Archives: Articles

By Shamus Cooke

27 August, 2013

@ CommonDreams.org

A U.S. invasion of Syria could be the first war based on a Youtube video. After a video was released showing victims of an alleged chemical weapons attack, England immediately declared the Syrian government responsible, while Obama began drawing up military plans, saying there was “little doubt” the Syrian Government was at fault (zero evidence currently exists to suggest this). An extra U.S. warship has already been deployed in response.

Instead of responsibly waiting for the UN chemical weapons team — which is already in Syria — to investigate the incident, the Obama administration has already stated that such an investigation is “too late to be credible,” because:

“The evidence available has been significantly corrupted as a result of the regime’s persistent shelling and other intentional actions over the last five days.”

Of course, this is for the UN to decide. The Obama administration is already creating a justification for war that circumvents the UN, like Bush before him.

After the recent chemical weapons incident occurred, Obama falsely accused the Syrian government of not allowing the UN team into the new area (which is in a rebel controlled area). After the Syrian government gave permission to the UN to investigate, Obama then said it’s “too late”, and accused the Syrian government of destroying the evidence.

Americans are well versed with this type of deceitful warmongering, since Bush Jr. spewed the same nonsense in his quest to invade Iraq: making up lies, skewing facts, accusing without evidence, etc.

Obama quickly forgot that he already lost all credibility in Syria after previously having accused the Syrian Government of a chemical weapons attack, an attack that UN investigator Carla del Ponte blamed on the U.S.-backed rebels, who receive money, guns, training, and media and diplomatic promotion from Obama.

By now, most people understand that Obama’s rebels are dominated by Islamic extremists aiming to transform Syria into a fundamentalist version of an Islamic State, which would likely mimic the despicable totalitarian dictatorships of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, who are also giving massive aid to the rebels.

Any person using the slightest bit of common sense would not assume the Syrian Government is responsible for the recent chemical weapons attack. For example, the UN is currently in Syria — invited by Assad — investigating a previous chemical weapons attack, since Assad blamed the previous attacks on the US backed rebels. It’s possible that the most recent chemical weapons attack also serves to distract from the ongoing UN investigation that would have proved Assad right.

Of course Assad would have no motive to launch a massive chemical weapons attack just miles from where the UN is currently investigating the previous attack, especially when Assad is handily defeating Obama’s rebels using conventional weaponry. Obama’s rebels are the only ones who would benefit from such an attack.

Ultimately, we’ll have to wait to see what the UN says about the recent attacks, assuming they are given the time to do a proper investigation. But following in Bush, Jr.’s footsteps, Obama looks poised to do his own investigation, using his own “evidence,” and then acting as judge, jury and executioner.

For example, the Guardian newspaper reported that there is a “summit” in Jordan this week, likely to be attended by the U.S. and its allies to decide what to do next in Syria. The Guardian ominously reported that the U.S. is already collecting its own “evidence,” no doubt to be used as a justification for war that avoids the pesky UN:

“Biological samples taken from victims and survivors of the attack have now been passed to western officials [U.S. and allies] in Jordan after having been smuggled out of Syria over the past 72 hours. Unmarked questionnaires have been distributed to officials in the three most affected communities, asking for forensic and environmental details, as well as for organ tissue and clothing worn by victims.”

So the U.S. and its allies are using their own “evidence” and will come to their own conclusions, likely much faster than the UN is able to investigate. Obama will then say that Syria poses an “immediate threat” and that there is no time for the UN to investigate. It’s sadly predictable; we’ve seen it all before.

Of course, the Obama administration and its anti-Syrian allies cannot act as an objective party in this matter, since they have been directly backing the Syrian rebels. Nor can Obama be trusted that his “evidence” that was “smuggled” out of Syria is any evidence at all. Again, this is why there is the UN: to perform an impartial investigation. Even if there were evidence of a chemical weapons attack — which looks likely — such evidence doesn’t say who launched the attack, which, of course, is the key issue.

Why would Obama risk directly entering the Syria maelstrom at this point? Several reasons:

1) Assad is winning the war against Obama’s Islamic extremist rebels. Bombing Assad will thus give the rebels a boost, extending the war (assuming there is not a full US invasion).

2) Obama has invested much political capital into the conflict; if he backs out now, he loses political credibility domestically and internationally. When a U.S. president doesn’t back up his threats, he looks weak; and “projected strength” is now a backbone of U.S. foreign policy, which keeps weaker nations aligned and “rival” nations submissive.

3) Destroying or weakening Syria will drastically weaken Obama’s two other regional rivals: Iran and Hezbollah.

4) Most importantly, the landscape of the Middle East is changing fast, and U.S. influence in the region is quickly deteriorating. An action in Syria will remind the region that the U.S. is intent on staying, and that its threats are to be respected. Obama will not simply preside over a dying empire; he must go “all in” to secure U.S. “national interests” in the region.

For these reasons and others Obama seems intent on going to war with Syria, although it won’t be called a war. Obama will say that he’s declaring a “no fly zone” over parts of Syria to provide a “humanitarian corridor” for refugees, which requires that he destroy the Syrian air force, ground to air weaponry, and other military facilities, i.e., war.

These plans have already been mapped out by the U.S. military, and to make matters even more imminent, the Obama administration is dabbling with a “legal justification” for waging what would be, by definition, an illegal war (any war not approved by the UN is de facto illegal).

Because a war on Syria would be illegal, Obama’s “legal” justification will be —according to an unnamed “White House official” — based on Bill Clinton’s illegal war against Yugoslavia. The New York Times reports:

“It’s a step too far to say we’re [the Obama administration] drawing up legal justifications for an action [against Syria], given that the president hasn’t made a decision,” said the [White House] official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the deliberations. “But Kosovo, of course, is a precedent of something that is perhaps similar.

Kosovo is being picked as a legal precedent because it was considered the last “good war” that the U.S. waged. But as Diane Johnston explains in her excellent book, Fools Crusade, the U.S.-led NATO war against Yugoslavia was a war of aggression based on the very false premise of “humanitarian intervention.” The many lies that were generated to “liberate” Slovenia, Croatia, and Kosovo from Yugoslavia are now being copied and pasted onto Syria.

Obama has not told Americans about the potential ramifications that war with Syria could produce. For example, Iran’s military chief recently promised “harsh consequences” if the U.S. intervened militarily; Russia too is strongly backing the Syrian regime and could easily be drawn into any conflict. Israel is already involved in Syria’s conflict, having made several bombing missions this year. At the same time new massive shipments of arms have made their way to the Syrian rebels, possibly in time for a U.S. “no fly zone.

The whole region is a smoldering tinderbox, and Obama seems intent on pouring fuel on the flames. The many Americans who thought that such a war was impossible will have to think again. And although Obama will hide the war behind a Bush-like “coalition” of Europe, Arab and Israeli allies, the U.S. will be leading this puppet coalition while pushing an already unstable Middle East into full fledged regional chaos, which could instantly take on an international character.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

Shamus Cooke is a social service worker, trade unionist, and writer for Workers Action (www.workerscompass.org). He can be reached at shamuscook@gmail.com

By John Scales Avery

27 August, 2013

@ Countercurrents.org

As we approach the 100th anniversary of the start of World War I, we ought to remember that this catastrophic event started as a minor engagement in which the Austrian Empire sought to punish a group of Serbian nationalists. No one involved at the outset of this small conflict had any idea that it would escallate into a world-destroying disaster, which still casts a dark shadow over civilization half a century later.

Can we not see a parallel to the intention of the United States and its allies to punish the Assad regeme in Syria for an alleged use of poison gas, (which might in fact be a “false flag” attack)? The parallel with the start of World War I is particulalrly disturbing because the intervening century has witnessed the development of thermonuclear weapons with the capacity to destroy human civilization and much of the biosphere.

The following is a report from Information Clearing House, dated August 26:

“As talk and rumors of an impending Western attack against Syria mount, a top Syrian official said Monday that if attacked, his country would react against Israel.”

“Speaking to an Arabic-language radio station operated by the United States, Syria’s Deputy Information Minister Halaf Al-Maftah said that Israel would face not only Syria in the event that the US, Britain and France attempted to unseat Bashar al-Assad. A coalition consisting of Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria would respond to any attack against Assad with a response against Israel. In addition, terrorist groups in Syria and Lebanon would attack Israel with full force.”

“Al-Maftah added that Syria has “strategic weapons” that it would use in its attack on Israel. He did not specify what those weapons were.”

“’Syria is ready to deal with all scenarios,’ said Al-Maftah. ‘We consider these declarations of a possible attack as a form of psychological warfare and pressure on Syria. We are not worried about them. We hope that those threatening us will listen closely to what we are saying. We believe that the only solution for the Syrian issue is a political one,’ he added.”

“In recent days, the U.S. has sent warships off Syria’s coast, with the assumption being that they were waiting for word from the White House to attack Syria and remove Assad from power. Over the weekend, the U.S. Navy expanded its presence in the Mediterranean Sea with a fourth cruise-missile-armed warship.”

Should the conflict spread to Iran, we can recall a statement by Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh , who is in charge of the Revolutionary Guards missile systems told Iran’s Arabic-language television network that should Israel and Iran engage militarily, “nothing is predictable… and it will turn into World War III”.

He added that Iran would deem any Israeli strike to be conducted with US authorisation, so “whether the Zionist regime attacks with or without US knowledge, then we will definitely attack US bases in Bahrain, Qatar and Afghanistan.”

The first point to notice is that an attack on Iran by Israel would be both criminal and insane. It would be criminal because it would be a violation of the United Nations Charter and the Nuremberg Principles. It would be insane because it would initiate a conflict that might escalate in an unpredictable way. Such a conflict might easily be the start of a Third World War.

Must we allow the actions of a few power-blinded politicians to start a conflict that could lead to the deaths of ourselves and our children?

John Avery received a B.Sc. in theoretical physics from MIT and an M.Sc. from the University of Chicago. He later studied theoretical chemistry at the University of London, and was awarded a Ph.D. there in 1965. He is now Lektor Emeritus, Associate Professor, at the Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen. Fellowships, memberships in societies: Since 1990 he has been the Contact Person in Denmark for Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs. In 1995, this group received the Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts. He was the Member of the Danish Peace Commission of 1998. Technical Advisor, World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe (1988- 1997). Chairman of the Danish Peace Academy, April 2004. http://www.fredsakademiet.dk/ordbog/aord/a220.htm. He can be reached at avery.john.s@gmail.com

By Pepe Escobar

27 August, 2013

@ Asia Times

The ”responsibility to protect” (R2P) doctrine invoked to legitimize the 2011 war on Libya has just transmogrified into ”responsibility to attack” (R2A) Syria. Just because the Obama administration says so.

On Sunday, the White House said it had ”very little doubt” that the Bashar al-Assad government used chemical weapons against its own citizens. On Monday, Secretary of State John Kerry ramped it up to ”undeniable” – and accused Assad of ”moral obscenity”.

So when the US bombed Fallujah with white phosphorus in late 2004 it was just taking the moral high ground. And when the US

helped Saddam Hussein to gas Iranians in 1988 it was also taking the moral high ground.

The Obama administration has ruled that Assad allowed UN chemical weapons inspectors into Syria, and to celebrate their arrival unleashed a chemical weapons attack mostly against women and children only 15 kilometers away from the inspectors’ hotel. If you don’t believe it, you subscribe to a conspiracy theory.

Evidence? Who cares about evidence? Assad’s offer of access for the inspectors came ”too late”. Anyway, the UN team is only mandated to determine whether chemical weapons were deployed – but not by who, according to UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon’s spokesman.

As far as the Obama administration and UK Prime Minister David ”of Arabia” Cameron are concerned – supported by a barrage of corporate media missiles – that’s irrelevant; Obama’s ”red line” has been crossed by Assad, period. Washington and London are in no-holds-barred mode to dismiss any facts contradicting the decision. Newspeak – of the R2A kind – rules. If this all looks like Iraq 2.0 that’s because it is. Time to fix the facts around the policy – all over again. Time for weapons of mass deception – all over again.

The Saudi-Israeli axis of fun

The window of opportunity for war is now. Assad’s forces were winning from Qusayr to Homs; pounding ”rebel” remnants out of the periphery of Damascus; deploying around Der’ah to counterpunch CIA-trained ”rebels” with advanced weapons crossing the Syrian-Jordanian border; and organizing a push to expel ”rebels” and jihadis from suburbs of Aleppo.

Now, Israel and Saudi Arabia are oh so excited because they are getting exactly what they dream just by good ol’ Wag the Dog methods. Tel Aviv has even telegraphed how it wants it: this Monday, the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper headlined with ”On the Way to Attack” and even printed the ideal Order of Battle.

Months ago, even AMAN, the Intelligence Directorate of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) concluded that Assad was not a fool to cross Obama’s chemical weapon ”red line”. So they came up with the concept of ”two entwined red lines”, the second line being the Syrian government ”losing control of its chemical weapons depots and production sites”. AMAN then proposed different strategies to Washington, from a no-fly zone to actually seizing the weapons (implying a ground attack).

It’s now back to the number one option – air strikes on the chemical weapons depots. As if the US – and Israel – had up-to-the-minute intelligence on exactly where they are.

The House of Saud had also telegraphed its wishes – after Prince Bandar bin Sultan, aka Bandar Bush, was appointed by King Abdullah as head of Saudi General Intelligence. Abdullah’s hard on is explained by his mother and two of his wives coming from an influential, ultra-conservative Sunni tribe in Syria. As for Bandar Bush, he has more longevity than Rambo or the Terminator; he’s back in the same role he played in the 1980s Afghan jihad, when he was the go-to guy helping the CIA to weaponize president president Ronald Reagan’s ”freedom fighters”.

Jordan – a fiction of a country totally dependent on the Saudis – was easily manipulated into becoming a ”secret” war operation center. And who’s in charge? No less than Bandar’s younger half-brother, and deputy national security adviser, Salman bin Sultan, also known as ”mini-Bandar”. Talk about an Arab version of Dr Evil and Mini Me.

Still, there are more CIA assets than Saudis in the Jordanian front.

The importance of this report cannot be overstated enough. It was initially leaked to Lebanon’s Al-Safir newspaper. Here’s Bandar’s whole strategy, unveiled in his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, already reported by Asia Times Online. After trying – for four hours – to convince Putin to drop Syria, Bandar is adamant: ”There is no escape from the military option.”

Mix Kosovo with Libya and voila!

Former president Bill Clinton resurfaced with perfect timing to compare Obama’s options in Syria to Reagan’s jihad in Afghanistan. Bubba was right in terms of positioning Bandar’s role. But he must have inhaled something if he was thinking in terms of consequences – which include everything from the Taliban to that mythical entity, ”al-Qaeda”. Well, at least al-Qaeda is already active in Syria; they don’t need to invent it.

As for that bunch of amateurs surrounding Obama – including R2P groupies such as Susan Rice and new Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power, all of them liberal hawks – they are all suckers for Kosovo. Kosovo – with a Libya add-on – is being spun as the ideal model for Syria; R2P via (illegal) air strikes. Right on cue, the New York Times is already frantically parroting the idea.

Facts are, of course, absent from the narrative – including the blowing up of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade (a remix in Syria with the Russian embassy?) and getting to the brink of a war with Russia.

Syria has nothing to do with the Balkans. This is a civil war. Arguably the bulk of the Syrian urban population, not the country bumpkins, support Damascus – based on despicable ”rebel” behavior in places they control; and the absolute majority wants a political solution, as in the now near-totally torpedoed Geneva II conference.

The Jordanian scheme – inundating southern Syria with heavily weaponized mercenaries – is a remix of what the CIA and the Saudis did to AfPak; and the only winner will be Jabhat al-Nusra jihadis. As for the Israeli solution for Obama – indiscriminate bombing of chemical weapons depots – it will certainly result in horrendous collateral damage, as in R2A killing even more civilians.

The prospects remain grim. Damn another coalition of the willing; Washington already has the British and French poodles in the bag, and full support – in air-con safety – from the democratic Gulf Cooperation Council petro-monarchies, minion Jordan and nuclear power Israel. This is what passes for ”international community” in the newspeak age.

The Brits are already heavily spinning that no UN Security Council resolution is needed; who cares if we do Iraq 2.0? For the War Party, the fact that Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey said Syrian ”rebels” could not promote US interests seems to be irrelevant.

Washington already has what it takes for the Holy Tomahawks to start flying; 384 of them are already positioned in the Eastern Mediterranean. B-1 bombers can be deployed from Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar. And bunker-busting bombs will certainly be part of the picture.

What happens next requires concentric crystal balls – from Tomahawks to a barrage of air strikes to Special Ops commandos on the ground to a sustained air campaign lasting months. In his long interview to Izvestia, Assad gives the impression he thinks Obama is bluffing.

What’s certain is that Syria won’t be a ”piece of cake” like Libya; even depleted on all fronts, Gaddafi resisted for eight long months after NATO started its humanitarian bombing. Syria has a weary but still strong army of 200,000; loads of Soviet and Russian weapons; very good antiaircraft systems; and full support from asymmetrical warfare experts Iran and Hezbollah. Not to mention Russia, which just needs to forward a few S-300 air defense batteries and relay solid intelligence.

So get used to how international relations work in the age of newspeak. General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi’s army in Egypt can kill hundreds of his own people who were protesting against a military coup. Washington couldn’t care less – as in the coup that is not a coup and the bloodbath that is not a bloodbath.

No one knows for sure what exactly happened in the chemical weapons saga near Damascus. But that’s the pretext for yet another American war – just a few days before a Group of 20 summit hosted by Putin in St Petersburg. Holy Tomahawk! R2A, here we go.

Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007), Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge (Nimble Books, 2007), and Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009). He may be reached at pepeasia@yahoo.com

The mediais at it once again. They have put on the cloak of jury and judge. Syria is on the dock and they have declared Assad guilty without so much as a shred of evidence. This was only to be expected because Obama had warned the Syrians that the use of chemical weapons would be the “red line” for the US to intervene militarily and depose Assad.

Any intervention is fraught with other risks. The Middle East would erupt into a theatre for powers on both sides of the Syrian divide to step in and weigh their strength and influence. As always, civilian populations would suffer hugely and endlessly. Russia and China are not going to stand by idly and watch the USA, UK, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar unleash mayhem in Syria. Global instability will follow.

Just two days before the so-called massacre with chemical weapons allegedly took place, an official weapons inspection team of the UN had arrived with the approval of the Syrian government. Their remit was to probe charges of chemical weapons utilization in the Syrian war. Assad is not so reckless as to let loose banned chemical weapons to coincide with a UN chemical weapons inspection team’s visit to Syria. Besides, the region that was supposedly attacked by the military is totally under Assad’s control (having wrested it back in confrontations not too long ago) and he would have no reason to attack the people in such a senseless way. Assad is now on a winning wicket. His army has inflicted a series of defeats on the “rebels.” Quite naturally, thoe who want to topple him are feeling frantic.

On an earlier occasion, an Independent Commission of Inquiry of the UN concluded that that the nerve agent ‘sarin’ (a chemical agent) was used by the rebels and not the government forces.  It left the hawks in the Pentagon red-faced and the fuel for revenge still remains ready to be ignited. So, there is suspicion that the US will stop at nothing to mount an attack and blame it on the government. Except that this time around also they may not find an alibi to bail them out. History attests to the Pentagon willing to go all lengths to construct the pretexts for war.  A ploy can always be staged and US military can also be brazen and not fret about getting trapped in a war crimes tribunal, at least for now. So, they would not even bother about offering serious rationale for their intervention.

The US and its NATO allies have drawn their conclusions and have called for a Security Council session and for the UN team currently in Syria to straight away probe the facts. The Washington Post rushed advice Obama with war drums: ‘US retaliation against the Syrian military forces responsible by adopting a plan to protect civilians in southern Syria with a no-fly zone!’ Echoes from Iraq! Echoes from Libya!

The Syrian Foreign Ministry has called the charges of the use of chemical weapons fabricated: “The cooperation between Damascus and the UN inspection team “didn’t please the terrorists and the countries supporting them, which is why they came up with new false allegations that the Armed Forces used toxic gas in Damascus countryside.” They stated: “Our Armed Forces have never used chemical weapons and all fabricated concoctions in this respect aim to disorient international observers and defocus their efforts in achieving the set goals.”

In a Press TV report[i], Respect Party MP for Bradford West, George Galloway has stated:   “If there’s been any use of nerve gas, it’s the rebels that used it…If there has been use of chemical weapons; it was Al Qaeda who used the chemical weapons”. He suspects Israel gave them the chemical weapons”, Galloway MP added. By more than what was a blunder in evil propaganda, media reports claimed that had it that Qatar’s Al Jazeera TV and Reuters news agency published the news of massacre in East Ghouta, Damascus “one day” before the massacre happened!

According to the reports tens of videos were uploaded before foreign-backed terrorists announced and accused the Syrian government of conducting chemical attacks on its own people. Those evidences show the terrorists massacred people, including women and children, then recorded and uploaded the scenes to deceive the world’s public opinion, but they did so hurriedly and gave themselves up.

Every time the Syrian rebels suffer a setback, the US manufactures more reasons for an intervention. According to reports from the Pentagon, they are unenthusiastic about a direct US military intervention. In their assessment, the rebels would not further US interests even if Assad were overthrown. A US commander concluded: “The use of US military force can change the military balance, but it cannot resolve the underlying and historic ethnic, religious and tribal issues that are fuelling this conflict.”

Even that argument stands uncovered in the light of ground facts. With the Syrian populace becoming indifferent and unsupportive of the sectarian violence, Assad is gaining in strength. People also see the conflict as one designed by the US and its imperialistic devises to destabilize Syria and lodge an amenable and compliant ruler in the place of a stubborn and proud Assad who refuses to give way budge to the whims and fancies of the empire.

It may be too much to expect a reversal of US and NATO meddling in Syria. For as long as they stick their nose into Syria, not much by way of peace building looks possible. The US and Europe are too blood thirsty to see reason. The rest of the international community is either too preoccupied with its own survival issues, or just plain scared to confront the imperialistic forces. The few countries that can speak up ought to serve as rallying points in a collective which lets the imperialists know that enough is enough.

Meanwhile, Syria should be left to find its own solutions to the questions of democracy and justice that it faces.

*Ranjan Solomon is Executive Director, Badayl-Alternatives,an international consulting agency which supports Civil Society actors worldwide that work for justice-based  transformative processes. He is active with Palestine solidarity and justice networks.

By Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich

27 August, 2013

@ Countercurrents.org

‘ The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence ‘ – Donald Rumsfeld

Historians consider the Mongol raids and invasions as some of the deadliest conflicts in human history.  Their legacy of savagery and bloodshed preceded them; their orgy of violence and destruction left its ugly imprints in the collective memory of peoples everywhere.  So much so that until recently simple folk in some corners of the world would cower unruly children with the threat of an impending ‘Mongol arrival’.  Today, the fear and loathing once felt toward Mongols has been transferred to America .  In sharp contrast to Genghis Khan’s frank battle cry — Morindoo ( Mount Up ), America prepares for battle with sheer lies.

In the 21 st century alone, Washington has rolled out a heavy arsenal of lies, misinformation, and dubious intelligence to sell war to the American people.   On September 13, 2001, while the country was digesting 9/11, JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs) already had a statement/plan ready for Washington .  Their policy called for America to be involved in disputes far and wide for the unforeseen future not only in Afghanistan and Iraq, but also in countries such as Iran, Pakistan, Syria, Sudan, the Palestinian Authority, Libya, Algeria and eventually Saudi Arabia and Egypt’. [i] Washington heeded.

In the fall of 2001,  the Rendon Group was given a  contract to handle PR aspects of the U.S. military strike in Afghanistan .    One year later, in  September 2002, a ‘meticulously planned strategy to persuade the public, the Congress and the allies of the need to confront the threat from Saddam Hussein’ was devised [ii] .   As part of this strategy, an interagency ‘Iraq Public Diplomacy group’ comprising of NSC, CIA, Pentagon, State and USAID staffers was created.  This group produced documentary and press releases showing interviews with Iraqi exiles and dissidents, chief among them the Iraqi National Council (INC) — a 1992 project of the Rendon Group with Ahmad Chalabi at its head.

Simultaneous with interviews,  the public mind was lulled into submission by showing pictures of the smoking Twin Towers and victims of Saddam Hossein’s chemical attacks (weapons supplied by the United States and with Washington’s full knowledge to use against Iranians ) with the goal of convincing the public that Saddam Hossein’s non-existent WMD.   The public was convinced. America launched on its campaign of ‘shock and awe’ from the stolen nation of Diego Garcia where the natives of the Island had been expelled from their homes after which  ” officials ordered their pets to be exterminated. They were gassed with exhaust fumes from American military vehicles” [iii] .

Soaking in a bloody orgy of destruction in Iraq , Washington was preparing the next battle front – Syria (in addition to   Iran and the other aforementioned countries).   In almost exact replica of the Iraq lies, plans were put into motion to remove Assad and neutralize Syria with help from the “opposition” ( HERE ).   Among those who cooperated with Washington and allies, the Syria   National Council (SNC) gained prominence.  Not surprising given the support of their political heavyweights.    SNC’s  most senior spokesperson, Bassma Kodmani who worked for the Ford Foundation [1] in  Cairo in 2005, took up a new post as executive director of the Arab Reform Initiative (ARI) initiated by the powerful Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).   Thereon, Kodmani attended Bilderberg conferences (see more  HERE ).  This time the PR firm for the “opposition” was the powerful Lynton Crosby which lobbied on their behalf.

Barely a decade has passed since the spin masters lies launched an illegal, immoral, and costly war against Iraq that once again they are bombarding us with propaganda and lies, wanting us to believe that the Assad government used chemical weapon.   Even though revelations have been made that such a false flag operation had been in the making , and that the United States backed the plan to use chemical weapons and blame it on Assad,  and as skepticism is being  voiced in every corner ( HERE ), Washington is planning a  “humanitarian” war.

Given the appointment of the interventionist Samantha Power to the United Nations, and her awareness of the Mongol legacy, makes this move inevitable.  Citing Hitler, Power wrote:

“ It was knowingly and lightheartedly that Genghis Khan sent thousands of women and children to their death.  History sees in him only the founder of a state… The aim of war is not to reach definite lines but to annihilate the enemy physically”. (Power, 2002 [iv] )

Perhaps she, along with other Washington decision makers, is looking at history in the same fashion as Washington prepares to move onto the next target – a target that will entangle America in a global conflict.

In April 2013, the powerful BRICS nations drew their red line on Syria and Iran . Iran recently drew its own red line on Syria .   These are the red lines Washington should heed instead of caving in to the lobbies’ war cries if it is to conflict  – a conflict which will bring an abrupt end to the declining empire.

Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich is an independent researcher and writer with a focus on U.S. foreign policy and the role of lobby groups in influencing US foreign policy.

Notes

[1] Ford Foundation was a conduit for CIA funds during the Cold  War according to Frances Stonor Saunders ( The Cultural Cold War: the CIA and the World of Arts and Letters . New York : New Press 2000)  and seemingly, it continues to play a prominent role in post Cold War activities .

[i] Richard Bonney, False Prophets: The ‘Clash of Civilizations’ and the Global War on Terror , Peter Lang 2008;  “This Goes Beyond Bin Laden,” JINSA press release, September 13, 2001.

[ii] Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber, “Weapons of Mass Deception: the uses of propaganda in Bush’s war on Iraq .”  Penguin, 2003

[iii] http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/jackowski08012004

[iv] Power,  Samantha.  “A Problem From Hell; America and the Age of Genocide”. Perennial, 2002.  pp23

By Countercurrents.org

25 August ,2013

@ Countercurrents.org

Thousands of anti-government protesters marched in Tunisia’s capital Tunis on August 24 for the first day of a planned week-long campaign to pressure the country’s ruling Islamist party Ennahda to step down from power. At the same time, opposition members have rejected dialogue with Tunisia’s ruling Ennahdha party, saying the current government must resign before any negotiations begin.

Media reports from Tunisia said:

The protesting people headed to the National Constituent Assembly (NCA), where activists and opposition MPs have gathered regularly since the July 25 assassination of secular politician Mohamed Brahmi, demanding the departure of the government led by the Islamist party.

“The people want the fall of the regime,” “Get out!” and “(Ennahda leader) Ghannouchi assassin,” were a few of the slogans chanted by the protesters.

More than an hour after the start of the protest the numbers continued to grow.

The opposition National Salvation Front (NSF) is hoping the demonstration will trigger a week of protests across the country that will force Ennahda’s resignation and lead to the formation of a non-partisan administration.

Tunisia’s powerful trade union UGTT is trying to mediate between the opposition and the ruling Islamists and find a way out of the crisis.

The talks have made little progress since they began at the start of the month, with the NSF insisting on that any negotiations prior to the government’s resignation were a “waste of time.”

The opposition accuses Ennahda of failing to rein in the country’s hardline Islamist movement, which is blamed for murdering Brahmi and Chokri Belaid, another prominent secular politician whose assassination in February brought down the first Ennahda-led coalition.

“I am here today because Ennahdha stole what we dreamed of,” said protester Nazlia Sergani, referring to the ruling party. “They speak about a coup. They are the ones who carried out the coup by not finishing constitution in a year as agreed.”

72 year old protester Hadj Ali, a retired engineer expressed his dissatisfaction with the current government. “Tunisia used to be an example of moderation and justice. We are Muslims and we don’t need anyone to teach us this,” he said. “We have never had killings before, only during colonization.”

 

“I am here because they want to oppress women,” he added.

The rally begins a planned week of protests that organizers are calling “Rahil,” meaning “departure.” The initiative was announced by Popular Front opposition politician Hama Hamami on August 13.

Opposition parties Nidaa Tounes and al-Massar and the Popular Front coalition are participating. They are members of an anti-government coalition called the National Salvation Front, which has demanded the replacement of the NCA and the current government with a temporary non-partisan technocratic government that would finalize drafting the constitution and arrange new elections.

The National Salvation Front was formed after the assassination of opposition NCA member Mohamed Brahmi on July 25. A number of opposition assembly members withdrew from the NCA that time and advocated for its dissolution.

Tunisia’s political process has been frozen since then, as the assembly has not held an official plenary session since Brahmi’s death.

Opposition parties formally refuse to engage in dialogue with the ruling Ennahdha party until opposition demands for dissolving the government and NCA are accepted.

The UGTT labor union is currently serving as a means of communication between Ennahdha and the opposition, as union head Houcine Abbassi has met several times with Ghannouchi and is relaying Ennahdha proposals to opposition members.

The UGTT has called to dissolve the current government while maintaining the National Constituent Assembly (NCA) under the supervision of a committee of constitutional experts.

A Reuters report said:

“Any negotiation without the immediate dissolution of the government would be a waste of time,” Taieb Baccouche, secretary general of the opposition Nidaa Tounes party told.

Withdrawn NCA members met with UGTT head Houcine Abbassi on August 23 as part of the union leader’s ongoing effort to mediate between sides.

Abbassi later met with Ennahdha president Rached Ghannouchi, according to party spokesperson Yusra Ghannouchi.

 

By International Energy Agency‌

25 August, 2013

@ Iea.org

In 90 minutes, enough sunlight strikes the earth to provide the entire planet’s energy needs for one year. While solar energy is abundant, it represents a tiny fraction of the world’s current energy mix. But this is changing rapidly and is being driven by global action to improve energy access and supply security, and to mitigate climate change.

Around the world, countries and companies are investing in solar generation capacity on an unprecedented scale, and, as a consequence, costs continue to fall and technologies improve. This publication gives an authoritative view of these technologies and market trends, in both advanced and developing economies, while providing examples of the best and most advanced practices. It also provides a unique guide for policy makers, industry representatives and concerned stakeholders on how best to use, combine and successfully promote the major categories of solar energy: solar heating and cooling, photovoltaic and solar thermal electricity, as well as solar fuels.

Finally, in analysing the likely evolution of electricity and energy-consuming sectors – buildings, industry and transport – it explores the leading role solar energy could play in the long-term future of our energy system.

By Taylor Luck

25 August, 2013

@ TheWashingtonPost

MAFRAQ, Jordan — Just 16 years old, Mohammed Hamad was heading to war.

The lanky Syrian teenager was joining what United Nations officials warn might be the start of a flood of underage fighters enlisting in rebel ranks. About half of the 200 new recruits who board buses each week to Syria from Jordan’s sprawling Zaatari refu­gee camp are under 18, U.N. officials at the camp estimate.

Hamad said it was his duty to “fight in the name of God to take back the country’’ from government forces.

“If my generation doesn’t take up arms, the revolution will be lost,’’ he said, shortly before boarding a bus for the border on a three-day journey to join rebel forces on the outskirts of his home village in southern Syria.

The flow of fresh troops has helped the U.S.-backed Free Syrian Army replenish ranks rapidly diminished by a series of recent losses.

But it also has prompted unease from U.N. officials, who in an internal report this month warned of growing “recruitment by armed groups, including of under-aged refugees” in Zaatari and across the region, indicating that the rebels may no longer be honoring a pledge to bar fighters younger than 17.

“We are concerned by reports that some groups may be attempting to use Zaatari as a recruitment center, and we are doing everything in our power to make sure it stays a refugee camp and not a military camp,” Andrew Harper, the U.N. refugee agency’s representative in Jordan, said in an interview.

After more than two years of conflict that has already claimed more than 100,000 lives, some rebel commanders defend the use of teenage fighters as inevitable.

“Many of these young men’s fathers and older brothers have died before them,” said Abu Diyaa al-Hourani, commander of a Free Syrian Army battalion outside the Syrian border town of Sheikh al-Maskin. He said that Syrians as young as 15 serve in his 800-man unit, whose average age has plunged to 19, down from 25 not long ago.

“It is only natural for the next generation to carry on the fight,” he said.

Conscription in the Syrian army is compulsory for all males once they reach the age of 18, according to the military.

At the camp, rebel officials say that theirs remains an all-volunteer force and that prospective recruits are carefully vetted. But the officials acknowledged that verifying birth dates may be all but impossible in camps where few refugees have access to birth documents.

“At the end of the day, if they can carry a gun and are willing to fight, who are we to say they can’t?” said Ayman al-Hariri, a member of the Syrian National Council, an umbrella opposition group, who coordinates repatriation from Zaatari, home to more than 100,000 Syrians.

The families of the young fighters receive monthly benefits from the Free Syrian Army, including salaries and even priority in the distribution of food aid and cash assistance within the camp, refugee officials said. In interviews, several parents — some of whom arrived in Zaatari with little more than the clothes on their backs — said those incentives had influenced their family’s decision.

Um Majed al-Homsawi, 45, said she allowed her 17-year-old son, Ahmed, to return to Syria to fight only after recruiters agreed to provide her family with a fully furnished trailer complete with air conditioning, an upgrade from their standard-issue U.N. canvas tent.

“My daughter has asthma and my husband has had three heart operations — we couldn’t survive in a tent in the desert,” Homsawi said as she placed a kettle atop a propane stove in her recently delivered trailer. “My son decided to join the Free Syrian Army not only to save his country, but to save his family.”

Rebel officials say Zaatari’s proximity to major fighting in southern Syria has transformed the camp into the major supplier of fighters for rebel battalions suffering an average loss of 50 fighters per week.

In the camp, rebel officials said, the Foreign Syrian Army carries out background checks, physical examinations, agility tests and “mental and emotional” evaluations of potential recruits.

On a recent day, Syrian National Coalition and Free Syrian Army representatives in a pair of unmarked prefabricated trailers received a long line of teenage camp residents seeking to enlist with rebel forces.

A group of young men whom the recruiters had rejected for being too young, too weak or otherwise unfit for battle gathered outside. But the young men said they remained determined to join the fight.

“I am going to wait here every day until the Free Syrian Army accepts me, or until Sept. 10,” said Ahmed Saeed, a resident of the city of Daraa whose 17-year-old brother left to fight alongside the Free Syrian Army last week.

“Then I will turn 15.”

By Barry Grey

24 August, 2013

@ WSWS.org

US officials have outlined a series of options that are being considered for a direct assault by American and allied military forces against Syria, using Wednesday’s alleged chemical weapons attack as the pretext. The stepped-up military preparations make clear that the events on Wednesday are part of a provocation to justify yet another neo-colonial war in the Middle East.

The growing threat of direct US intervention in the war for regime-change against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was also underscored Friday by President Obama, who used an interview on CNN to indicate he was seeking to marshal international support and some form of legal cover for a US-led attack.

The New York Times reported in a front-page article Friday that senior officials from the Pentagon, the State Department and the intelligence agencies met with White House officials for three-and-a-half hours Thursday to outline possible military measures. The article cited unnamed officials, who said no decision was reached amid internal differences over whether to launch direct US military action in the coming days.

According to the Times, the military options discussed ranged from cruise missile strikes launched from US ships currently deployed in the Mediterranean Sea to a full-scale air war targeting civilian as well as military sites. The newspaper wrote: “The targets could include missile or artillery batteries that launch chemical munitions or nerve gas, as well as communications and support facilities. Symbols of the Assad government’s power—headquarters and government offices—also could be among the proposed targets, officials said.”

The Wall Street Journal, also in a front-page article, reported that the Pentagon on Thursday was “updating target lists for possible air strikes on a range of Syrian government and military installations… as part of contingency planning should President Barack Obama decide to act.”

The newspaper continued: “US military options include potential strikes on ‘regime targets,’ including Syrian government functions crucial to its war effort. In addition, options include strikes on Syrian military ‘delivery capabilities and systems’ that are either used directly in attacks with poison gas or to facilitate them, from command-and-control facilities to front-line artillery batteries, officials said.”

Other options being drawn up reportedly include “standoff” attacks that would not require sending US planes into Syrian air space, such as the missile attacks launched this year by Israel against Syrian targets.

“These options are being fine-tuned by military officials,” the Journal reported, “so that Mr. Obama can act in short order if a determination is made that Mr. Assad’s forces carried out chemical attacks and if Mr. Obama chooses to respond with force.”

The preparations for direct US military action come amidst a propaganda barrage by the government and the media using still unsubstantiated reports of a chemical weapons attack on towns to the east of Damascus to accuse the Syrian regime of war crimes and justify an escalation of the imperialist-led sectarian war that has already devastated the country.

Estimates of fatalities in the attack, all coming from opposition militias and officials or groups that support them, vary wildly from 130 to 2,000, and no evidence has been produced to implicate the Syrian government, which denies having played any role.

 

Nor has any US, French or British official or media commentator explained what the Syrian regime would have to gain from carrying out such an attack at this time. The government has in recent weeks been dealing major military blows to the US-backed and US-armed opposition militias, including the Al Qaeda-linked Al Nusra Front, and this week launched an offensive to retake the Damascus suburbs, which are currently under the control of Al Nusra.

Moreover, the alleged chemical attack occurred just days after the arrival of a United Nations inspection team, invited by Syria to investigate previous alleged chemical attacks. Why would the regime carry out a chemical attack only a few miles from the capital, where the UN inspections team is based?

The so-called “rebels,” on the other hand, would have ample reason to carry out a provocation, under conditions where they face being driven from their sanctuaries near the capital and are locked in a bitter fight with local Kurdish militias. The Al Qaeda cutthroats of Al Nusra are eminently capable of killing scores or even hundreds of civilians to promote their reactionary agenda.

Opposition militias have boasted of possessing chemical weapons and being prepared to use them, and last May Turkish media reported the arrest of Syrian “rebels” holding sarin nerve gas. Also in May, UN official Carla Del Ponte reported that there was “strong, concrete” evidence that sarin had been used by Western-backed forces.

Obama simply ignored these facts and in June announced, without providing any proof, that the US had concluded the Syrian regime had used chemical weapons. This was used as the pretext to announcing the direct US arming of the so-called “rebels.”

For the US, a major escalation in Syria could, it is argued, salvage its flagging war to topple the Assad regime, the only Arab ally of Iran, and install a puppet regime that would sign onto a US-led war against Tehran. Washington considers the Iranian regime an obstacle to its drive to establish unchallenged US hegemony in the oil-rich Middle East.

Such are the real calculations behind the hypocritical blather about human rights and protecting civilians. Another advantage of an escalation in Syria is the potential to distract public attention from the ongoing and undeniable mass killing being carried out by the US-backed military junta in Egypt. No US official or media outlet is demanding US military action to protect civilian protesters being murdered in Egypt, which only demonstrates the double-standard employed by US imperialism when it comes to “human rights.” Such things apply only to regimes the US wants to remove, not to those it backs.

The New York Times on Friday joined the media campaign for stepped-up war in Syria, writing in an editorial that “the United States and other major powers will almost certainly have to respond much more aggressively than they have so far” if the deaths outside of Damascus “prove to be the work” of the Assad regime.

In his CNN interview, conducted Thursday and broadcast Friday morning, Obama called the alleged chemical attack a “big event of grave concern.” He stressed Washington’s demand, which has been taken up by US allies Britain and France and United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, that the Syrian government allow the UN inspection team immediate access to the area where the attack reportedly occurred.

This demand, which ignores the fact that the East Ghouta area is still controlled by Al Nusra, appears to be designed to create a pretext for military escalation. “We don’t expect cooperation,” Obama said of the Assad regime, “given their past history.”

It remains to be seen whether Damascus will agree to this demand, which has been seconded by its main international ally, Russia. Assad has good reason to fear a trap and frame-up, given the role of the UN in sanctioning and participating in every imperialist war of aggression from Afghanistan to Iraq to Libya.

While arguing for a degree of caution, Obama proceeded to outline a case for direct US military intervention, stating, “Then that starts getting to some core national interests that the United States has, both in terms of making sure that weapons of mass destruction are not proliferating as well as needing to protect our allies, our bases in the region.”

He further indicated a desire to rally the support of Washington’s allies in Europe and the Middle East behind a US-led attack on Syria as well as concern over providing a legal fig leaf for such a move. “If the US goes in and attacks another country without a UN mandate and without clear evidence that can he presented,” he said, “then there are questions in terms of whether international law supports it, do we have the coalition to make it work…”

Meanwhile, the drumbeat for war was stepped up Friday by both American and British officials. Obama administration officials said that US intelligence had detected activity at Syrian chemical weapons sites before Wednesday’s alleged attack. The unnamed officials said US intelligence agencies were “now leaning to the conclusion that Syria did use chemical weapons.”

British Foreign Secretary William Hague in a statement on television said the chances the Syrian opposition was responsible for the attack were “vanishingly small.” He continued, “We do believe this is a chemical attack by the Assad regime on a large scale,” and added that “we don’t rule out any option for the future.”

Russian officials continued to call the alleged chemical attack a provocation carried out by the opposition. The Russian ambassador to Lebanon, Alexander Zasypkin, was quoted by the official Syrian news agency, SANA, as saying, “I’d like to remind that the issue of chemical weapons should not be exploited for serving other goals as was the case in Iraq.”

The Russia Foreign Ministry declared, “More new evidence is starting to emerge that this criminal act was clearly provocative… On the internet, in particular, reports are circulating that news of the incident carrying accusations against government troops was published several hours before the so-called attack. So, this was a pre-planned action.”

Even in advance of any open US military attack, US involvement in the fighting in Syria is increasing. Euronews.com on Thursday cited separate French and Israeli reports that Jordanian, Israeli and American commandos are heading up hundreds of Syrian rebels they have trained in a drive on Damascus. “The reports claim a force of some 300 men crossed into Syria from Jordan on August 17, with a second group crossing on the 19th” the web site reported.

It continued: “Analysts say this is stage one of the US strategy, training and leading in the field handpicked members of the Free Syrian Army to carve out a southern buffer zone along the Jordanian and Israeli border within which rebel forces can be trained and based.”

The US-instigated and backed sectarian civil war in Syria continues to stoke up sectarian conflicts across the entire region. On Friday, two car bombs exploded in the northern Lebanese city of Tripoli, killing 42 people and wounding hundreds more. The bombs targeted the Sunni population and follow a series of bomb attacks against the Lebanese Shiite-dominated Hezbollah movement.

In addition, Israeli warplanes on Friday struck a so-called “terror site” between Beirut and Sidon. It was the first Israeli air raid on the area since the 2006 Israeli invasion of southern Lebanon.

The mounting provocations and war preparations against the Assad regime threaten to unleash a far wider and more bloody war across the Middle East—one that could bring the US into direct conflict with Russia and China.

By Greg Palast, Vice Magazine

24 August 13

@ readersupportednews.org

When a little birdie dropped the End Game memo through my window, its content was so explosive, so sick and plain evil, I just couldn’t believe it.

The Memo confirmed every conspiracy freak’s fantasy: that in the late 1990s, the top US Treasury officials secretly conspired with a small cabal of banker big-shots to rip apart financial regulation across the planet. When you see 26.3 percent unemployment in Spain, desperation and hunger in Greece, riots in Indonesia and Detroit in bankruptcy, go back to this End Game memo, the genesis of the blood and tears.

The Treasury official playing the bankers’ secret End Game was Larry Summers. Today, Summers is Barack Obama’s leading choice for Chairman of the US Federal Reserve, the world’s central bank. If the confidential memo is authentic, then Summers shouldn’t be serving on the Fed, he should be serving hard time in some dungeon reserved for the criminally insane of the finance world.

The memo is authentic.

I had to fly to Geneva to get confirmation and wangle a meeting with the Secretary General of the World Trade Organisation, Pascal Lamy. Lamy, the Generalissimo of Globalisation, told me,

“The WTO was not created as some dark cabal of multinationals secretly cooking plots against the people… We don’t have cigar-smoking, rich, crazy bankers negotiating.”

Then I showed him the memo.

It begins with Larry Summers’ flunky, Timothy Geithner, reminding his boss to call the Bank bigshots to order their lobbyist armies to march:

“As we enter the end-game of the WTO financial services negotiations, I believe it would be a good idea for you to touch base with the CEOs…”

To avoid Summers having to call his office to get the phone numbers (which, under US law, would have to appear on public logs), Geithner listed the private lines of what were then the five most powerful CEOs on the planet. And here they are:

Goldman Sachs: John Corzine (212)902-8281

Merrill Lynch: David Kamanski (212)449-6868

Bank of America: David Coulter (415)622-2255

Citibank: John Reed (212)559-2732

Chase Manhattan: Walter Shipley (212)270-1380

Lamy was right: They don’t smoke cigars. Go ahead and dial them. I did, and sure enough, got a cheery personal hello from Reed – cheery until I revealed I wasn’t Larry Summers. (Note: The other numbers were swiftly disconnected. And Corzine can’t be reached while he faces criminal charges.)

It’s not the little cabal of confabs held by Summers and the banksters that’s so troubling. The horror is in the purpose of the “end game” itself.

Let me explain:

The year was 1997. US Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin was pushing hard to de-regulate banks. That required, first, repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act to dismantle the barrier between commercial banks and investment banks. It was like replacing bank vaults with roulette wheels.

Second, the banks wanted the right to play a new high-risk game: “derivatives trading”. JP Morgan alone would soon carry $88 trillion of these pseudo-securities on its books as “assets”.

Deputy Treasury Secretary Summers (soon to replace Rubin as Secretary) body-blocked any attempt to control derivatives.

But what was the use of turning US banks into derivatives casinos if money would flee to nations with safer banking laws?

The answer conceived by the Big Bank Five: eliminate controls on banks in every nation on the planet – in one single move. It was as brilliant as it was insanely dangerous.

How could they pull off this mad caper? The bankers’ and Summers’ game was to use the Financial Services Agreement (or FSA), an abstruse and benign addendum to the international trade agreements policed by the World Trade Organisation.

Until the bankers began their play, the WTO agreements dealt simply with trade in goods – that is, my cars for your bananas. The new rules devised by Summers and the banks would force all nations to accept trade in “bads” – toxic assets like financial derivatives.

Until the bankers’ re-draft of the FSA, each nation controlled and chartered the banks within their own borders. The new rules of the game would force every nation to open their markets to Citibank, JP Morgan and their derivatives “products”.

And all 156 nations in the WTO would have to smash down their own Glass-Steagall divisions between commercial savings banks and the investment banks that gamble with derivatives.

The job of turning the FSA into the bankers’ battering ram was given to Geithner, who was named Ambassador to the World Trade Organisation.

Bankers Go Bananas

Why in the world would any nation agree to let its banking system be boarded and seized by financial pirates like JP Morgan?

The answer, in the case of Ecuador, was bananas. Ecuador was truly a banana republic. The yellow fruit was that nation’s life-and-death source of hard currency. If it refused to sign the new FSA, Ecuador could feed its bananas to the monkeys and go back into bankruptcy. Ecuador signed.

And so on – with every single nation bullied into signing.

Every nation but one, I should say. Brazil’s new President, Inacio Lula da Silva, refused. In retaliation, Brazil was threatened with a virtual embargo of its products by the European Union’s Trade Commissioner, one Peter Mandelson, according to another confidential memo I got my hands on. But Lula’s refusenik stance paid off for Brazil which, alone among Western nations, survived and thrived during the 2007-9 bank crisis.

China signed – but got its pound of flesh in return. It opened its banking sector a crack in return for access and control of the US auto parts and other markets. (Swiftly, two million US jobs shifted to China.)

The new FSA pulled the lid off the Pandora’s box of worldwide derivatives trade. Among the notorious transactions legalised: Goldman Sachs (where Treasury Secretary Rubin had been co-chairman) worked a secret euro-derivatives swap with Greece which, ultimately, destroyed that nation. Ecuador, its own banking sector de-regulated and demolished, exploded into riots. Argentina had to sell off its oil companies (to the Spanish) and water systems (to Enron) while its teachers hunted for food in garbage cans. Then, Bankers Gone Wild in the Eurozone dove head-first into derivatives pools without knowing how to swim – and the continent is now being sold off in tiny, cheap pieces to Germany.

Of course, it was not just threats that sold the FSA, but temptation as well. After all, every evil starts with one bite of an apple offered by a snake. The apple: the gleaming piles of lucre hidden in the FSA for local elites. The snake was named Larry.

Does all this evil and pain flow from a single memo? Of course not: the evil was The Game itself, as played by the banker clique. The memo only revealed their game-plan for checkmate.

And the memo reveals a lot about Summers and Obama.

While billions of sorry souls are still hurting from worldwide banker-made disaster, Rubin and Summers didn’t do too badly. Rubin’s deregulation of banks had permitted the creation of a financial monstrosity called “Citigroup”. Within weeks of leaving office, Rubin was named director, then Chairman of Citigroup – which went bankrupt while managing to pay Rubin a total of $126 million.

Then Rubin took on another post: as key campaign benefactor to a young State Senator, Barack Obama. Only days after his election as President, Obama, at Rubin’s insistence, gave Summers the odd post of US “Economics Tsar” and made Geithner his Tsarina (that is, Secretary of Treasury). In 2010, Summers gave up his royalist robes to return to “consulting” for Citibank and other creatures of bank deregulation whose payments have raised Summers’ net worth by $31 million since the “end-game” memo.

That Obama would, at Robert Rubin’s demand, now choose Summers to run the Federal Reserve Board means that, unfortunately, we are far from the end of the game.