Archives: Articles

By Dan Glazebrook

Western states are trumpeting ISIS as the latest threat to civilisation, claiming total commitment to their defeat, and using the group’s conquests in Syria and Iraq as a pretext for deepening their own military involvement in the Middle East. Yet as Libya seems to be following the same path as Syria – of ‘moderate’ anti-government militias backed by the West paving the way for ISIS takeover – Britain and the US seem reluctant to confront them there, immediately pouring cold water on Egyptian President Sisi’s request for an international coalition to halt their advances. By making the suggestion – and having it, predictably, spurned – Sisi is making clear Western duplicity over ISIS and the true nature of NATO policy in Libya.

On 29th August 2011, two months before the last vestiges of the Libyan state were destroyed and its leader executed, I was interviewed on Russia Today about the country’s future. I told the station: “There’s been a lot of talk about what will happen [in Libya after the ouster of Gaddafi] – will there be sharia law, will there be a liberal democracy? What we have to understand is that what will replace the Libyan state won’t be any of those things, what will replace the Libyan state will be the same as what has replaced the state in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is a dysfunctional government, complete lack of security, gang warfare and civil war. And this is not a mistake from NATO. They would prefer to see failed states than states that are powerful and independent and able to challenge their hegemony. And people who are fighting for the TNC, fighting for NATO, really need to understand that this is NATO’s vision for their country.” Friends at the time told me I was being overly pessimistic and cynical. I said I hoped to God they were right. But my experiences over a decade following the results of my own country (Britain)’s wars of aggression in places like Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq long after the mainstream media had lost interest, led me to believe otherwise.

Of course, it was not only me who was making such warnings. On March 6th 2011, several weeks before NATO began seven months of bombing, Gaddafi gave a prophetic interview with French newspaper Le Monde du Dimanche, in which he stated: “I want to make myself understood: if one threatens [Libya], if one seeks to destabilize [Libya], there will be chaos, Bin Laden, armed factions. That is what will happen. You will have immigration, thousands of people will invade Europe from Libya. And there will no longer be anyone to stop them. Bin Laden will base himself in North Africa and will leave Mullah Omar in Afghanistan and Pakistan. You will have Bin Laden at your door step.”

He specifically warned that Derna, a town that had already provided large numbers of suicide bombers to Iraq, would become an “Islamist emirate” on the Mediterranean. Gaddafi’s warnings were mocked in the Western media (although many intelligence experts, in under-reported comments, backed his assertions), and few in Europe had ever heard of Derna. Until November 2014, that is – when ISIS announced their takeover of the city, the first of three in Libya now under their control. Their most recent conquest, Sirte, Gaddafi’s hometown, was heralded by the posting onto youtube of the beheading of 21 Coptic Christians they had captured there last December. They are widely believed to have been immigrant workers from one of the poorest parts of Egypt.

Sirte had been a pro-government stronghold during NATO’s onslaught in 2011, and one of the last cities to fall – the result of its ferocious resistance and zero support for the ‘rebels’. It was subjected to a massive siege and became the scene of some of the worst war crimes of the war, both by NATO and their allies on the ground. Now that the people of Sirte have been forced to live – and die – under the latest incarnation of NATO’s ‘heroic freedom fighters’ – it is becoming ever clearer why they fought so hard to keep them out in the first place. Yet even this massacre is eclipsed by the almost 600 Libyan National Army soldiers killed by ISIS and their allies in their battle to take Benghazi over the last three years.

This is the state of affairs NATO bequeathed to Libya, reversing the country’s trajectory as a stable, prosperous pan-African state that was a leading player in the African Union and a thorn in the side of US and British attempts to re-establish military domination. And it is not only Libya that has suffered; the power vacuum resulting from NATO’s wholesale destruction of the Libyan state apparatus has dragged the whole region into the vortex. As Brendan O Neill has shown in detail, the daily horrors being perpetrated in Mali, Nigeria and now Cameroon are all a direct result of NATO’s bloodletting, as death squads from across the entire Sahel-Sahara region have been given free reign to set up training camps and loot weapons across the giant zone of lawlessness which NATO have sculpted out of Libya.

The result? African states that in 2010 were forging ahead economically, greatly benefitting from Chinese infrastructure and manufacturing investment, moving away from centuries of colonial and neo-colonial dependence on extortionate Western financial institutions, have been confronted with massive new terror threats from groups such as Boko Haram, flush with new weaponry and facilities courtesy of NATO’s humanitarianism. Algeria and Egypt, too, still governed by the same independent-minded movements which overthrew European colonialism, have seen their borders destabilised, setting the stage for ongoing debilitating attacks planned and executed from NATO’s new Libyan militocracy. This is the context in which Egypt is launching the regional fightback against NATO’s destabilisation strategy.

Over the past year in particular, Egyptians have witnessed their Western neighbour rapidly descending down the same path of ISIS takeover as Syria. In Syria, a civil war between a Western-sponsored insurgency and an elected secular government has seen the anti-government forces rapidly fall under the sway of ISIS, as the West’s supposed ‘moderates’ in the Free Syrian Army either join forces with ISIS (impressed by their military prowess, hi-tech weaponry, and massive funding) or find themselves overrun by them. In Libya, the same pattern is quickly developing. The latest phase in the Libyan disaster began last June when the militias who dominated the previous parliament (calling themselves the ‘Libya Dawn’ coalition) lost the election and refused to accept the results, torching the country’s airport and oil storage facilities as opening salvos in an ongoing civil war between them and the newly elected parliament. Both parliaments have the allegiance of various armed factions, and have set up their own rival governments, each controlling different parts of the country. But, starting in Derna last November, areas taken by the Libya Dawn faction have begun falling to ISIS. Last weekend’s capture of Sirte was the third major town to be taken by them, and there is no sign that it will be the last. This is the role that has consistently been played by the West’s proxies across the region – paving the way and laying the ground for ISIS takeover. Egyptian President Sisi’s intervention – airstrikes against ISIS targets in Libya – aims to reverse this trajectory before it reaches Iraqi-Syrian proportions.

The internationally-recognised Libyan government based in Tobruk – the one appointed by the House of Representatives that won the election last summer – has welcomed the Egyptian intervention. Not only, they hope, will it help prevent ISIS takeover, but will also cement Egyptian support for their side in the ongoing civil war with ‘Libya Dawn’. Indeed, Egypt could, with some justification, claim that winning the war against ISIS requires a unified Libyan government committed to this goal, and that the Dawn’s refusal to recognise the elected parliament , not to mention their ‘ambiguous’ attitude towards ISIS, is the major obstacle to achieving such an outcome.

Does this mean that the Egyptian intervention will scupper the UN’s ‘Libya dialogue’ peace talks initiative? Not necessarily; in fact if could have the opposite effect. The first two rounds of the talks were boycotted by the General National Congress (the Libya Dawn parliament), safe in the knowledge that they would continue to receive weapons and financing from NATO partners Qatar and Turkey whilst the internationally-recognised Tobruk government remained under an international arms embargo. As the UK’s envoy to the Libya Dialogue, Jonathan Powell, noted this week, the “sine qua non for a [peace] settlement” is a “mutually hurting stalemate”. By balancing up the scales in the civil war, Egyptian support military support for the Tobruk government may show the GNC that taking the talks seriously will be more in their interests than continuation of the fight.

Sisi’s call for the military support of the West in his intervention has effectively been rejected, as he very likely expected it to be. A joint statement by the US and Britain and their allies on Tuesday poured cold water on the idea, and no wonder – they did not go to all the bother of turning Libya into the centre of their regional destabilisation strategy only to then try to stabilise it just when it is starting to bear fruit. However, by forcing them to come out with such a statement, Sisi has called the West’s bluff. The US and Britain claim to be committed to the destruction of ISIS, a formation which is the product of the insurgency they have sponsored in Syria for the past four years, and Sisi is asking them to put their money where their mouth is. They have refused to do so. In the end, the Egyptian resolution to the UN Security Council on Wednesday made no mention of calling for military intervention by other powers, and limited itself to calling for an end to the one-sided international arms embargo which prevents the arming of the elected government but does not seem to deter NATO’s regional partners from openly equipping the ‘Libya Dawn’ militias. Sisi has effectively forced the West to show its hand: their rejection of his proposal to support the intervention makes it clear to the world the two-faced nature of their supposed commitment to the destruction of ISIS.

There are, however, deep divisions on this issue in Europe. France is deepening its military presence in the Sahel-Sahara region, with 3000 troops based in Chad, Niger, Burkina Faso and Mali and a massive new base opened on the Libyan border in Niger last October, and would likely welcome a pretext to extend its operations to its historic protectorate in Southern Libya. Italy, likewise, is getting cold feet about the destabilisation it helped to unleash, having not only damaged a valuable trading partner, but increasingly being faced with hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing the horror and destitution that NATO has gifted the region. But neither are likely to do anything without UNSC approval, which is likely to continue to be blocked by the US and Britain, who are more than happy to see countries like Russian-allied Egypt and Chinese-funded Nigeria weakened and their development retarded by terror bombings. Sisi’s actions will, it is hoped, not only make abundantly clear the West’s acquiescence in the horrors it has created – but also pave the way for an effective fightback against them.

Dan Glazebrook is a political analyst and author of “Divide and Ruin: The West’s Imperial Strategy in an Age of Crisis”

This article originally appeared on RT.com

20 February, 2015
Countercurrents.org

 

By Dr. Ludwig Watzal

Should there not be a prisoner swap?

The detention facility at Guantanamo Bay has afflicted severe damage to U. S. democracy. The incarceration of “terror” suspects for the last 13 years without trial will be a Cain’s mark for years to come. Not to speak of the “black sites” and dungeons in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. Out of 799 detainees who have been held at Guantanamo Bay since September 11, 2001 attacks, so far, two alleged terrorists have been convicted by a Kangaroo court. One judgment had to be rescinded. A great success for the American legal system!

Shaker Aamer, a Saudi-born British citizen, has been incarcerated in Guantanamo Bay with no trial or charge for the last 13 years. He has never been accused of any wrongdoing. He has been tortured and mistreated like all of the detainees. Anyone who believes in the rule of law should be appalled by the fact how the U. S. trample on human rights and Habeas Corpus. Concerning the prison camp, there exists a state of total secrecy. On Sky news, Roger Waters called this case a national disgrace. [1] It appears that Aamer’s only “crime” is his wrong sounding name, being at the wrong time in the wrong place. Aamer has always been committed to the fate of other prisoners. According to Joseph Hackman, a former Guard in Guantanamo, the conditions of the detainees are beyond the pale. For example, Guantanamo is swamped with rats, which run in and out of the cages in which the prisoners are held like animals.

In 2007, the Bush administration cleared Aamer for release to Saudi Arabia, so did the Obama administration in 2009. Although the British government has been demanding his immediate release for years, Aamer remains in custody and that, though Britain was the first country to has participated in the attack on Iraq. The so-called special relationship between the imperial power and its client state does not seem to be so special.

Shortly after his inauguration, President Obama promised to close Guantanamo within a year. Until today, the prison camp is still open and functioning well. There are strong forces in the U. S. Congress who want to keep the camp open. Senator Kelly Ayotte from New Hampshire and others, amongst them the notorious Senators John McCain from Arizona and Lindsey Graham from South Carolina, proposed legislation, called “Detaining Terrorists to Protect America Act of 2015”, that is designed to keep Guantanamo open, and to stop any prisoners from being released for the next two years, until after the end of the Obama presidency. It’s an outrageous imposition, given that 54 of the remaining 122 prisoners have been approved for release by a thorough review process. The remaining prisoners, not yet cleared for release, need the chance to show that they are not a threat.

The British government has the obligation and should do everything in its power to bring Shaker Aamer back to his family in London. His place is not in a Saudi dungeon but in Great Britain.

Dr. Ludwig Watzal works as a journalist and editor in Bonn, Germany.

20 February, 2015
Countercurrents.org

By Kathy Kelly

After a week here in FMC Lexington Satellite camp, a federal prison in Kentucky, I started catching up on national and international news via back issues of USA Today available in the prison library, and an “In Brief” item, on p. 2A of the Jan. 30 weekend edition, caught my eye. It briefly described a protest in Washington, D.C., in which members of the antiwar group “Code Pink” interrupted a U.S. Senate Armed Services budget hearing chaired by Senator John McCain. The protesters approached a witness table where Henry Kissinger, Madeleine Albright and George Schulz were seated. One of their signs called Henry Kissinger a war criminal. “McCain,” the article continued, “blurted out, ‘Get out of here, you low-life scum.'”

At mail call, a week ago, I received Richard Clarke’s novel, The Sting of the Drone, (May 2014, St. Martin’s Press), about characters involved in developing and launching drone attacks. I’m in prison for protesting drone warfare, so a kind friend ordered it for me. The author, a former “National Coordinator for Security and Counterterrorism,” worked for 30 years inside the U.S. government but seems to have greater respect than some within government for concerned people outside of it. He seems also to feel some respect for people outside our borders.

He develops, I think, a fair-minded approach toward evaluating drone warfare given his acceptance that wars and assassinations are sometimes necessary. (I don’t share that premise). Several characters in the novel, including members of a House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, criticize drone warfare, noting that in spite of high level, expensive reconnaissance, drone attacks still kill civilians, alienating people the U.S. ostensibly wants to turn away from terrorism.

Elsewhere in the plot, U.S. citizens face acute questions after they themselves witness remote control attacks on colleagues. Standing outside a Las Vegas home engulfed in flames, and frustrated by his inability to protect or save a colleague and his family, one main character ruefully identifies with people experiencing the same rage and grief, in faraway lands like Afghanistan and Pakistan, when they are struck by Predator drones that he operates every day. U.S. characters courageously grapple with more nuanced answers to questions such as, “Who are the terrorists?” and “Who are the murderers?” As the plot accelerates toward a potential terrorist attack against railway systems in U.S. cities, with growing suspicion that the attacks are planned for Christmas Day, Clarke builds awareness that those who launch cyber-attacks and drone attacks, no matter which side claims their loyalty, passionately believe their attacks will protect people on their own side.

When U.S. media and U.S. government officials ask, “who are the murderers,” the default answer is enemy soldiers. I’m reminded of Senator McCain’s own response to a 2012 prisoner exchange of five Afghan militants, where he was alleged to have exclaimed, “They’re the five biggest murderers in world history! They killed Americans!”

It brings home a core fact about drones: that you can’t surrender to a drone. Enemy soldiers, and people merely suspected of being, or intending to become, enemy soldiers, are killed at home gardening, or eating dinner with their families. At the military base where I was arrested, soldiers drive home every evening from piloting drones in lethal sorties over Afghanistan, Iraq, and presumably a sizable list of other countries less well known to the U.S. public. With no overwhelming zeal to kill civilians, they assist the U.S. in killing many more civilians each year than Al Quaeda and ISIS can collectively dream of doing, in the course of advancing U.S. interests over a whole world region U.S. drones render into one large battlefield. No thinking person would wish that same logic to be visited on these soldiers returning home from daily battle, although Clarke’s novel chillingly imagines the U.S.’ own technology and rules of engagement turned against it. It’s a warning we’re too prone to ignore.

In Clarke’s novel, the U.S. drone operators and intelligence officials are smart, efficient, generally honest, caring and often funny. Romance and occasional flings color their lives. The two masterminds of the enemy plot in contrast, are more mysterious. Readers learn almost nothing about their personal lives, although it’s clear that they don’t expect to live much longer. They, too show remarkable expertise exploring high-tech ways to achieve goals. They, too, are clever and terrifyingly competent; personal loss and deeply felt grievances motivate them; like their counterparts, they’ve moved into high positions with increasing wealth and perks. But, unlike the U.S. characters, they express no remorse or second thoughts about killing their targets and strategizing for a major attack.

The fact remains that if we didn’t see enemy soldiers as “murdering terrorists” lacking the human emotions and rights of our own troops, and enemy civilians as “collateral damage” whose deaths are automatically the fault of all who resist us, then there couldn’t be a drone program. There wouldn’t be a technology for eliminating human threats and human obstacles conveniently, cheaply, and instantly from the skies. We would no longer be killing militants and suspected militants unquestioned, too often at the first hint that they might pose a risk to us.

The “means-ends” question intensifies as both sides demonstrate increasingly high-tech ways to thwart and attack each other. One intelligence officer asks how his superior manages to draw the line between what is acceptable and what would be out of bounds when he issues orders that will “take out” presumed enemies.

“It used to be the ‘Front Page Rule,'” the higher official responds. “Assume it will be on the front page of the Post someday and only do it if you could stand that level of exposure. But it’s amazing what has been on the front page without any real consequences: torture, illegal wiretaps, black sites. No one goes to jail. No one gets fired. So I don’t know anymore.”

When Clarke invokes the “Front Page Rule, it seems to be his acknowledgement that peace protesters like those of Code Pink play a valuable role informing public opinion. Believing that the means you use determines the end you get, they hold out for alternatives to war and killing. Far from being low-life scum, they have distinguished themselves in fields of diplomacy, research, journalism, law and education. More than this, they are distinguishing themselves in service to the victims of war.

I hope that someday Senator McCain will gain the insight to repent of insulting them, just as one of the witnesses that day, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, may now regret having exalted the “indispensable” U.S. nation’s right to lead in using force, having since admitted, “We have been talking about our exceptionalism during the recent eight years. Now, an average American wants to stay at home – they do not need any overseas adventures. We do not need new enemies.”

Militarists trust in weapon strength. Still, though perennially disregarded, another option is readily available, offering much greater safety and letting us insist without self-deception on the respect for life that we invoke in defense of our nation’s drone strategy and its war on terror. It’s the option of treating other people fairly and justly, of trying to share resources equitably, even that precious resource of safety; of trying to see the humanity of our so-called enemies and of seeing ourselves as we’re seen by them.

Clarke’s story moves toward a suspenseful conclusion at the height of the Christmas season, ironically moving toward a day traditionally set aside to herald a newborn as the Prince of Peace.

As drone warfare proliferates, as the stings of the drone become more lethal and terrifying, the peace activists hold a newsworthy message. I’m glad Code Pink members continually interrupt high level hearings. I hope their essential questioning will plant seeds that germinate, take root and gather underground strength.

This article first appeared on Telesur.

Kathy Kelly, co-coordinator of Voices for Creative Nonviolence (info@vcnv.org), is in federal prison for participation in an anti-drone protest. She can receive mail at: KATHY KELLY 04971-045; FMC LEXINGTON; FEDERAL MEDICAL CENTER; SATELLITE CAMP; P.O. BOX 14525; LEXINGTON, KY 40512.
20 February, 2015
Telesurtv.net

By Jon V Kofas

Does Greece with just 2% of EU GDP have the ability to destabilize the EU simply by refusing the IMF-EU imposed austerity program, or does Germany have such power because it has been trying to impose its economic hegemony over the rest of Europe?

On 19 February 2015, German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble rejected a Greek compromise proposal for a Greek “bridge loan” that would essentially buy six-month time for the new SYRIZA government in Athens to restructure the fiscal system and stabilize the government’s finances while meeting domestic needs.

Rejecting the proposal from Athens, a proposal that most of the EU members are willing to support, Germany demanded that the new SYRIZA (center-left) government of Greece continue with IMF-EU austerity as previous (neo-liberal oriented) governments had agreed in the past five years. Of course, austerity has resulted in a drop in GDP of 25%, drop in one-third of incomes (wages, benefits and social security) for about two-thirds of the population, unemployment of 26% and a mass exodus for college educated people, while leaving the public health care system in shambles because money was transferred from health care to paying interest on debt. At the same time, debt-to-GDP ratio rose from 110% before austerity to 175% in 2015. The strongest argument against austerity is that every single promise the IMFand Germany made about its results – economic development, lower unemployment, lower debt-to-GDP ratio, healthier government revenues – turned out to be entirely false.

For its part, Germany insists that Greece is trying to negotiate an extension of euro zone funding with no strings attached and it must abide by all neo-liberal policies previous governments agreed to implement, regardless of the cost to the middle class and workers, to health care and education, as long as the defense sector stays untouched because Germany exports weapons, submarines, etc to Greece. Meanwhile, Athens promises to meet its debt obligations as long as it has better terms and no interference in domestic policies. This means no interference in the country’s institutions impacting everything from health care and education to the fiscal system and privatization of public assets that Germany wants sold for pennies on the euro to billionaires waiting for the fire sale. Ruling out any compromise, Schaeuble argued that: “Our room for maneuver is limited. We must keep in mind that we have a huge responsibility to keep Europe stable.”

The German finance minister clearly presents his government as the guarantor of EU stability and Greece as the catalyst for instability. The EU’s largest creditor nation, Germany is the victim of the EU’s largest debtor nation, Greece, so Berlin must protect the integrity of the EU as far as Schaeuble is concerned. The question is whether this is the case, or is the German finance minister demonizing the weak debtor nation, buying time and forcing it to make even more compromises so that the failed IMF-German-imposed program prevails in Greece. This would then send a message to all of the EU that Germany is hegemonic and its austerity and neo-liberal policies will prevail over the periphery members in the EU that Germany has reduced into quasi-colonies, as the Greek prime minister implied in a recent speech before Parliament.

Germany has a long history of trying to impose its hegemony over Europe, going to war when Prussia led the unification of the Germanic states in 1870. Germany went to war again in1914 in a blatant attempt to secure more colonies, semi-colonies and spheres of influence, and global markets. In 1939, Hitler, following the long-standing German tradition of hegemony went to war against the rest of Europe, putting an end to the strategy of war as a way of securing the goal of hegemony. In the second half of the 20th century, Germany turned to the concept of European economic integration to accomplish the goal of hegemony where war had failed in 1914 and 1939.

One of Germany’s best historians of the 20th century, Fritz Fischer, argued in his works dealing with the German Empire that the goal of Prussian (Junker aristocracy)-led regime from 1870 to 1914 was to be a world power, otherwise the alternative was decline. (See Fischer’s Weltmacht oder Niedergang: Deutschland im ersten Weltkrieg, 1965)

The concept of global power status is deeply ingrained in German culture and today it manifests itself in the patron-client integration model that Angela Merkel has been pursuing in order to achieve the goal, while at the same time enjoying the support of German banks and corporations, many of which the government is itself a stockholder. In other words, German contemporary foreign financial and economic policy as practiced through the mechanisms of the European Union have a historical basis, and reflect the “Fischer Thesis” of World Power or Decline!
One could argue that just because Germany was founded as a nation by going to war against neighboring France in 1870, that does not mean Germany in early 21st century is militaristic like old Prussia. The same argument could then made about Germany’s quest for hegemony in 1914, and again in 1939. In this case, let us wipe out the memory of the holocaust, Jews, gypsies, Communists, among other war crimes, including those that the Third Reich committed throughout the Balkans, including Greece. Let us simply accept that Germany in the early 21st century is not militarist and it is not pursuing political hegemony at the expense of its neighbors, having learned bitter lessons from history. Can we possibly make the same argument about German economic hegemony ambitions?

The obstacle for Germany is not Greece and the periphery nations in the EU that are powerless to determine what happens to the monetary bloc. After all, Greece like all of the periphery EU members have always been dependencies of the core countries. From its creation as an independent nation in 1832 until the present Greece was always a debtor nation and always a dependency of Great Britain from 1832 until the Truman Doctrine, and then on the US from 1947 until the 1970s when it took a turn toward much greater European integration and depndence.

Germany’s problem today is actually the core EU members, especially the UK that wishes to redefine its relationship with the EU, and the US that wants a balance of power in Europe with a modicum of containment imposed on Germany through the EU and NATO. At the same time, there is the reliance of Germany on Russian energy that makes it vulnerable and the global competition from China that is investing hundreds of billions in Europe, thus investing in market share at Germany’s expense. Greece is small, symbolic, and a political issue that reflects Germany’s larger problems in its quest for global status.

The issue for Germany is to inject sufficient fear into the rest of Europeans about any nation deviating from German policy dictates so that they follow faithfully as they have in the past. Greece is only the example Germany is using to accomplish its goal, because Greece has only “negative political and economic leverage” while Germany has positive leverage. In short, Greece, like all debtor nations in our modern times can threaten suspension of payments thus causing instability among private and public bondholders who would rather secure a deal securing some return on investment than no return.

The massive transfer of wealth from Greece to Germany in the last five years of austerity has resulted in several billion euro profits for German banks. True, German taxpayers have provided loans to Greece used to repay German and other EU creditors, but the money never goes to Athens, but directly to the banks including European Central Bank that has also made huge profits from Greek bonds. In other words, in the short term European taxpayers are making loans to Greece to pay the EU banks, while Greece will be saddled with debt for the next 80 years. This kind of negative leverage actually destabilizes markets because large institutional investors fear not making as much money as they hoped. Of course, there is one other type of negative leverage Greece enjoys that really angers Germans, even if they do not support their government’s tough policy. The left-center SYRIZA government has repeatdly asked Berlin to open negotiations for war crimes and several billion – anywhere from 30 to 150 billion euro – that Germany owes Greece. Berlin insists it will not discuss war crimes and damages owed to Greece.

On the other hand, there is the positive leverage that Germany exercises as the hegemonic creditor nation. In order to secure austerity that keeps the currency strong at the expense of debtor nations whose economies are weak and become even more dependent on the creditors, Germany and by extension the EU is refusing liquidity to the debtor nation. The threat of Germany immediately throws off the bond and stock markets, because it means that the absence of agreement with the debtor will mean financial and economic turmoil.

Germany’s positive leverage stems from its massive economic power within the EU and clearly as the dominant country it has the ability to stabilize or destabilize as it wishes. At the same time, Germany feels the pressure from the US and China, pressure it resents as we have seen over the disagreements on the Russia-Ukraine crisis. In its quest for global power status, Germany wants a freer hand in the EU that it considers its back yard, just like the US considers the Caribbean and Central America its back yard. With France politically and economically weak, the major obstacle to Germany is the persistence of anti-EU sentiment coming out of the UK. It is possible that the UK will have an even larger economy than Germany at some point before 2024, and this is something that Germans take into account when they position themselves for hegemony today. In short, the German-UK power struggle is important today, though hardly fierce enough for these two economic rivals to go to war as they did in 1914.

German power means the power to stabilize or destabilize the entire euro zone. Greek weakness means that it must use every other power from China and Russia to the US in order to counterbalance Germany’s pressures. Berlin resents that the UK and US, as well as China and Russia want a European balance of power with a Germany that is weaker than it is. Not too long ago, a US government official noted that the German trade surplus is a destabilizing factor in the EU and it comes at the expense of the other members. This kind of thinking prevails among the other great powers in the world, and it is something that Germany is trying to surpass when it adopts a harsh negotiating posture toward Greece. Unlike many analysts who insist that the issue is a culture clash, a difference between a northern European vs. a southern European country, I believe that those are marginal issues and at the core rests German strategy for hegemony and Greek insistence at preserving a modicum of national integrity and sovereingty.

Jon V Kofas is a novelist. He blogs at http://www.jonkofas.blogspot.in/

20 February, 2015
Countercurrents.org

 

By Alex Lantier

Reports of the fighting in the strategic east Ukrainian city of Debaltseve make clear that the US-backed Kiev regime sustained a humiliating defeat this week.

Late Wednesday, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko claimed that six soldiers had been killed and 100 wounded in a hurried evacuation of Debaltseve. He justified the evacuation by claiming that 2,475 soldiers and 200 military vehicles had been pulled out in time from the encirclement maneuver launched by Russian-backed forces of the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR).

Yesterday, Poroshenko revised the casualty count upwards to 13 killed, 157 wounded, 90 captured, and “at least” 82 missing. However, according to the New York Times, “the number of dead would likely grow considerably higher.”

With estimates of the number of Ukrainian soldiers trapped in the Debaltseve area ranging from 5,000 to 8,000, it appears the Kiev regime’s losses are to be counted in the thousands. Yesterday, DPR leader Alexander Zakharchenko declared, “We have completed an operation to clear Debaltseve. Unfortunately, Ukrainian authorities have failed to listen to reason and lay down arms … The losses of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in the [Debaltseve] pocket are estimated at around 3,000 to 3,500.”

Zakharchenko said that DPR authorities were negotiating with the Kiev regime for the return of the bodies of the fallen and the release of Ukrainian prisoners of war.

“The amount of equipment Ukrainian units have lost here is beyond description. We have taken loads of ammunition both in Debaltseve and Uglegorsk,” said Zakharchenko. He added that the Kiev regime had “lost its best units and a large amount of hardware and ammunition in the Debaltseve trap.” He said many fighters from the Ukrainian 128th mountain rifle brigade, the 8th special force regiment, and the far-right Ukrainian National Guard had been killed.

DPR officials claimed yesterday that they were ending major combat operations. DPR Defense Ministry spokesman Eduard Basurin said, “On the whole, the situation along the contact line is gradually stabilizing. Units of the DPR’s armed forces strictly abide by a ceasefire and don’t fall for sporadic provocations by Ukrainian troops.”

Basurin reported, however, that fighting was still ongoing to crush isolated groups of Kiev regime fighters on the outskirts of Debaltseve.

Interviews of Ukrainian troops by Western journalists sympathetic to the Kiev regime painted a picture of total collapse. Ukrainian supply lines to Debaltseve were cut off for a week by DPR forces prior to the final assault, the Guardian reported, calling the Kiev regime’s situation in east Ukraine “catastrophic.”

“We knew that if we stayed there, it would definitely either be captivity or death,” Ukrainian Lieutenant Yuriy Prekharia told the Guardian .

Ukrainian troops refused a DPR offer to let them to retreat unharmed if they abandoned their arms, and they repeatedly came under artillery and small arms fire as they fled. Medic Albert Sardarian said that after his column of armored vehicles carrying 1,000 men came under artillery fire, survivors had to flee on foot, leaving their dead and wounded behind.

As Ukrainian soldiers fleeing from Debaltseve arrived in Artemivsk, New York Times journalists reported, “Many soldiers were in a demoralized and drunken state. Shellshocked soldiers from the battle in Debaltseve wandered the streets through the day Wednesday, before beginning to drink heavily…At Biblios, an upscale restaurant in Artemivsk, soldiers staggered about in the dining room, ordering brandy for which they had no money to pay, and then firing shots into the ceiling as other guests quietly fled the premises.”

The debacle suffered by the Kiev regime exposes the utterly reckless and frankly stupid character of the policy pursued by Washington and its EU allies in Ukraine.

One year ago, Washington, Berlin and the other NATO powers backed a putsch led by pro-Nazi forces of the Right Sector, exploiting the right-wing, pro-EU Maidan protests to topple President Viktor Yanukovych. The putsch had no popular support, and the Maidan protests rarely gathered more than a few thousand people bused in from western Ukraine. The regime that emerged, led by right-wing forces, including the fascist, anti-Russian Svoboda Party, deeply alienated the population in the more pro-Russian industrial heartland of east Ukraine.

The initial attempts of the Kiev regime and its CIA backers to subjugate east Ukraine by sheer military terror, relying on fascist militias and select units of the Ukraine army that it considered to be reliable, have failed. Popular opposition and covert Kremlin support for east Ukrainian forces has sufficed to defeat those units that Kiev could throw against the Donetsk and Luhansk regions.

Nevertheless, Washington is pressing Kiev to prepare for a renewed offensive and is still discussing directly arming the Ukrainian army against Russia with US weapons. While Washington pursues a strategy that could trigger a direct conflict between NATO and Russia, a nuclear-armed power, its proxy regime in Kiev is disintegrating.

In west Ukraine, the population is evading or resisting draft orders to obtain more cannon fodder for the east Ukraine war. At the same time, Ukraine’s economy, cut off from its main industrial base in east Ukraine and its export markets in Russia, is collapsing.

“The country is at war that they cannot afford to fight. There is no economy any longer. When you look at where the industrial base of Ukraine is, and the conflict going on in the east, there is absolutely no doubt as to why it is happening,” Gerald Celente of Trends Journal told Russia Today. “That $160 billion loss of trade with Russia has destroyed the economy, when it was already in a severe recession. It went from very bad to worse than depression levels.”

Ukraine’s Gross Domestic Product has shrunk 6.5 percent. Workers’ purchasing power is collapsing, with inflation expected to reach 27 percent this year and the hryvnia, the Ukrainian currency, losing roughly half its value against the dollar. In the meantime, Kiev is slashing wages, industrial subsidies, and social spending, throwing large sections of the working class out of work.

The Kiev regime’s reverses do not, however, signify an end to the conflict in Ukraine, which is driven above all by NATO’s drive to tear Ukraine out of Russia’s geostrategic orbit, to humiliate Russia and prepare to reduce it to the status of a semi-colonial dependency of the NATO powers. The only force that can stop this offensive is the international working class, mobilizing itself in struggle against NATO’s war plans.

Without such an intervention, NATO’s Ukrainian proxies will simply regroup and launch a renewed assault—as they did in the aftermath of the previous ceasefire negotiated in Minsk last September.

Poroshenko reacted to the defeat in Debaltseve by calling for what would be a new, major escalation of the conflict: deploying European Union (EU) troops as peacekeepers to east Ukraine to confront Russian-backed forces. He claimed this deployment would aim to enforce the terms of the second Minsk cease-fire agreement announced last week, which both sides in Ukraine have ignored.

“The best format for us is a policing mission from the European Union. We are convinced that this will be the most effective and optimal solution in a situation when promises of peace have not been kept,” Poroshenko declared. He said Kiev would “launch official consultations with our foreign partners” to this effect.

Oleksandr Turchynov, the head of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine, called for EU troops to also deploy to Ukraine’s border with Russia—an utterly reckless move that would position EU troops for a direct attack on the centers of European Russia.

20 February, 2015
WSWS.org

 

By Mazin Qumsiyeh

From http://qumsiyeh.org/israelileaders/ where you can find more about
“Israeli leaders”

Benyamin Mileikowsky (aka Netanyahu) was born to Benzion Mileikowsky(later changed names to Netanyahu), a polish immigrant. His American
father became secretary to terrorist leader Vladimir Yevgenyevich Zhabotinsky (aka Zeev Jabotinsky) founder of “revisionist” Zionism and
supported groups like Irgun terrorist organization during the mandate in Palestine. His son continues to idolize these early Jewish
terrorists. Both Benjamin and his brother served in units of the Israeli forces responsible for assassinations on foreign lands (in
violations of international law) and committed other war crimes. Benjamin Miliekowsky (Netanyahu) is known both among Israelis and
globally as a consummate liar who refused to accept the Oslo accords (even though they were partial to Israel) and has gotten rich off of
his political activities. Here is a video of him thinking the camera was off explaining his true contributions during his first stint as
Israeli prime minister in the 1990s. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrtuBas3Ipw. see also this report:
http://972mag.com/netanyahu-clinton-administration-was-%E2%80%9Cextremely-pro-palestinian%E2%80%9D-i-stopped-oslo/135/

This is after all the same terrorist who gave a speech to dozens of Likud Party members in Eilat in which he admitted this is his
strategy. According to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz (15 July 2001): “…giving his audience a bit of advice on how to deal with foreign
interviewers (Netanyahu said): ‘Always, irrespective of whether you’re right or not, you must always present your side as right.’ In 2011,
the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, described Netanyahu as a liar in a private exchange with US President Barack Obama at the G20 summit
(it was inadvertently broadcast to journalists). “I cannot stand him. He’s a liar,” Sarkozy told Obama. The US president Obama responded by
saying: “You’re fed up with him? I have to deal with him every day.” http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/08/sarkozy-obama-netanyahu-gaffe-microphone

Act to Cancel Netanyahu’s visit to Congress
http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/boycott-bibis-bluster

Rajai Masri wrote “The world, as I am sure you would agree with me, is made up of a cluster of Zones termed Spheres of Influence. No small
fish, like a miniscule Jordan for example, can ever survive without falling under one of these spheres of influence. Israel with the
vanity of access to the Exceptional powers, resources and reaches of the world Jewry imagines that through the fragmentation of the Middle
Eastern region into sectarian and ethnic constituency. Given Israel’s exceptional military prowess, it could ultimately dominate the whole
Middle East and render, in the example of Sparta in the old history, the fragmented entities of the Middle East vassal clients rendering
the region Israel’s Sphere of Influence.”

I would agree and add that Israel (Netanyahu’s last tirade) fixation on Hizbollah, Syria, Hamas, and Iran only shows who actually stands in
resistance to this blood-drenched scenario planned by the Zionist movement. As I always said, Zionism as a racist movement built with
ethnic cleansing will lose either way it chooses: by being forced with BDS and world outrage as happened in South Africa or violently in
conflict. Most of humanity prefers the non-violent pressure and we must act to pressure.

22 January 2015

Mazin Qumsiyeh
Professor and Director
Palestine Museum of Natural History
Palestine Institute of Biodiversity and Sustainability
Bethlehem University
http://palestinenature.org

By Abdullah Al-Ahsan

“I believe his shameful remarks must be repudiated by the international community, because the war against terror will only succeed if it’s guided by moral clarity,” The Times of Israel reported (January 14) Prime Minister Netanyahu as saying to visiting leaders of the US pro-Israel lobby AIPAC. The Israeli leader said this in response to Turkish President Erdugan’s challenge for his attendance at the anti-terror solidarity march held in Paris on January 11. So far no European or North American leader has come forward to repudiate Erdugan or even to explain “moral clarity” sought by the Israeli leader, but interestingly an Israeli newspaper has reported that, French President Francois Hollande had asked Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu not to go to Paris for the march, but the Israel premier decided to attend anyway after hearing that his political rivals were going to be there (Forward January 12, 2015). Clearly it was domestic consideration that provoked the Israeli leader to embark on the trip to Paris. However, what the Israeli leader would like to call diplomacy might be viewed is nothing but bullying in international relations.

Israel at the UN

Israel has applied its “diplomatic” ploy even before its birth: the story of its entrance into the United Nations is relevant. On the request of Britain the UN formed the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) in May 1947 to deliberate the conflict in Palestine: No Arab country was included; only one Muslim country – Iran – was in the Committee. Interestingly a number of renowned Zionists were included as members of the Committee representing the USA and Britain. Israel used the Diaspora extensively to achieve its goal. Since the Jewish representative insisted on the establishment of the Jewish state in Palestine, the Committee decided to investigate public opinions in the area. The UNSCOP came up with two plans: one known as the majority plan prepared by mostly Western countries proposing to divide the land between Jews (over 56% of the territory for 31.7% mostly immigrant population) and Palestinians (about 43%) and Jerusalem as a neutral international city under direct supervision of the UN. The other known as the minority plan backed by India, Iran and Yugoslavia advocating a federated state composed of two component territories, each enjoying local autonomy with Jerusalem as the capital. The Palestinians somehow reluctantly accepted the minority plan (they wanted a unitary state with democratic rights of every citizen in the territory) while the Zionists, also reluctantly (they wanted the whole of Palestine as a Jewish state) favored the majority plan. When the proposals were put forward for discussion the Zionists vigorously embarked on gathering international support for the majority plan. American observer Kermit Roosevelt describes Zionist activities on the UN resolution as follows:

Rallying a group of influential Americans and selecting their targets with care, they exerted all possible influence – personal suasion, floods of telegrams and letters, political and economic pressure. … Many of the telegrams, particularly, were from Congressmen, and others as well invoked the name and prestige of the United States government. An ex-Governor, a prominent Democrat with White House and other connections, personally telephoned Haiti urging that its delegation be instructed to change its vote. (“The Partition of Palestine,” in The Middle East Journal. Vol. 2 No. 1 (January 1948).

He further noted that the Zionists also targeted Liberia, China, the Philippines, Ethiopia and Greece. One US government report noted the situation as:

The US and USSR played leading roles in bringing about a vote favorable to partition. Without US leadership and the pressures which developed during UN consideration of the question, the necessary two-thirds majority in the General Assembly could not have been obtained … It has been shown that various unauthorized US nationals and organizations, including members of Congress, notably in the closing days of the Assembly, brought pressure bear on various foreign delegates and their home governments to induce them to support the US attitude on the Palestine Question. (See, Henry Cattan, The Palestine Question. (London: Croom Helm, 1988).

On November 29, 1947 the UN adopted the majority plan to divide Palestine on conditions that Israel recognized the right of the Palestinian refugees to return to their original homes and both states maintain an economic union. The UN resolution also noted that Britain would withdraw from the country by August 1948 and a five member UN Commission would supervise the division of Palestine. The Palestinians were extremely disappointed and rejected the plan. Other Arab states complained that the resolution had violated the UN Charter and rejected the planned partition.

As soon as it was clear that the British were leaving the territory reports of clashes between Jewish and Palestinian armed groups for land began to appear. In reality, however, organized armed Jewish groups were attacking Palestinian villages and forcing the Palestinians out to make space for Jewish immigrants. As a result, Britain decided to terminate its mandate and leave Palestine earlier. Britain set May 15 for withdrawal, but on May 14, a day before, a group of Jewish activists in Tel Aviv proclaimed the establishment of the state of Israel in Palestine. Within hours the US and the USSR recognized the new state, and other western countries followed. These recognitions were possible due to Zionist lobby campaigns in these countries. Immediately an all-out war broke out between 75,000 strong Israeli armed forces and disorganized Palestinian groups. Although volunteers and regular armies from neighboring Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon entered in support of the Palestinians, they were no match for the Israeli troops. The Israelis had acquired arms, munitions and even airplanes from European countries and had smuggled many weapons into Palestine despite a UN ban on arms shipment to the region. Israel was also supported by Jewish volunteers, some with sophisticated military training, from various parts of the world.

Meanwhile the UN continued with its effort to end the violence and on May 20, 1948 the Security Council appointed Count Folke Bernadotte, president of the Swedish Red Cross who enjoyed the reputation of negotiating with the Nazis and saving many Jewish lives, as UN mediator for Palestine. The UN also established the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) to help mediate between the conflicting parties in Palestine. Bernadotte was ordered to “promote a peaceful adjustment of the future situation in Palestine” and was allowed to negotiate beyond the terms of the Partition Plan. Bernadotte recommended certain modifications in the Plan by slightly reducing the size of the Jewish occupied territories. The next day, on September 17, 1948, he was assassinated by a Jewish terrorist group in Jerusalem. No action was taken against those who were identified as Bernadotte’s assassins. One of the accused, Yitzhak Shamir, later became Israel’s prime minister. This clearly indicated the limitations the UN was going to have in handling the issue. It is noteworthy that in spite of the sympathetic role played by the UN in its establishment through direct intervention, the State of Israel developed an antagonistic attitude toward the world body. By the middle of 1949 the war stopped, and military might determined the future of Palestine; Israel occupied almost 78 percent of the historical territory, Egypt occupied Gaza and the Jordanian forces occupied central and eastern parts of Palestine which came to be known as the West Bank.

On November 29, 1948 Israel applied for UN membership but was rejected because of its position on the question of its boundary, refugees and the status of Jerusalem. When it reapplied in February 1949 the Secretary General held discussions on those questions, and after having assurance from Israeli authorities, the country was granted UN membership on May 11, 1949. None of the three issues have settled during almost six decades of Israel’s existence at the world body. Israel is the only member state of the UN which does not have a defined border.

Incessant Israeli Defiance of the World Body

In spite of the extremely favorable treatment that Israel received during its entrance into the UN, Israel now considers the world body an Israel-bashing institution. Volumes of books may be written on Israeli behavior in the United Nations. In July last year UN human rights chief Navi Pillay slammed what she said was Israel’s deliberate defiance of international law during the Gaza conflict. But Israel accused Pillay as being biased against Israel. Not only Pillay, Israel also has accused William Schabas, professor of international law and genocide studies who was assigned by the UN to inquire whether violations were committed in Gaza over the summer (2014), for being prejudiced against Israel. As a result Schabas resigned. Earlier Justice Richard J Goldstone, an international award-winning and experienced judge from South Africa, was appointed by the UNHRC to head a committee of four members to investigate war crimes committed in Gaza (Dec 2008 – Jan 2009). In an Op-ed in NY Times he said, “In many cases Israel could have done much more to spare civilians without sacrificing its stated and legitimate military aims. It should have refrained from attacking clearly civilian buildings, and from actions that might have resulted in a military advantage but at the cost of too many civilian lives (Sept 17, 2009.)” But after publication of the Goldstone report the Judge seems to have come under pressure from Israeli circles and retracted his position saying, “if I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone report would have been a very different document” (Guardian April 3, 2011.) It is hard to imagine how an experienced of his caliber would have altered opinion on such an important and sensitive issue for world peace and security without publicly producing what he came to know later. Did Goldstone come under pressure from pro-Israeli bullies? Who knows?

It is interesting to note that the UN and other affiliated institutions have tried to employ well known experts in the field mainly from the Jewish background such as Schabas and Goldstone, yet both of them appear to have come under attack and have been challenged for their moral and professional integrity. One self-declared human rights scrutinizing institution – UN Watch which claims its mandate as “to monitor the performance of the United Nations by the yardstick of its own Charter” – has welcomed Goldstone’s revised statement and resignation of Schabas. Amusingly UN Watch has not found Israel’s flouting of the three conditions that the world body had set as pre-condition for its membership. Although UN Watch seems to have been successful in defusing Goldstone and Schabas, it has failed to silence Richard Falk, the former professor of international law who served United Nations Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights. UN Watch expressed satisfaction on the expiry of his term in June last year. Earlier it had accused Falk as being a believer in conspiracy theory who made “statements supporting terrorism against America, the West and Israel.” What is the evidence? Who requires evidence for such allegations? Richard Falk also seems to have become victim of identity theft. Anti-Semitic trash has been posted in his name in the social media to defame him. Is this part of a smear campaign against him only because he has exposed Israeli human right violations? Who knows?

Israeli Bullying in US Politics

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu made his remarks about international community’s moral obligation to speak against Turkish Prime Minister Erdugan as mentioned earlier while speaking to visiting leaders of the US lobby AIPAC. Israel has successfully influenced US policies for generations; the US has used its veto power on behalf of Israel 32 times. With the passage of time Israel’s power in the US politics has risen significantly. Many even have started to call Netanyahu “the Republican Senator from Israel (Forbes February 1).” Recently House Speaker John Boehner has invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin to address the Congress on Iran without even informing the White House. According to The USA Today “When House Speaker John Boehner and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu cooked up a plan to bypass the White House and have Netanyahu address Congress, both men surely thought they had pulled off a coup.” This has created uproar in US politics: many commentators have described this plan as churlish, reckless and, for the future of Israeli-American relations, quite dangerous. NY Times writer Thomas Friedman has called it a bad mistake (February 4). Why so many well wishers of Israel have come up against the Boehner Netanyahu scheme? Is Israeli influence in the US politics coming to an end? But make no mistake; Netanyahu has supporters in the media and among political lobby groups. Generally it is extremely difficult to take any principled stand on Israel in America. Paul Findley in his They Dare to Speak Out has highlighted this decades ago. The recent experience of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt also speak loudly about this problem. Powerful Israeli interests are not confined to the USA alone; they are able to impact all over the world. That is why it is difficult to find academicians such as Richard Falk and politicians such as Erdugan.

Erdugan’s Courage to Challenge Israeli Bullying

In recent times only President Erdugan has effectively challenged Israeli bullying in international politics. In January 2009 he effectively challenged Israeli leader Shimon Peres on Gaza in the World Economic Forum in Davos and in 2013 he has secured an apology from Prime Minister Netanyahu for Israel’s 2010 attack on Turkish humanitarian flotilla destined for Gaza. However, Israeli Foreign Minister has recently declared that Netanyahu’s apology was a mistake. The apology deal was originally brokered by President Obama. Although the apology should have been followed by compensation claims by Turkey, nothing was done in that direction. Perhaps this was part of the deal that Turkey would not seek compensation. But is this how other nations deal with Israel? How long can the civilized world endure this bullying behavior? There are good signs – some European countries have now developed the courage to challenge Israel’s anti-Palestinian rhetoric for its “struggle for existence.” World leaders must develop more courage to confront Israeli bullying. The faster that they are able to do this, the faster they will pave the way for peaceful co-existence in the world today.

Dr. Abdullah Al-Ahsan is Vice-President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST).

18 February 2015

By Dr. Ludwig Watzal

After 40 years in the United States of America, Palestinian-American Professor Sami al-Arian was deported to Turkey. He was born in Kuwait. His parents were Palestinian refugees. He had tenure at the University of South Florida. His ordeal began after a contentious interview with Bill O’Reilly on the right-wing channel “Fox News ” and lasted for twelve years.

Also he has supported George W. Bush in his 2000 election campaign in Florida, in February 2003 he was indicted under the infamous and totalitarian-like “Patriot Act”. All charges against him were fabricated by government prosecutors. His trial was a travesty of justice. The US justice system from above is lousy. Justice for Al-Arian came from below, from the American people. The justice system like the state apparatus is in the hand of a criminal political class. His case is “a chilling chapter in” US history. A “shocking abuse” of power. “A flagrant violation of (plea bargain terms) reached with the Justice Department.” Classic police state injustice”, writes Stephen Lendman on “MWC News”. [1]

Before leaving for Turkey, he wrote the following letter to “his friends and supporters”:

“After 40 years, my time in the US has come to an end. Like many immigrants of my generation, I came to the US in 1975 to seek a higher education and greater opportunities. But I also wanted to live in a free society where freedom of speech, association and religion are not only tolerated but guaranteed and protected under the law.”

“That’s why I decided to stay and raise my family here, after earning my doctorate in 1986. Simply put, to me, freedom of speech and thought represented the cornerstone of a dignified life. Today, freedom of expression has become a defining feature in the struggle to realize our humanity and liberty.”

“The forces of intolerance, hegemony, and exclusionary politics tend to favor the stifling of free speech and the suppression of dissent. But nothing is more dangerous than when such suppression is perpetrated and sanctioned by government. As one early American once observed, ‘When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.’ Because government has enormous power and authority over its people, such control must be checked, and people, especially those advocating unpopular opinions, must have absolute protections from governmental overreach and abuse of power.”

“A case in point of course is the issue of Palestinian self-determination. In the United States, as well as in many other western countries, those who support the Palestinian struggle for justice, and criticize Israel’s occupation and brutal policies, have often experienced an assault on their freedom of speech in academia, media, politics and society at large.”

“After the tragic events of September 11th, such actions by the government intensified, in the name of security. Far too many people have been targeted and punished because of their unpopular opinions or beliefs. During their opening statement in my trial in June 2005, my lawyers showed the jury two poster-sized photographs of items that government agents took during searches of my home many years earlier.”

“In one photo, there were several stacks of books taken from my home library. The other photo showed a small gun I owned at the time. The attorney looked the jury in the eyes and said: ‘This is what this case is about. When the government raided my client’s house, this is what they seized,’ he said, pointing to the books, ‘and this is what they left,’ he added, pointing to the gun in the other picture.”

“‘This case is not about terrorism but about my client’s right to freedom of speech,’ he continued.”

“Indeed, much of the evidence the government presented to the jury during the six-month trial were speeches I delivered, lectures I presented, articles I wrote, magazines I edited, books I owned, conferences I convened, rallies I attended, interviews I gave, news I heard, and websites I never even accessed.”

“But the most disturbing part of the trial was not that the government offered my speeches, opinions, books, writings, and dreams into evidence, but that an intimidated judicial system allowed them to be admitted into evidence.”

“That’s why we applauded the jury’s verdict. Our jurors represented the best society had to offer. Despite all of the fear-mongering and scare tactics used by the authorities, the jury acted as free people, people of conscience, able to see through Big Brother’s tactics.”

“One hard lesson that must be learned from the trial is that political cases should have no place in a free and democratic society. But despite the long and arduous ordeal and hardships suffered by my family, I leave with no bitterness or resentment in my heart whatsoever. In fact, I’m very grateful for the opportunities and experiences afforded to me and my family in this country, and for the friendships we’ve cultivated over the decades. These are lifelong connections that could never be affected by distance.”

“I would like to thank God for all the blessings in my life. My faith sustained me during my many months in solitary confinement and gave me comfort that justice would ultimately prevail. Our deep thanks go to the friends and supporters across the US, from university professors to grassroots activists, individuals and organizations, who have stood alongside us in the struggle for justice.”

“My trial attorneys, Linda Moreno and the late Bill Moffitt, were the best advocates anyone could ask for, both inside and outside of the courtroom. Their spirit, intelligence, passion and principle were inspirational to so many.I am also grateful to Jonathan Turley and his legal team, whose tireless efforts saw the case to its conclusion. Jonathan’s commitment to justice and brilliant legal representation resulted in the government finally dropping the case.”

“Our gratitude also goes to my immigration lawyers, Ira Kurzban and John Pratt, for the tremendous work they did in smoothing the way for this next phase of our lives. Thanks also to my children for their patience, perseverance and support during the challenges of the last decade. I am so proud of them. Finally, my wife Nahla has been a pillar of love, strength and resilience. She kept our family together during the most difficult times.”

“There are no words to convey the extent of my gratitude. We look forward to the journey ahead and take with us the countless happy memories we formed during our life in the United States.”

“Democracy Now” interviewed Sami and his daughter Laila al-Arian after his deportation. It’s chilling what they have to say.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2XZakdeyTQ

The Sami al-Arian case is shocking. Rightly, the political show trials in the former Soviet Union raised shock waves in the US, nowadays, however, they have become almost the norm against Muslim-Americans and their ilk. The so-called “land of the free” and the “brave” has turned into a totalitarian Police and Surveillance State that even George Orwell hadn’t dreamt of. At the end of the interview, Sami al-Arian gave a very realistic evaluation of the Obama administration: “It’s all rhetoric.”

Dr. Ludwig Watzal works as a journalist and editor in Bonn, Germany.

10 February, 2015
Countercurrents.org

By Countercurrents

India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) was routed in the Delhi state elections after Arvind Kejriwal’s Aam Aadmi Party or Commomn Man’s Party (AAP) won 67 of the 70 assembly seats. BJP managed to win only three seats. India’s main opposition Congress party failed to win even a single seat. Congress had ruled Delhi for 15 years until 2014.

It is the BJP’s first setback since it triumphed in the 2014 general election. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has enjoyed huge popularity since taking office last year, winning a string of local elections and wooing international investors and world leaders.

Aam Aadmi Party was routed by the BJP in last May’s general elections, months after the AAP made a spectacular debut in the 2013 Delhi elections.

The Aam Aadmi, led by former tax inspector Arvind Kejriwal campaigned on a platform of pro-poor polices and clean government.

After BJP came to power, social tensions had risen sharply in India as Hindu hardline groups tied to the BJP became more emboldened, rowing with Muslim and Christian minority groups over religious conversions. Christian groups have also sought greater police protection after a series of attacks on churches.

Even President Barack Obama warned during a visit last month that India could only realise its full potential if it practised religious tolerance.

It seems that BJP president Amit Shah’s tactics of dividing and polarising socieity to win elections didn’t pay off rich dividents in Delhi. Modi’s charisma that won BJP so many elections in the past failed to impress the Delhi voters. Does it mean that the “Modi Wave” has finally subsided? Only time will tell.

 

10 February, 2015
Countercurrents.org

By RT news

At a time when the Western media machine no longer enjoys singular purchase on the news, and a more balanced view on global events is instantly available, foreign news organizations like RT are being described as enemies.

Just one month after Andrew Lack – the newly appointed chief of the US Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) – mentioned RT in the very same breath as the Islamic State and Boko Haram, Edward Lucas, senior editor of British magazine The Economist, advised that RT be pushed “into the media fringes so they are no longer treated as real journalists and real programs but as cranks and propagandists.”

Clearly, the mud-slinging “information war” that Hillary Clinton spoke of back in March 2011 is in full swing. And it seems like Western “info troops” are dropping their “dirty bombs” into the info space.

Fear-mongering sells well

Meet one of the soldiers. On top of his journalism, Edward Lucas is also a prolific writer. His books on Russia – ominous titles like ‘Deception: Spies, Lies and How Russia Dupes the West’ and ‘The New Cold War: Putin’s Russia and the Threat to the West,’ mostly printed with Putin’s image looming on the cover – are to Russophobes what Stephen King novels are to horror fans. Unfortunately, however, Lucas is hawking a damaged product to an unsuspecting public. But he should know better, since he’s certainly neither a stranger to Russia, nor to the world of publishing.

Lucas, who served as The Economist’s Moscow bureau chief from 1998 to 2002, has become something of a self-appointed mouthpiece for the “real story” on Russia. This allows him to offer his fire-and-brimstone opinions at international security meetings (no irony there), where virulent, hysterical views on Russia sell better than lemonade in hell.

But he is, for sure, not even close to being a lone fighter on that battlefield. Meet Lucas’ wife, Christina Odone. She heads communications at the Legatum Institute, a think-tank which officially proclaimed “countering Russian propaganda” as its key initiative back in October. Dear Russia-basher Anne Applebaum, who is married to former Polish Foreign Minister Sikorsky, is also onboard the Legatum ship (of course she is). And who was at captain’s bridge there until 2014? Jeffrey Gedmin, who, before becoming Legatum’s CEO, headed Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty – one of the main assets of BBG. Yes, that same BBG whose current CEO puts RT on the same challenge list as ISIS terrorists. Connections are pretty tight, aren’t they?

War recipe premiere: How to invade using a TV channel
But back to Munich. In an effort to explain how Russia “won the war in Crimea without really having to fire a shot,” Lucas told attendees at the Munich Security Conference that it was accomplished due to “so-called Russian media organizations” that have “corroded and confused the decision-making capabilities of Ukraine that even though the Ukrainians had thousands of troops…Crimea fell almost without a shot.” (Lucas never bothers to explain this mysterious mind-altering technique supposedly employed by Russian media, but one might assume it involves amulets and incantations of some sort).

So was this some sort of a desperate cry for bloodshed on the part of Lucas, who, after cheerleading the Western invasions of Middle Eastern countries and planting the seeds of democracy in the burnt-out craters of drone strikes, can’t comprehend a peaceful resolution to an approaching tragedy? Does he really believe that the people of Crimea, who marched to the polling stations as opposed to the battlefields to vote (overwhelmingly) in favor of joining the Russian Federation, were deprived of their “decision-making capabilities” by the likes of RT? Calling it a stretch, anyone?

Secure & entice

This was certainly not the first time Lucas had spoken like some medieval warlord intoxicated by the fumes of war.

In September, Lucas fired off a lengthy and deluded letter to the UK House of Commons, where he offered some brilliant insight on how to engage Russia: “Many European countries have no appetite for confrontation with Russia. They take an essentially pacifist stance, that military solutions never solve problems, and that dialogue is under all circumstances better than confrontation. The United States is distracted by multiple urgent problems elsewhere and many Americans wonder why they should be borrowing money to pay for security in bigger, richer Europe.”

“That gives Russia, with its bold decision-making and high tolerance for risk and pain, free rein. Our feeble response has allowed Russia to wage war in Ukraine with disastrous effect.”

So, quick recap, here’s the world according to Mr. Lucas: European countries are much too pacifistic, the US is too busy heroically solving global problems, and Russia is waging war in Ukraine. Simple as that.

The Economist vs RT

Media wars are nothing new to the sphere, but it is one thing to criticize the approach and quite another to call for bans. Just two weeks ago, RT’s Anissa Naouai slammed The Economist, which Lucas edits, for its approach to Russian news. In particular, she pointed out that viewers simply cannot verify some facts the magazine cites, and are forced to believe them – even if they are not necessarily true.

Will Stevens, of the US embassy in Moscow, decided to come to the magazine’s rescue and asked his followers on Twitter: “whom do you trust? RT for @theEconomist, Fav for @RT_com.” RT has so far scooped over 1,500 votes, while The Economist stands with 81 support retweets.

“We have a regulated media space,” Edward Lucas might conclude. “In my own country, Ofcom is complaining to RT about its lack of balance. So, there are things we can do but I think those things are the last resort, not the first resort.”

Well, indeed RT has come under the British media regulator’s gaze after some viewers accused the channel of unbalanced reports on the MH17 tragedy. The public scrutiny even prompted a reaction from Russia’s Foreign Ministry. FM Sergey Lavrov warned at the time that taking the channel off air in the UK would be “an absolutely barefaced attempt at censorship.”

However (and this might be a big surprise for Mr. Lucas), in late January – after watching 30 hours of RT

9 February 2015