Brown, was sentenced to 5 years in prison and a fine of $890,000 for linking to allegedly hacked documents posted on the Internet. Barrett Brown did not hack the documents. He merely linked to an Internet posting, and he has no prospect of earning $890,000 over the course of his life.

The purpose of the US government’s prosecution, indeed, persecution, of this young person is to establish the precedent that anyone who uses Internet information in ways that Washington disapproves, or for purposes that Washington disapproves, is a criminal whose life will be ruined. The purpose of Barrett Brown’s show trial is to intimidate. It is Washington’s equivalent to the murder of Mexican journalists.

But this is prologue. Now we turn to the challenge that Washington presents to the entire world.

It is the nature of government and of technology to establish control. People everywhere face the threat of control by government and technology. But the threat from Washington is much greater. Washington is not content with only controlling the citizens of the United States. Washington intends to control the world.

Michael Gorbachev is correct when he says that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the worst thing that has happened to humanity, because the Soviet collapse removed the only constraint on Washington’s power.

The Soviet collapse released a terrible evil upon the world. The neoconservatives in Washington concluded that the failure of communism meant that History has chosen American “democratic capitalism,” which is neither democratic nor capitalist, to rule the world. The Soviet collapse signaled “the End of History,” by which is meant the end of competition between social, political and economic systems.

The choice made by History elevated the United States to the pre-eminent position of being the “indispensable and exceptional” country, a claim of superiority. If the United States is “indispensable,” then others are dispensable. If the United States is exceptional, then others are unexceptional. We have seen the consequences of Washington’s ideology in Washington’s destruction of life and stability in the Middle East.

Washington’s drive for World Hegemony, based as it is on a lie, makes necessary the obliteration of Truth. As Washington’s agenda of supremacy is all encompassing, Washington regards truth as a greater enemy than Russians, Muslim terrorists, and the Islamic State.

As truth is Washington’s worst enemy, everyone associated with the truth is Washington’s enemy.

Latin America can have no illusions about Washington. The first act of the Obama Regime was to overthrow the democratic reformist government of Honduras. Currently, the Obama Regime is trying to overthrow the governments of Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Argentina.

As Mexicans know, in the 19th century Washington stole half of Mexico. Today Washington is stealing the rest of Mexico. The United States is stealing Mexico via financial imperialism, by subordinating Mexican agriculture and self-sustaining peasant agricultural communities to foreign-owned monoculture, by infecting Mexico with Monsanto’s GMO’s, genetically modified organisms, seeds that do not reproduce, chemicals that destroy the soil and nature’s nutrients, seeds that leave Mexico dependent on Monsanto for food crops with reduced nutritional value.

It is easy for governments to sell out their countries to Washington and the North American corporations. Washington and US corporations pay high prices for subservience to their control. It is difficult for countries, small in economic and political influence, to stand against such power. All sorts of masks are used behind which Washington hides US exploitation–globalism, free trade treaties . . .

But the world is changing. Putin has revived Russia, and Russia has proved its ability to stand up to Washington.

On a purchasing power basis, China now has the largest economy in the world.

As China and Russia are now strategic allies, Washington cannot act against one without acting against the other. The two combined exceed Washington’s capabilities.

The United States government has proven to the entire world that it is lawless. A country that flaunts its disrespect of law cannot provide trusted leadership.

My conclusion is that Washington’s power has peaked.

Another reason Washington’s power has peaked is that Washington has used its power to serve only itself and US corporations. The Rest of the World is dispensable and has been left out.

Washington’s power grew out of World War 2. All other economies and currencies were devastated. This allowed Washington to seize the world reserve currency role from Great Britain.

The advantage of being the world reserve currency is that you can pay your bills by printing money. In other words, you can’t go broke as long as other countries are willing to hold your fiat currency as their reserves.

But if other countries were to decide not to hold US currency as reserves, the US could go broke suddenly.

Since 2008 the supply of US dollars has increased dramatically in relation to the ability of the real economy to produce goods and services. Whenever the growth of money outpaces the growth of real output, trouble lies ahead. Moreover, Washington’s policy of imposing sanctions in an effort to force other countries to do its will is causing a large part of the world known as the BRICS to develop an alternative international payments system.

Washington’s arrogance and hubris have caused Washington to ignore the interests of other countries, including those of its allies. Even Washington’s European vassal states show signs of developing an independent foreign policy in their approach to Russia and Ukraine. Opportunities will arise for governments to escape from Washington’s control and to pursue the interests of their own peoples.

The US media has never performed the function assigned to it by the Founding Fathers. The media is supposed to be diverse and independent. It is supposed to confront both government and private interest groups with the facts and the truth. At times the US media partially fulfilled this role, but not since the final years of the Clinton Regime when the government allowed six mega-media companies to consolidate 90% of the media in their hands.

The mega-media companies that control the US media are GE, News Corp, Disney, Viacom, Time Warner, and CBS. (GE owns NBC, formerly an independent network. News Corp owns Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, and British newspapers. Disney owns ABC. Time Warner owns CNN.)

The US media is no longer run by journalists. It is run by former government officials and corporate advertising executives. The values of the mega-media companies depend on their federal broadcast licenses. If the companies go against the government, the companies take a risk that their licenses will not be renewed and, thus, the multi-billion dollar values of the companies fall to zero. If media organizations investigate wrongful activities by corporations, they risk the loss of advertising revenues and become less viable.

Ninety percent control of the media gives government a Ministry of Propaganda, and that is what exists in the United States. Nothing reported in the print or TV media can be trusted.

Today there is a massive propaganda campaign against the Russian government. The incessant flow of disinformation from Washington and the media has destroyed the trust between nuclear powers that President Reagan and President Gorbachev worked so hard to create. According to polls, 62% of the US population now regards Russia as the main threat.

I conclude my remarks with the observation that there can be no greater media failure than to bring back the specter of nuclear war. And that is what the US media has achieved.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal.

16 March, 2015
Paulcraigroberts.org

 

By Mickey Z.

Officially termed an “incident” (as opposed to a “massacre”), the events of March 16, 1968, at My Lai — a hamlet in South Vietnam — are widely portrayed and accepted to this day as an aberration. While the record of U.S. war crimes in Southeast Asia is far too sordid and lengthy to detail here, it’s painfully clear this was not an isolated “incident.”

Not even close…

In fact, on the very same day that Lt. William Calley entered into infamy (he would later explain: “We weren’t there to kill human beings, really. We were there to kill ideology”), another company entered My Khe, a sister subhamlet of My Lai. That visit has been described as such:

“In this ‘other massacre,’ members of this separate company piled up a body count of perhaps a hundred peasants — My Khe was smaller than My Lai — ‘flattened the village’ by dynamite and fire, and then threw handfuls of straw on corpses. The next morning, this company moved on down the Batangan Peninsula by the South China Sea, burning every hamlet they came to, killing water buffalo, pigs, chickens, ducks, and destroying crops. As one of the My Khe veterans said later, ‘what we were doing was being done all over.’ Said another: ‘We were out there having a good time. It was sort of like being in a shooting gallery.’”

Colonel Oran Henderson, charged with covering-up the My Lai killings, put it succinctly in 1971: “Every unit of brigade size has its My Lai hidden someplace.”

Of the 26 U.S. soldiers brought up on charges related to My Lai, only Calley was convicted. However, his life sentence was later reduced to three and a half years under house arrest.

Never forget, comrades: This is what we’re up against.

He evacuated them to safety

Hugh Clowers Thompson, Jr. wanted to fly choppers so badly that after a four-year stint in the Navy, he left his wife and two sons behind to re-up into the Army and train as a helicopter pilot. Thompson arrived in Vietnam on Dec. 27, 1967, and quickly earned a reputation as “an exceptional pilot who took danger in his stride.”

In their book, Four Hours at My Lai, Michael Bilton and Kevin Sim also describe Hugh Thompson as a “very moral man. He was absolutely strict about opening fire only on clearly defined targets.”

On the morning of March 16, 1968, Thompson’s sense of virtue would be put to the test.

Flying in his H-23 observation chopper, the 25-year-old Thompson used green smoke to mark wounded people on the ground in and around My Lai. Upon returning a short while later after refueling, he found that the wounded he saw earlier were now dead.

Thompson’s gunner, Lawrence Colburn, averted his gaze from the gruesome sight.

After bringing the chopper down to a standstill hover, Thompson and his crew came upon a young woman they had previously marked with smoke. As they watched, a U.S. soldier, wearing captain’s bars, “prodded her with his foot, and then killed her.”

What Thompson didn’t know was that by that point, Lt. Calley’s Charlie Company had already slaughtered more than 560 Vietnamese. Most of the victims were women, children, infants, and elderly people. Many of the women had been gang-raped and mutilated. All Thompson knew for sure was that the U.S. troops he saw pursuing civilians had to be stopped.

Bravely landing his helicopter between the charging GIs and the fleeing villagers, Thompson ordered Colburn to turn his machine gun on the American soldiers if they tried to shoot the unarmed men, women, and children. Thompson then stepped out of the chopper into the combat zone and coaxed the frightened civilians from the bunker they were hiding in.

With tears streaming down his face, he evacuated them to safety on his H-23.

Never forget, comrades: This is how we can choose to be.

#shifthappens

Mickey Z. is the author of 12 books, most recently Occupy this Book: Mickey Z. on Activism.

15 March, 2015
World News Trust

By Robert Barsocchini

Telesur:

The International Court of Justice (CIJ) ruled Thursday a prior ruling by an Ecuadorean court that fined the U.S.-based oil company Chevron US $9.5 billion in 2011 should be upheld.

The money will benefit about 30,000 Ecuadorians, most of them indigenous.

Background from Amazon Watch:

In 1964, Texaco (now Chevron), discovered oil in the remote northern region of the Ecuadorian Amazon, known as the Oriente; the East. The indigenous inhabitants of this pristine rainforest, including the Cofán, Siona, Secoya, Kichwa and Huaorani tribes, lived traditional lifestyles largely untouched by modern civilization.

They had little idea what to expect or how to prepare when oil workers moved into their backyard and founded the town of Lago Agrio, or “Sour Lake”, named after the town in Texas where oil company Texaco was founded.

In a rainforest area roughly three times the size of Manhattan, Chevron carved out 350 oil wells, and upon leaving the country in 1992, left behind some1,000 open-air, unlined waste pits filled with crude and toxic sludge. Many of these pits leak into the water table or overflow in heavy rains, polluting rivers and streams that tens of thousands of people depend on for drinking, cooking, bathing and fishing. Chevron also dumped more than 18 billion gallons of toxic wastewater called “produced water” – a byproduct of the drilling process – into the rivers of the Oriente. At the height of Texaco’s operations, the company was dumping an estimated 4 million gallons per day, a practice outlawed in major US oil producing states like Louisiana, Texas, and California decades before the company began operations in Ecuador in 1967. By handling its toxic waste in Ecuador in ways that were illegal in its home country, Texaco saved an estimated $3 per barrel of oil produced.

A public health crisis of immense proportions grips the Ecuadorian Amazon, the root cause of which is massive contamination from 40 years of oil operations. Texaco [Chevron] dumped 18 billion gallons of toxic wastewater directly into the region’s rivers and streams depended upon for drinking, cooking, bathing and fishing. The contamination of water essential for the daily activities of tens of thousands of people has resulted in an epidemic of cancer, miscarriages, birth defects, and other ailments.

When Texaco arrived in Ecuador in 1964, the company found a pristine rainforest environment.

This story also has relevance to the US interest in exerting control over Venezuela, which has some of the world’s largest oil reserves.

Glenn Greenwald:

Venezuela is one of the very few countries with significant oil reserves which does not submit to U.S. dictates, and this simply cannot be permitted (such countries are always at the top of the U.S. government and media list of Countries To Be Demonized).

A study conducted by the Universities of Portsmouth, Warwick and Essex recently found:

…foreign intervention in a civil war is 100 times more likely when the afflicted country has high oil reserves than if it has none.

…hydrocarbons were a major reason for the [US/UK/FR/CA] military intervention in Libya … and the current US campaign against Isis in northern Iraq.

“Before the Isis forces approached the oil-rich Kurdish north of Iraq, Isis was barely mentioned in the news. But once Isis got near oil fields, the siege of Kobani in Syria became a headline and the US sent drones to strike Isis targets”

The major political science study on the topic, conducted out of Cornell and Northwestern universities,recently found, after studying nearly 2,000 policy issues (essentially any issue one can imagine), that the majority of the US population has statistically zero influence on US policy, while the wealthiest portions of society – ie owners of corporations such as Chevron – essentially dictate policy – a political system called “oligarchy”.

Robert Barsocchini is an internationally published researcher and writer who focuses on global force dynamics and also writes professionally for the film industry.

15 March, 2015
Countercurrents.org

 

By Alan Hart

If I had to express my hope in one sentence it would be this. A fourth term as prime minister for Netanyahu would see Israel becoming more and more isolated and could improve the chances of Western governments being moved to use the leverage they have to cause the Zionist (not Jewish) state to end its defiance of international law and denial of the Palestinian claim for justice.

Another way to put it would be to say Netanyahu is a disaster for Zionism so let’s have more of him.

A vision of the disaster Netanyahu’s leadership has been bringing on was put into words by former Mossad chief Meir Dagan when he addressed the anti-Netanyahu “Israel Wants Change” rally in Rabin Square on 7 March. He said:

QUOTE

Israel is surrounded by enemies. Enemies do not scare me; I worry about our leadership. I am afraid of our leadership… Netanyahu is dragging us down to a bi-national state and to the end of the Zionist dream.

UNQUOTE

It would not surprise me if Netanyahu’s unspoken and unspeakable response was something like, “That will not happen because we’ll resort to a final round of ethnic cleansing before it could happen.”

In my imagination Netanyahu shared his thoughts on how to defuse the demographic time-bomb of occupation with a group of deluded, neo-fascist Jewish settlers. One of them said, “Yes, and while we’re completing our ethnic cleansing programme we’ll blow up the Dome of the Rock.” Another said, “And we’ll chop off some Palestinian heads as Lieberman suggested.”

What Israeli foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman actually said when as leader of the right-wing Yisrael Beiteinu party he addressed an election rally in Herzliya on 8 March was the following.

QUOTE

Whoever is with us should give everything as they wish. Whoever is against us, there’s nothing else to do. We have to lift up an axe and remove his head, otherwise we won’t survive here.

UNQUOTE

The question those words provoked in my mind was this.

If Israel continues on its present course will the future see the emergence of a Zionist equivalent of ISIS?

Because a two-state solution in the shape and form the Palestinians could accept has long been dead, killed by Israel’s colonization of the occupied West Bank, an enterprise best described as on-going ethnic cleansing slowly and by stealth, a bi-national state is the only hope for a political resolution of the conflict.

The creation of a bi-national state would put under one territorial roof the land of Israel prior to the 1967 war, the occupied West Bank and the besieged Gaza Strip.

In theory and principle a real and true by-national state would be one in which ALL of its citizens enjoyed equal political and all other civil and human rights.

Because the day is approaching when the Arabs of Israel-Palestine will outnumber the Jews, the creation of a bi-national state would therefore lead the de-Zionization of Palestine and, to quote to Meir Dagan again, “the end of the Zionist dream”.

Question: If Netanyahu stays in power, and given that he is not remotely interested in peace on terms the Palestinians could accept whether in two states or one, what are his options for defusing the demographic time-bomb of occupation and keeping Zionism alive?

The strategy he has been working on for many months is to have Mohammed Dahlan, the former Fatah leader in Gaza, replace Mahmoud Abbas as president of the Palestinian Authority

In Gaza Dahlan plotted with Israel and its American protector to destroy Hamas. But things didn’t go as planned. Hamas became aware of the Israeli and American backed Dahlan coup in-the-making and launched a pre-emptive strike to drive Fatah’s forces out of the Gaza Strip.

Then, in June 2011, Dahlan was expelled from Fatah because of the widespread belief, given voice by Abbas, that he, Dahlan, was the one who did Mossad’s bidding and administered the polonium that killed Arafat.

Three months later, fearing that Dahlan was plotting against him, Abbas ordered the Palestinian police to raid his home and arrest his private armed guards. (No doubt some of them were Israeli assets).

In the past year or so, in regular contact with one or two of Netanyahu’s most trusted aides, Dahlan has been planning his comeback and is seeking to replace Abbas as president of the PA.

What does Netanyahu think Dahlan could do for Zionism?

My guess is that be believes President Dahlan would be prepared to use force to compel the Palestinians to accept whatever crumbs they were offered from Zionism’s table – a few Bantustans here and there which they could call a state if they wished.

Though such a scenario might play well in Netanyahu’s warped mind, it is totally divorced from reality (par for his course). There is no power on earth or anywhere else that could force the occupied and oppressed Palestinians to surrender to Zionism’s will. Their incredible almost superhuman steadfastness for the past 67 years says so.

It follows that if the elections about to take place give him the opportunity to cobble together a new coalition to enable him to continue in office as prime minister, Netanyahu will have to come up with another way of defusing the demographic time-bomb of occupation and the real threat it poses to the existence of the Zionist state.

On the basis of his performance in recent weeks I think it’s not unreasonable to speculate that Netanyahu would begin a fourth term as prime minister by entertaining the hope that the creeping transformation of anti-Israelism into anti-Semitism will gather momentum and cause more and more European Jews to flee to Israel.

In my view that’s most unlikely to happen on the scale that would be necessary to defuse the demographic time-bomb of occupation, and that would leave Zionism with only one option – a final round of ethnic cleansing.

A pretext for it could easily be created by half a dozen Israeli agents dressing up as Palestinian terrorists and killing 30 or 40 or more Jews in what would be a bog standard false flag operation. In response Israel’s military might would be fully mobilized to drive the Palestinians off the occupied West Bank. Those who didn’t flee to Jordan, Syria, Lebanon or wherever would be killed. Butchered. And if Lieberman’s wish was granted, some would be beheaded.

Question: If the Zionist Union coalition wins more Knesset seats than Netanyahu’s ruling Likud Party (the polls suggest that it will), and IF (it is a big if) its leader Isaac Herzog could then put together a majority that would enable him to replace Netanyahu as prime minister, would that improve the prospects for peace on terms that would provide the Palestinians with an acceptable amount of justice?

Despite the fact that I believe Herzog really meant what he said when he declared that it was “not too late for peace” and that (unlike Netanyahu) he would put real effort into getting a real peace process going, my answer is NO. The truth is that Herzog as prime minister would not be allowed by Israel’s right wing in all of its manifestations to deliver enough in the way of withdrawal from occupation to satisfy the Palestinians’ minimum demands and needs.

So, I say, defeat for Netanyahu and victory for Herzog would result in an injection of false and phoney optimism into the international politics of the conflict. We would have President Obama, Prime Minister Cameron and others telling us that a new page had been turned and that the door to peace was now open.

And that would be nonsense.

If there is ever to be a real peace process it has to start with the governments of the major powers, led by the one in Washington DC, putting Israel on notice that if it does not end its defiance of international law and continues its occupation and colonization of the West Bank it will be isolated and sanctioned.

In my view the prospects of governments being prepared to use the leverage they have to try to cause Israel to be serious about peace on the basis of justice for the Palestinians and security for all would be significantly improved if Netanyahu remains in power.

Another way of putting it would be to say that Netanyahu, unbalanced if not clinically mad, is, actually, the best public relations man for the Palestinians and their cause!

The latest and the last of the pre-election polls conducted in Israel indicate that Herzog’s Zionist Union will win four more seats in the Knesset than Netanyahu’s currently ruling Likud party, but… According to The Times of Israel all of Israel’s analysts are of the view that Netanyahu is almost certain to be more successful than Herzog in putting together a new ruling coalition.

Also worth noting is that of the 1230 Israelis polled, 43% said they wanted Netanyahu to remain as prime minster and 35% preferred Herzog.

Because of Israel’s proportional and very bizarre election system – it enables parties with only three or four seats to make or break governments and therefore gives them enormous bargaining power – the haggling to determine who will be Israel’s next prime minister will probably go on for weeks. My guess is that Herzog will be unable to put together a big enough coalition to give him a majority in the Knesset and that Netanyahu will get a fourth term as prime minister.

For the reasons stated above I hope I am right.

Footnote

When I was thinking about the political haggling that will follow Israel’s elections to determine who will be prime minister, I recalled a comment made to me many years ago by a very dear Jewish friend. He said, “If two Jews were stranded on an uninhabited desert island there would three synagogues!”

Alan Hart is a former ITN and BBC Panorama foreign correspondent. He is author of Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews.

15 March, 2015
Alanhart.net