The world as most of us did not know it in 2015.

The Global Geopolitical changes witnessed by people in the know, through 2015, give one a sense of hope for the New Year. The shift of Geopolitical power from the West to East has moved up a few gears with the takeover and control by Russia of the War in Syria. Russia’s phenomenal success in only three months of operations in the war has left the Western nations at a loss for a meaningful response to the developments in this region. The rise of the evil entity called ISIS has brought about untold fear for the citizens of the world. Their expansion across Iraq/Syria and the Kurdish republics resulted in the killing of hundreds of thousands and displacement of millions from the region.  The intervention by Russia in the region has stopped this ISIS expansion and growth and given people of the region the hope of improved prospects in 2016.

The migration problem in the EU has yet to be resolved, with EU members implementing all sorts of movement restrictions between countries and predominantly targeting foreigners from entering the EU. Increased border patrols, the building of huge walls and fences, etc , is common purpose under the circumstances. The rise of the right and far right political parties in various European member countries poses a serious threat to the longevity of the EU as an entity. The revolt by EU citizens against the influx of migrants in their respective countries have increased the support for these  far right parties who are gaining political relevance as a result of the migration crisis. Other issues which plagued the EU, was the Greek bale out, and the consequences thereof. With the move of support for the far right in various EU countries, how will they react to the Mafiosi style of economic management of the Union.

The slow but certain downfall of the US as the sole global Superpower became a sober reality to the powers that be in Washington. Internal strife in the form of civil disobedience and revolt by US citizens against police brutality of minors has reached epic proportions with the situation becoming unmanageable by local authorities in their specific states. The gradual loss of US dominance in the Middle East as a result of Russia’s intervention has left the US Neocons scratching their heads for a meaningful response with significant answers. These are only two examples of the problems facing the US Empire for which they are clearly unable to contain.  I have penned a few articles this year of the impending downfall of the US Empire in light of their catastrophic management of the terror threat in the MENA (Middle East/North African)  region and elsewhere. Lacking a meaningful policy and strategy to combat the terror threat in this region, will leave the US out in the cold as the Russian coalition is doing the job for them. This naturally will leave a huge scar to their egos and may prove to be the catalyst that would instigate a desperate fight to maintain dominance over the MENA region and globally.

Although the Russian coalition has made tremendous strides in containing the ISIS threat in the Middle East, it may not be accepted that the US will follow suite and assist the coalition in fighting this terror scourge. Recent developments have fingered a NATO country, Turkey, as funding, aiding and assisting the ISIS jihadists, and allowing stolen crude to be transported from Syrian oil fields through Turkey to international buyers at low cost.  As a NATO country it cannot be expected that the NATO Alliance, and inadvertently the US, was not aware of these operations and they may be complicit in encouraging or turning a blind eye to Turkey’s criminal activities. That said it would be only a matter of time before others are exposed in similar criminal activities involving the funding of ISIS.

The New Year will bring in many more surprises from the Geopolitical arena regarding the Syrian war and the ISIS phenomenon. For the benefit of prosperity to all mankind in the New Year, we hope and pray that things do not turn out for the worse as far as the US is concerned in the Syrian oil/Turkey/ISIS developments. If that be the case, the world may be in for an extremely bumpy ride in 2016.

 

Terror attacks in France – a predictive false flag?

The latest terror attacks in France on Friday (13-11-2015), comes shortly after the French air force allegedly joined in the bombing of Syria with the US and other allies. It is also claimed to be a result of the refugee influx into Europe from various parts of the Middle East, especially Syria. The main concern from European governments was the potential of ISIS jihadists infiltrating European countries in the guise of a refugee.

The refugee crisis has become an issue which European authorities are battling to contain and manage. Various proposals were made by the EU Commission to Turkey and other North African countries to assist with the crisis and take in some of the refugees with financial assistance to help deploy them (refugees) into their countries’ mainstream economies.  Not one of the countries approached by the EU Commission took the bait; thus, leaving the EU solely with the headache of trying to resolve the crisis.

Faced with this problem, EU countries took various steps of stemming the influx, but evidently nothing seemed to stop the refugees from entering EU in their droves.  Borders were temporarily closed, with tighter restrictions put in place. Emergency blockades in the form of barbed wire and high electrified fences were built.  But somehow the refugees found ways of bypassing these additional controls, with the result that they were made ineffective within the first few weeks of implementation. The EU parliament was now running out of ideas in their efforts to control the problem, and it seemed they had no effective alternative plans or answers to resolve the crisis. 

What are they to do?

As with all Geopolitical goals and objectives, everything is never what it seems. As I have always said, in situations like these, one needs to look beyond the obvious for an insight into the reasoning and motivations of such actions.  Firstly, the immediate assumption that the attack was carried out by ISIS jihadists in retaliation for France’s participation in the Syrian war seems feeble, given the fact that there is an alleged coalition of approx. 11 countries militarily involved in the war in Syria. Why choose France as a target? In addition, the previous terror attacks in France earlier this and last year, has resulted in the French government improving national security to prevent any more attacks from being carried out in that country. The fact that this improved security was easily breached is a convenience like no other. My suspicion of the attacks being a false flag ties in perfectly with the scenario outlined above, given that something needed to be done to resolve the refugee crisis effectively.  If not, the EU faces the prospect of being non-existent within a few years.

The claims of ISIS jihadists infiltrating Europe in the guise of refugees is a perfect excuse to plan a false flag attack, blame it on the Jihadists, then implement draconian laws throughout the EU with military execution to stem the influx of refugees.  As a result the EU Commission now has enough reason to crack down, with all means possible, on the refugees, to resolve the problem.  #justsaying!

21st Century Looney Toons - courtesy of Disneyland Europe

The influx of refugees into Europe from North Africa and the Middle East seems to be taking its toll on Governments in the European Union. Back and forth blaming for the crises is the order of the day, and no-one seems eager to take responsibility for the situation.  The European Union leaders are blaming its individual EU members and conveniently passing the buck without any shame.

The refugee crisis is a direct result of the endless wars the Western leaders perpetrated on these ravaged countries. Rewind back to 2003 when the first wave of attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq by the US and its NATO allies, who claimed to free the people from dictatorship and tyranny and bring democracy to their countries. Twelve years and several wars later these and other ME countries are now in total chaos with no sign of democracy or freedom but utter destruction, misery, death and poverty bestowed on the citizens. The result?  People are fleeing their devastated lands in droves and seeking shelter in the nearest place of safety, namely Europe and Britain.

With the predicament ever becoming worse and unmanageable, the free-flowing borderless countries of the EU are considering closing their borders as a result of the situation. The irony of the circumstances, is nothing but laughable in the eyes of the world.  Before plundering and pillaging those countries for their own selfish and Imperial interests, the EU leaders had only good things to sell in their quest bomb these lands into oblivion. Example, see David Cameron’s plea to bomb Syria (for a good cause) here: ”http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-23884550”. Subsequent to the crisis and realising the refugees are becoming a European problem, he does an about turn and wants “stability in that part of the world” and to stop people fleeing their countries, see here "http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/09/02/david-cameron-says-taking_n_8076646.html"

These so-called leaders of the free world, with all their power, imperialism and exceptionalism, could not foresee the current situation occurring back then when they were salivating to bomb every ME and North African country into extinction. At least they did get one thing right; the people DID find a country and a land with democracy, i.e. the closest European country that they could settle in!

There will be more blood.

History has proven that the demise of an empire is preceded by various issues internal and external to its domain. The downfall of the Roman Empire was a result of a combination of factors, namely political disintegration, civil revolt, failing economic policies, soaring debt, global military expansion, numerous failed wars, and corruption in government. Similarly, the Ottoman and British empires crumbled as a result of some or all of the above factors. In the case of all three, the unique miscalculation of overexpansion is blatant. To have complete hegemony and absolute power over all and sundry, the question of maintaining sovereignty and autonomy is lost to mismanagement, loss of control, misguidance and ultimately a failure of the state.

The Empire of Chaos (appropriately named by those in the know), is evidently no different to the empires of centuries past. The US government is tainted by a series of failed military campaigns, think Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc. The nation is beset by internal strife in the form of civil disorder as a result of incessant police brutality against minorities; maintaining a foreign policy that is aggressive and hostile towards 1.6 billion Muslims around the globe and an ever increasing total national debt to the tune of approximately 20 trillion dollars. Suffice it to say, a debt that is impossible to repay, and is exacerbated by incorrigible corruption throughout the US Government. The trend in relation to past Empires is clearly significant.

The one and only reason why the US (Empire) is surviving, is the fact that the US dollar is the global reserve currency and all international transactions are negotiated with it. The Federal Reserve Bank in the US can therefore print US dollars ad infinitum, as long as the dollar is the preferred currency of trade, and has substantial value. When various leaders from the Middle East, i.e. Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi,  Bashar al Assad made plans to move away from trading their natural resources in dollars, they were targeted and removed through military campaigns, citing dubious reasoning. The latest target to be subdued is the government of Iran.  For years the Iranians were planning to establish their own Bourse (Stock Exchange) to trade their natural gas and oil in a currency other than the US dollar, and as such have been targeted as a threat to world peace; hence, the accusations of the Iranians building a nuclear bomb to destroy Israel. Although literature suggests that Iran is the most peaceful nation in the Middle East.

The US is well aware that taking the fight to the Iranians, will stir up the Russian bear and the Chinese Dragon, which is something they cannot afford. The demonising of President Putin and Xi Xinping, is a direct result of these leaders insisting on protecting their sovereignty, national and international interests (re: Iran, Syria), and therefore not following US dictates. The establishment of various financial institutions by the BRIC countries, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and the New Development Bank (NDB), to counter the might and power of the ECB (European Central Bank), the IMF, and the World Bank, is enough cause for alarm from the Empire of Chaos, who inadvertently owns the IMF, World Bank and ECB.  With numerous Asian, Latin American, African, Eastern European and various Western European countries having joined or considering to join these institutions, the US government is feeling left out in the cold, and therefore will fight for the survival of their banking minions and ultimately their own survival.

All international transactions between corporates and countries, uses the SWIFT transactional system to conduct trade in US dollars. The formulation by Russia and China of an alternative system of trade in currencies other than the US dollar is gaining traction and will be implemented in 2016/2017. With successful implementation of this system, the dollar as the preferred trading currency will be exchanged for currencies of the trading partners’ choice, mainly in their own currencies. This poses a huge threat to the US economy should the value of the dollar fall as a result of this development. As countries and corporates successfully switch from the SWIFT system to the new system of trade, the dollar becomes worthless, and the printing of dollars will have little significance or importance.

Therefore the fight to retain the Eurasian landmass and East Asian countries as economic trading partners is imperative for the US in their survival. Should this not be realised or sustained, the collapse of the US economy and as a state would be inevitable. Knowing the arrogance and egotism of the US administration and its war mongering neocons, they will not go down without taking the rest of the world with them. A military confrontation between the US and Russia/China may be globally catastrophic. There will be more blood to spill. God save us all.

The Cauldron of fire that is the Middle East

The Middle East is a far off destination from the shores of South Africa, yet many South African’s lives are somehow intertwined with the developments and chaos emanating from it. We have South African muslims advocating their support of various factions and religious groups in that part of the world. We have South Africans from Jewish descent similarly exercising their right to show solidarity with their affiliation to the Middle East.  South African Christians also share an affinity with their religious counterparts from the region. The same goes for descendants of Middle Eastern origin, in other distant lands far removed from the Middle East.

Powerful governments around the world likewise have an economic and geostrategic interest in any events that shape developments in the Middle East. Their reasons are more capitalistic, economic and power driven than the groups mentioned above. It’s a known fact that most countries in this region are rich in natural resources, i.e. black gold (oil) and natural gas are the main resources found there.  The quantity of these resources around the Persian Gulf and Caspian sea is unknown, with global corporate companies fighting for a piece of this bounty. Contrary to popular opinion (being democracy for the people), this is the main reason why the Western powers are continually declaring war on governments in the region. (I’ll probably be castigated, vilified and branded a traitor to Western allegiance for making a statement like that).

There are various opinions and views of the war/s and faction fighting taking place in the Middle East. Below, is my view of the chaos happening between ethnic groups and external powers trying to shape the region to their benefit. Your comments and contributions are welcome.

In the countries stretching from North Africa, that is, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia through to Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Turkey, there are hundreds of different ethnic groups and religious sects cohabiting this region.  The predominant religious groups from the Middle East are Sunni and Shi’íte Muslims. The other groups are Kurds, Jews (Sephardic and Ashkenazi ), Christians and various smaller ones who are partly affiliated with the major groups. The ruling governments from the various countries are either Sunni or Shiíte muslims.  Sunni muslims rule the countries of Saudi Arabia (Wahabbis), Bahrain, UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, Turkey, Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt, Tunisia, and others. Shi’ite muslims rule the countries of Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Syria (Alawites), and Lebanon. As can be seen, the majority of Arab nations are ruled by Sunni muslims, although the majority of the population in some are Shiíte muslims. The history of the region is littered with factual literature of Sunni dictatorships and oppression of the minority groups.

At the time of the rise of the “Ärab Spring” in 2011, the resistance of shiíte muslims against their Sunni dictators and oppressors had reached fever pitch. The Arab Spring was sparked off by one individual’s act of self-immolation, due to his street wares being confiscated by a deliberate act of vindictiveness.  This simple event sparked off the Arab revolution from Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, etc. As a result of the revolution in these countries, all the smaller ethnic groups and tribes wanted to be recognised by representation in their new governments. The trend of the revolution was marked by a relentless coup repeated in all the countries affected. In tandem with the revolution, Western powers realised a golden opportunity to rid themselves of any government who stood in the way of their Imperial objectives for the Middle East.

One of the leaders who would not play along to the Imperial agenda was Libya’s Muammar Gadaffi. Gadaffi had an intention of trading the country’s wealth of hydrocarbons in a currency other than the US dollar. Naturally this infuriated the US Imperialists, who sought to demonise and brand Gadaffi a terrorist who murders his own people. What followed was the familiar exercise of regime change and democracy for the people. Prior to the fall and killing of Gadaffi, Libya was the most prosperous nation in Africa, with a healthy, growing economy and a thriving population. Subsequent to his demise in 2011, the country has been torn apart by fundamentalist groups and US sponsored rebels. To this day, there is turmoil and disaster in Libya, with half the population fleeing for their lives.

The same happened to Iraq’s Saddam Hussein in 2003, when he similarly had ambitious plans to dump the dollar as the primary trade currency for his hydrocarbon production. As in Libya, there is still chaos and mayhem in Iraq as a result of this US intervention. There never was any WMD, and the only WMD that Saddam Hussein had, was the intention of dumping the dollar, which to the Imperialists, was equivalent to a crime of premeditated murder. Prior to the fall of Gadaffi, Iraq was a thriving nation with a stable and growing economy.

So, bringing the brand of Western democracy to the people of the Middle East, in conjunction with the Arab spring revolution, resulted in chaos, anarchy, and mayhem in every country. In Iraq the new Shiite government propped up by the Western powers, was unable to contain the uprising of Sunni extremists who organised themselves in various groups with a distinct agenda to unsettle the new government and cause as much terror in the country to make it ungovernable. With the country being ungovernable, an influx of foreign rebel fighters allegedly funded and armed by the Western powers and the GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) flowed freely. The Gulf Cooperation Council is made up of the governments of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, the UAE, Qatar and Oman. Suffice it to say, they are all Sunni dominated governments. One might say the standoff between the Sunni and Shiite muslim factions in the Middle East, started in Iraq after the Hussein regime was ousted.

This scenario was repeated in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, and Yemen (where the Shiite uprising was brutally contained by Saudi and Bahraini military forces through an illegal war in that country). The fighting between factions in Iraq conveniently spilled over the border to Syria, with the subsequent rise and dominance of the ISIS/ISIL (Sunni ) movement in the region. The government of Syria is controlled by the Alawites, which is a religious ethnic group that follows the Shia religion. Naturally, with their Shia allegiance, and their refusal to bow to Western dictates, the Syrian government was next in line for regime change by the Western powers and the GCC. After 4 years of intensive fighting between ISIS/ISIL, the Syrian army, Syrian rebels, and other militant islamist groups, like Al-Qaeda, the Al-Nusra Front, Ansar Al-Islam, the country of Syria and parts of Iraq has been gradually demarcated through seizure by ISIS/ISIL.

To the North of Syria, the Sunni government of Turkey pretentiously supported the ouster of ISIS/ISIL in the region by providing military aid to the Western sponsored rebels. The Turkish government conveniently used this as a pretext to enforce their dominance and authority over another group, the Kurds who make up 25% of the Turkish population. The Kurds are the third largest ethnic group in the Middle East and includes a significant portion of the populations in Syria, Turkey, Iraq, and Iran. The majority of the Kurdish population are Sunni muslims with a minority of Shia Kurds located along the borders of Iraq and Iran.  

The situation in Israel/Palestine/Lebanon remains tense, with daily skirmishes between the IDF(Israeli Defence Force)/Israeli settlers and the Palestinian people. In Gaza (identified as the largest open air prison in the world) the ruling party (Hamas) is predominantly Sunni muslims.  Because of their refusal to acknowledge the Zionist government of Israel, they are deemed a terrorist organization, and supported by the people of Gaza who are collectively intent on the destruction of the State of Israel. Incidentally, Hamas was voted into power in a 2006 referendum in Gaza. The result was not what the Zionists wanted, hence the demonization of the people of Gaza and their ruling party Hamas. Although being of Sunni ethnicity, the Hamas government do not enjoy the support of their Sunni counterparts in the GCC, for similar reasons that Israel sees them, i.e. as terrorists. They do however receive support from the Syrian and Iranian governments, for geostrategic purposes, i.e. to contain the Zionist government from wiping out all of Palestine and gradually carving out more land for themselves into the greater Middle East.

Together, the Gaza strip and the West Bank forms the regions identified as the Palestinian territories. It’s ruled by the PA (Palestinian Authority, formerly PLO), who is also predominantly Sunni muslim. As an alliance with Hamas in Gaza, they form the basis of their people’s fight for a Palestinian state.

Lebanon, the land north of Israel, is ruled by the Shiite dominated Hezbollah political party. They are funded and supported predominantly by the Syrian and Iranian governments. Their main political objective is resistance to Israeli occupation in Lebanon.

Although the various political parties in Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon have similar dispensations and objectives, i.e. the resistance to Israeli occupation and the formation of a Palestinian state, the rivalry and factionalism resulting from the groups has caused confusion, division, and ultimately alienation from each other. This is mainly due to the dissimilar support and influences the various parties receives from their regional benefactors who share the same disunity, i.e. the GCC (Sunni) opposing the governments of Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon (Shiite). The ultimate goal of these governments is for regional dominance in the Middle East. Throw in the agenda of the Western powers and Israel, and you have the current scenario of perpetual war and endless fighting. Whoever controls the region controls the resources…

The Mafiosi and the European Troika

I’m not a specialist in economics or political economics, especially so when it comes to European economics. But what I do know is that the Greek people and their state, is being looted in broad daylight. The referendum which took place a few weeks ago (to vote no to more austerity and bailouts) meant nothing to the Troika and was an exercise of futile, meaningless protest from the Greek people. The so-called far left radical Syriza Party turned out to be nothing more than a bunch of hard talking, action-less sell outs`. They caved and bent when it was their moment to shine and rescue their compatriots from the European banking Mafiosi. The subsequent deal entered into by the Greek government is said to be worse than the initial deal offered by the European bankers, prior to the referendum. Essentially, this means that the bankers gave the Greek people the big MIDDLE FINGER for voting no to more austerity measures and decided to tighten the already strangling noose on them.

To put the deal into perspective, the Troika offers the Greek Government €86B in loans, and in return (or as collateral) they take at least €50B in state assets and privatises these assets through private companies connected to either the ECB (European Central Bank), the IMF, the World Bank, or other German and French Banks. Furthermore, the Troika demands a reduction of spending in Social Programs and other economic vehicles which can improve Greece’s current economic situation and improve GDP. What these measures and demands inversely creates is more unemployment, an increase in goods and services, further tax increases (not for the Greek rich Oligarchs), and an increase in the debt ratio to GDP. With the privatisation of state assets, the new “owners” can hike prices (of services provided by these assets) or suspend trading of those assets as it deems economically necessary. The Troika in effect owns the state of Greece and its government.

The shenanigans and behaviour of the European bankers are eerily similar to those of the Mafia muscling in on local businessmen in their community enforcing their “protections services” and demanding a fee for same services. In comparing the Troika to the Mafia, this is exactly what they are telling the Greek Government……”Your unemployment rate has increased? Fuck you, pay me. Your banks are running low on cash? Fuck you, pay me. You don’t have money for Social Programs? Fuck you, pay me! Your people can’t afford basic services? Fuck you, pay me!”

‘ICC faces credibility test over Israeli war crimes investigation in Gaza’ - RT.com

The ICC's biggest test yet!  We shall wait with bated breath......will the IDF be tried for war crimes or will the ICC brush this one under the carpet......

*************************************************************

http://rt.com/op-edge/269899-icc-palestine-israel-war-crimes/

ICC faces credibility test over Israeli war crimes investigation in Gaza’

                                                                                            

If the International Criminal Court fails to open an investigation into alleged Israeli war crimes in Palestine the UN court may collapse, warns John Dugard, former special rapporteur to the UN Human Rights Council concerning Palestinian affairs.

Palestinian officials have presented evidence of alleged Israeli atrocities committed during last year's war in Gaza to the International Criminal Court. This follows the publication of a damning UN report on the conflict. Israel denies all the allegations of war crimes against its soldiers.

RT: Is the Palestinian submission and the UN findings enough for the International Criminal Court (ICC) to open a full investigation?

John Dugard: Certainly there is enough information. The Palestinian Authority has provided much information today, but in addition of course, one must have regard to the Human Rights Council recent fact-finding report. And then there is also the publication of a document by Israeli soldiers, called “Breaking the Silence,” in which they described the manner in which the Gaza War was conducted. There is also the report prepared by the UN Secretary General in respect to attacks on UN premises. So in my view, there is clearly sufficient evidence to enable the prosecutor to open an investigation into war crimes committed in Palestine both in respect of the Gaza War and the construction of settlements.

RT: The Palestinians risk losing out on $400 million of annual aid from the US which opposes an investigation of Israel. How much pressure does this prospect put on Gaza?

JD: The US is not a member of the ICC, but that doesn’t deter it from exercising influence behind the scenes and there is no doubt that it does bring pressure to bear on member states, particularly in the EU. And it’s an open secret that some member states of the EU are not very enthusiastic about investigating Israel’s crimes. But I think one must bear in mind that the ICC at this stage faces a real credibility test. You know that recently there was an attempt to arrest Sudan President Omar al-Bashir in South Africa and the government allowed President al-Bashir to leave the country despite a court order prohibiting him from leaving South Africa. But that has given rise to a debate in South Africa and in Africa about the question of whether African states should remain in the ICC. And I have no doubt that they are looking to the Palestinian issue to see whether it’s worth their while to remain in the ICC. I think that if the prosecutor of the ICC fails to open an investigation into crimes committed in Palestine, then there is a very real danger that the ICC will fall apart because African states will decide to leave it.

RT: The UN report also accused Hamas of war crimes. Do the Palestinians accept these findings?

​'

JD: The Palestinians have been quite clear that they have accepted membership of the ICC in the understanding that their own citizens - members of Hamas and other militant groups - are also exposed to prosecutions. So Palestinians are quite prepared to see an even-handed prosecution of both Israelis and Palestinians and I think that speaks well for the Palestinians in this case.

RT: How will you sum up Israel’s response?

JD: Israel takes the view that it has the most moral army in the world, and that of course its soldiers could not commit war crimes, which of course is disproved by the fact-finding missions to which I have referred. Israel has set up its own investigation, but that has simply whitewashed the whole Israeli involvement in Gaza and it’s quite clear that the Israelis are determined not to prosecute its own soldiers for crimes committed in the Gaza war.

The Pentagon goes nuclear on Russia - By Pepe Escobar (RT.com)

Hold onto your hats everyone.....Cold War 2.0 has just warmed up!

http://rt.com/op-edge/269176-pentagon-nato-russia-nuclear-missiles/

Human Rights and the ICC

What constitutes crimes against humanity? Which body decides who is guilty of crimes against humanity and human rights violations?  The only International body founded to determine and try war crimes or crimes against humanity is supposedly the ICC (International Criminal Court). Another victim (dare I say African) targeted by the ICC is Sudan’s President Omar Al-Bashir, allegedly wanted for genocide and war crimes against his own people. While there is no doubt that there have been a few African heads of state guilty of similar crimes, e.g. DRC’s Thomas Lubanga, Ivory Coast’s Laurent Gbagbo, Libya’s Seif Islam Gadaffi, and numerous others, much less is said about other leaders around the world, specifically from the West, who have committed similar crimes and worse, but with no consequences for their actions.

Wars by western countries against countries like Afganistan, Libya, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen has killed thousands of innocent victims, including women, children and the elderly.  There have been endless examples of atrocities committed by these military invasions, but no action is taken against the perpetrators. The wars in Libya, Yemen and Syria are illegal, and as such makes the violence against the country’s inhabitants a case for war crimes. The illegal drone attacks by the US military in Pakistan has also caused untold suffering of Pakistani families, yet the ICC and the UN turns a blind eye to these atrocities. The constant Israeli blockade and attacks on the people of Gaza and Lebanon is a classic case, but the Israeli government persists in their behaviour with scant regard or respect for humanity or the sovereignty of the people of Palestine. The attacks by Saudi Arabia and Bahrain on the poorest nation in the world, Yemen, is a totally illegal invasion, and unspeakable atrocities are committed by these governments on the people of Yemen, yet the ICC and the UN pretends there is nothing untoward in this flagrant abuse of international law. The illegal war by NATO on the Libyan people has killed thousands and displaced close to a million others, and no uproar from the UN or the ICC.

Western leaders like George W Bush (Dubya), Tony Blair, Barrack Obama, David Cameron and several others are continually declaring war on weaker nations with flimsy excuses for their invasions, yet nothing or no-one can touch them for the war crimes they brought upon the nations they invaded.  The AU (although they are just another elitist club with the same agenda as the G7) is correct in alleging the ICC is more Africa focussed when it came to the prosecution of war crimes.  And they have every reason to conclude this, given that the 8 cases the ICC is busy investigating is all from African countries. From an ICC point of view, International law must be applied to some but others are exempt from the same prosecutorial processes. In this case, all third world countries are fair game to be tried for war crimes, and Western or first world nations and their leaders are exempt. For once I agree with the ANC when they claimed that the ICC is no longer the useful legal entity for which it was intended!

Washington Politicizes Football - By Paul Craig Roberts

I rest my case.......!!
_____________________________________________________________

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article42036.htm


By Paul Craig Roberts

June 03, 2015 "Information Clearing House" - Washington’s attack on world soccer is following the script of Washington’s attack on the Russian-hosted Sochi Olympics. The difference is that Washington couldn’t stop the Olympics from being held in Sochi, and was limited to scaring off westerners with lies and propaganda. In the current scandal orchestrated by Washington, Washington intends to use its takeover of FIFA to renege on FIFA’s decision that Russia host the next World Cup.

This is part of Washington’s agenda of isolating Russia from the World. This Washington-orchestrated scandal stinks to high heaven. It seems obvious that the FIFA officials have been arrested for political reasons and that the recently overwhelmingly-reelected FIFA president, Sepp Blatter, was forced to resign by Washington’s threats to indict him as well. This can happen because Washington no longer is subject to the rule of law. In Washington’s hands, law is a weapon that is used against everyone, every organization, and every country that takes a position independent of Washington. This clears the deck for Washington and its British lapdog to take over FIFA, which henceforth will be used to reward countries that comply with Washington’s foreign policy and to punish those who pursue an independent foreign policy.

 

The only hope for South America, Asia, and Russia is to form their own World Cup and turn their backs on the corrupt West. It is astonishing that Russia, Asia, and South America so much desire to be part of the corrupt and immoral Western world. Why do countries wish to be associated with evil? Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, and perhaps Argentina and Brazil have learned that being in the Western orbit means putting their country under Washington’s control.  Putin, Lavrov, and China’s leaders say that being associated with the West is like being associated with the plague. Yet they still want to be associated with the West. Why do Russia and China think that their self-esteem depends on Washington’s approval? FIFA is a Swiss-based organization. Yet the arrests of FIFA officials is based on a Washington-initiated “investigation” by the FBI. By asserting the universality of US law, Washington is asserting the authority of its police and prosecutors over sovereign countries.

Why did Switzerland, and why do other countries lay down in obedience to Washington’s assertion of the universality of its laws? Are the political leaders paid off or are they threatened with assassination or false indictments? What explains that of all countries on earth only Washington’s law is universal, acknowledged and bowed down before in other countries? Is if fear of retribution?

Possibly, but one answer is that the entire point of being a leader of a foreign country is to be made rich by kowtowing to Washington. One year out of office and Tony Blair was reported to be worth $50 million. Where did the money come from? No one wanted to listen to Blair’s speeches when he was Prime Minister. Why did Americans pay him six-figure sums to give speeches?

Putin can become rich, too. All he needs to do is to turn Russia over to Washington.

Here we are in an orchestrated soccer scandal hyped to the hilt by the presstitute media while all the real scandals go unremarked.

 

For example, a number of the mega-banks in the West have pleaded guilty to felony charges and only suffered fines. As Finian Cunningham has pointed out, the money laundering and price-rigging by the “banks too big to jail” dwarfs the alleged criminality at FIFA. The Securities and Exchange Commission actually issues waivers to the banks for their criminal activity. One dissenting SEC commissioner accuses her colleagues of encouraging “recidivism” by the constant issue of waivers. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-22/sec-commissioner-furious-sec-has-made-mockery-recidivist-criminal-behavior-banks

Washington itself cannot be believed as not a single significant statement out of Washington’s mouth since the Clinton regime has been true; yet, Washington still parades around as the arbiter of truth.

Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction. Assad did not use chemical weapons. Iran did not have a nuclear weapons program. Russia did not invade Ukraine. But Washington convinced the world that its lies were true. It is almost a certainty that politicians up in arms over unsubstantiated charges that FIFA took bribes have themselves taken bribes. Just look at the bribes given to Congress by corporations to vote fast track for TTIP. Http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/may/27/corporations-paid-us-senators-fast-track-tpp

Can anyone name even one leader of one EU country (other perhaps than Greece at the moment) who doesn’t take bribes from Washington? According to Udo Ulfkotte, no one can name even one British or EU newspaper that doesn’t take bribes from the CIA. How many UN votes are determined by Washington’s threats and bribes? Whether or not FIFA decisions are tainted by bribery, the purpose of the “investigation” is to cast doubt on the decision to hold the World Cup in Russia. The World Cup is a global spectacle and conveys prestige on the host country. Washington intends to deny this prestige to Russia. That is what the “investigation” is about.

 

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following

A Superpower in denial

The inevitable decline of the US as the only global Superpower, is well underway, as witnessed in the piece below. While expanding their military bases across the globe since World War II, the US has consistently pursued a policy for a military-industrial complex to ensure dominance the world over, and to prevent any competitor from challenging their superiority.

This has led to the decline and neglect of US internal policies for growth of social, economical and political significance. The rise of Russia and China as direct competitors who are expanding their global presence through economic and military trade, has left the US out in the cold.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article42010.htm

US Resorts to the Viagra of Militarism
By Finian Cunningham

May 31, 2015 "Information Clearing House" - "SCF" -  The behaviour of the United States is the archetypal response of a tyrant whose days are numbered. Or an empire that is crumbling before its very eyes. In denial of demise, it wields a still formidable military power in a bid to compensate for impotence in all other spheres: culturally, morally, economically, politically, the once virile giant is but a shell of its former self. Instead of bowing out gracefully to the realities of a changing world, Washington is using militarism like viagra to postpone the inevitable. 

 

Following the Second World War, American world leadership was indisputable. «Pax Americana» – a world order under US financial and political terms – appeared to reign supreme. But even in those halcyon days, trouble was in store for the more perceptive of American planners.

In a secret memo, PSS/23, written in 1948 and declassified in 1974, the eminent US State Department planner George Kennan had this to say of the emerging global order and in particular US relations with Asia: «We must be very careful when we speak of exercising ‘leadership’ in Asia. We are deceiving ourselves and others when we pretend to have answers to the problems, which agitate many of these Asiatic peoples. Furthermore, we have about 50 per cent of the world's wealth but only 6.3 per cent of its population. This disparity is particularly great as between ourselves and the peoples of Asia… In the face of this situation… We should cease to talk about vague — and for the Far East — unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratisation. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are hampered by idealistic slogans, the better». Note how Kennan, who also authored the Cold War policy of «containment» toward the Soviet Union, is encumbered with conceited notions of «American exceptionalism» – natural leadership, idealism and so on. Nevertheless the revealing apprehension in Kennan’s words is the realisation that American economic dominance was disproportionate and unsustainable. He admitted with refreshing candidness that such an inherent imbalance of resources and global human needs would have to increasingly rely on brute power in order to maintain the disparity.

 

To reiterate Kennan: «The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are hampered by idealistic slogans, the better». Indeed, that day seems to be have arrived. Almost in every continent, America is abandoning any semblance of diplomacy and instead is trying to use raw, unilateral, military force to assert its perceived – albeit unjustified – rights to dominance.  Washington’s sanctioning and threatening of Venezuela, Iran, Russia – the latter through unprecedented NATO war manoeuvres – are prime examples. The arraignment of FIFA football officials in Switzerland last week over alleged corruption at the behest of American law enforcement authorities is another example of how Washington views itself as having the prerogative to impose its will regardless of foreign jurisdictions.  US deteriorating relations with China are the latest manifestation of America’s self-declared «manifest destiny» to behave like a global hegemon. Secretary of Defence Ashton Carter at the weekend stepped into the sensitive issue of territorial disputes between China and its Asian neighbours. Ashton’s steps were those of someone wearing hobnail boots. He «demanded» that China immediately cease all its land reclamation projects in the South China Sea. 

 

Only weeks before, US Secretary of State John Kerry made similar high-handed demands while visiting Beijing. Previously, US Admiral Harry Harris lambasted China for building «a great wall of sand» in the South China Sea – a strategically important global trade route.

Washington is increasingly and openly jettisoning its erstwhile image of «neutral broker» and adopting a provocative partisan position, accusing China of militarism and expansionism that is allegedly threatening American regional allies in the Philippines, Indonesia and Japan. Newly burnished «defence pacts» are giving the US the automatic «right» to go to war to «protect» partners if its «vital interests are threatened». The increasing deployment of American navy, warplanes and missile systems – under the guise of «protecting its partners» – is fuelling militarisation of the territorial disputes.  China, for its part, says that its own military presence in the region is to protect its voluminous trade routes. Beijing has pointedly refused to cease its maritime development projects, mainly land reclamation in shoals and reefs that it says are strictly within its territorial limits. 

 

In response to Washington’s latest ultimatums, Cui Tiankai, China’s ambassador to the US, expressed his country’s alarm at the way Washington is «escalating» tensions in the region and making it «less stable». Cui told the Wall Street Journal that US demands were «very surprising to us». The ambassador added that «the US has overreacted to the situation and is escalating the situation». China’s perplexity is readily understandable. While Washington accuses Beijing of «militarism» in the region, it is the US that has recently encroached on China’s territory with warships and reconnaissance planes in what appears to be «an attempt to provoke and escalate the situation,» said Cui.  The Chinese diplomat added: «And the US is also making a lot of statements, making false accusations against China and taking sides in the territorial disputes in the region. That will really make the situation in the region less stable. So we are worried about such overreaction from the United States».

 

The analogy here with Russia is salient. The US and its NATO allies are conducting numerous «war games» at ever-increasing scale and frequency around Russia’s territory – from the Baltic to the Black Sea and in between – and yet Washington upends this provocative reality by accusing Moscow of militarism and expansionism. As Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has said, central to Washington’s problem is that it cannot come to terms with the changing multipolar nature of the world. The rise of China as the world’s largest economy and its expanding economic presence in Africa, Asia and Latin America go hand in hand with the growing importance of Russia, India and other emerging nations. The new Silk Roads of global trade that China in particular is paving are a sign of America’s diminishing role as a global power centre. Unable to deal with its own demise, Washington is resorting to the viagra of militarism to effect an image of virility that it no longer possesses in practice. 

 

The multipolar world is being formed under legitimate relations and circumstances of trade and investment. It is only the decrepit US and its hanger-on European allies that view these changes as illegitimate. It is subjective and politicised. Rather than accepting the new global reality, Washington is seeking to postpone the inevitable by contriving confrontations with perceived rivals – China and Russia in particular.  Or, as US planner George Kennan admitted back in 1948, Washington is dispensing with fictitious notions of democracy and human rights and is now, by necessity, having to deal in raw power concepts – that is militarism. However, the very real danger is that the senile old power that US capitalism has become might detonate a world war from reckless denial of its own demise. 

 

Somebody needs to take away the viagra and slip a sedative into its cup of coca.

© Strategic Culture Foundation

Patrolling The Hood From (China) Sea To Shining Sea by Pepe Escobar (Asia Times)

The madness that is the Obama Administration!

##############################################

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article41992.htm
 

 

May 29, 2015 "Information Clearing House" - "Asia Times" -  If only Mad Men in real life were like Don Draper – channeling his true inner self, after many a rocky season, to finally click on “I’m OK, you’re OK.” Instead, we have a bunch of (Pentagon) madmen provoking every major geostrategic competitor all at once.

 

The Masters of War at the self-described “Don’t Do Stupid Stuff” Obama administration are now announcing they’re ready to dispatch military aircraft and ships within 18 kilometers of seven artificial islands China has built up in the Spratly Islands. Beijing’s response, via the Global Times, couldn’t be other than There Will be War; “If the United States’ bottom line is that China has to halt its activities, then a U.S.-China war is inevitable in the South China Sea … The intensity of the conflict will be higher than what people usually think of as ‘friction’.”  According to Beijing, two lighthouses on Huayang Reef and Chigua Reef — sites of reclamation works — were built “to improve navigation safety in the South China Sea.” There’s no evidence China will cease its island-building work even with U.S. warships hangin’ out in the naval hood. Will the U.S. Navy go heavy metal and unleash “friction” to prevent civilian Chinese vessels from moving around? Does the U.S. Navy expect Beijing to just roll over and collapse? What the Global Times implies is that China will definitely strike back if the Americans come within 18 kilometers of the islands.

Beijing already has electronically jammed Global Hawk long-range surveillance drones spying on the Nansha Islands. And Beijing is contemplating setting up an Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) in the South China Sea once the work on the seven artificial islands is completed.
 

This South China Sea exceptionalist adventurism could alarmingly get out of hand. Couple it with the “patrolling” of the Western Pacific – as the U.S. and Australia are about to be joined by re-militarizing Japan in their regular bi-annual war games. The result is a Shangri-La Dialogue – the regional security summit held every year in Singapore, starting this Friday — even hotter than usual. Assorted agent provocateurs better not mess with Admiral Sun Jianguo, deputy chief of the People’s Liberation Army’s General Staff, who will be the guest star of the show.

 

All about the Maritime Silk Road

The latest escalation happens just as Beijing releases it new Military White Paper outlining in detail a new defensive strategy — which is now, for all practical purposes, defensive/offensive in Full Spectrum AirSeaLandCyber Space mode (the full text is included here). Pentagon planners, eat your collective hearts out; the “pivoting to Asia” is about to meet its match. Among the highlights, we now know China “will not attack unless we are attacked, but we will surely counterattack if attacked” – which is a blueprint for what may happen next in the South China Sea. Beijing will be focused on “winning informationized local wars” (a whole lotta electronic jammin’ goin’ on). And the PLA Navy will gradually shift its focus from “offshore waters defense” to a mix of “offshore waters defense and open seas protection.” Welcome to the (China) sea to shining sea doctrine. Zhang Yuguo, senior colonel with the general staff department of the PLA, clearly enjoyed himself at his press conference when he stressed, “Some countries adopt preemptive strategies, emphasizing preventive intervention and taking initiative in attack. Ours is totally different.” And then came the Sun Tzu-style clincher; “Being ‘active’ is only a kind of means and ‘defense’ is our fundamental purpose.” For those who insist in not getting the message, the white paper is the graphic proof China is now positioning itself as an aspiring great sea power. It’s genetic, really — as China displayed the world’s greatest naval fleet at least two centuries before Christopher Columbus, duly employed by the Ming dynasty to explore Asian, Indonesian archipelago, African and Middle Eastern shorelines. And guess what they were up to then; “win-win” trade/commerce, allied with cultural interchange. Make business, not war. Centuries later, it’s all remixed in the New Silk Road(s), or One Belt, One Road project.

 

And don’t forget Urfa

Beijing’s strategy for the South China Sea has always been clear. Everyone – no discrimination — will have right of passage. All disputes – from oil and gas exploration to fishing rights — are to be solved bilaterally within the cadre of ASEAN. And the whole process has absolutely nothing to do with Washington.

The U.S. government insists the China nine-dash-line does not comply with international law. That’s risible; the line was actually dreamed up by the Chinese nationalists of the Kuomintang two years before the birth of the People’s Republic of China in 1949.

 

Washington argues that implementation of the nine-dash-line will allow China to control navigation in the South China Sea. Once again, Beijing does not want control, but more business, which is already a fact, as 80% of commercial traffic is by Chinese vessels.

There’s no way Beijing will back down from bilateral negotiations inside ASEAN – as the South China Sea is a key element of the Maritime Silk Road. What Beijing wants is “win-win” deals with everyone, from Vietnam to Philippines, especially in terms of exploring all that submerged energy wealth.
 

As for Washington — as it is seen from Beijing – the paramount obsession is to remain the naval hegemon everywhere from the Western Pacific to the Straits of Malacca and the Indian Ocean.

Cue to the white paper reminding everyone and his neighbor that the South China Sea is not an American lake, as much as the East China Sea and the Yellow Sea are not Japanese-American lakes, and the Indian Ocean is not an American Ocean.  There’s no contest. All these crucial developments were studied in detail early this week at the 11^th round of the China-Russia strategic consultation in Moscow – when Chinese State Councillor Yang Jiechi, a very active, policy-making second foreign minister, sat face-to-face with Russian Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev. As the Pentagon huffs and puffs, Beijing releases its no-nonsense military doctrine; the Russians and Chinese finesse their strategic partnership; and they get their act together for the crucial, upcoming Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Urfa this summer.
 

Expect the bunch of madmen to go bonkers. Oh yes, no more romantic sea cruises from now on.

 

Copyright 2015 Asia Times Holdings Limited

FIFA in the sandwich of geopolitical foes

The latest corruption scandals within FIFA as investigated by the FBI in the US, has some shady pretexts and motives. The sudden scandals come in the wake of the impending election of a new FIFA president on the 29 May 2015; that’s two days before the election takes place.  It’s been alleged that the investigations have been on-going for three years and spans a period of 17 years, since 1998. Why stop there, why not include the investigations from beyond 1998 and include the 1994 World Cup. This should in all intents and purposes, be included due to the fact that in 1994, soccer was struggling to compete as a recognised national sport in the US. The support of the game could not compete with the support of baseball, basketball, or American Football. This then begs the question, that if the support of the game is not that prominent, how did they win the bid to host the tournament?

The US prosecuting authorities uses the excuse of unethical business practices, corruption, fraud, etc. as their motive for the investigations, which they claim, is unacceptable in US Society; yet they failed to prosecute a single individual who caused the global recession in 2008, through the sub-prime mortgage crises in the States. The overwhelming evidence gathered from the investigations of various big corporate banks, clearly exposed fraudulent financial deals being made by these banks to global financial partners, which in turn triggered the collapse of global markets, when the US housing bubble burst in late 2006, and early 2007.  Instead of authorities arresting and convicting these fraudsters, the US Federal reserve helped bailout the banks, because in the words of the Obama Administration; “they were too big to fail”. Conveniently, no-one could be convicted for their part in the collapse. So, the excuse of ethics, sound business practices, etc. does not hold water, as a motive.

Another question posed by journalists, who instinctively smelled a rat when news of the arrests broke, was the fact that the FBI was investigating the corruption scandal, with extradition and indictment of the suspects to the US to stand trial for their alleged crimes on US soil. Although the investigations were on-going for three years, the authorities still cannot confirm if these alleged crimes were committed on US soil, or similarly produce any evidence thereof. Why was the US administration taking the lead and digging their noses in matters not remotely related to politics, when there are other bodies mandated to investigate and rule on corruption in sport. The fact that the FIFA headquarters are based in Switzerland, the Swiss authorities should be taking the lead in investigations and the FBI should provide evidence and assist where necessary, and within their mandate. Not the other way around.

So what really is the US administration’s angle behind the FIFA corruption scandal?

It’s a known fact that Russia is hosting the 2018 World cup, and Qatar is hosting it in 2022. There have recently been reports about two prominent US Senators, deriding Sepp Blatter for his unwavering support for the Russian Federation; probably because the country’s economy is in a very healthy state, and thus the huge profits FIFA is bound to make from a tournament there. From a US perspective, the derision by the two senators, ties perfectly in with all the Russian bashing and Putin demonising in the wake of the Ukraine crisis. The fact that the Obama Administration and his neocon cohorts are embarrassingly losing this battle, they have no other card to play, to hurt the Russian economy or anything that Russia represents. Hence, their feeble attempt to upset the election of the FIFA president on the 29^th May, and thus cause some chaos in  planning of the tournament in Russia.

Why the U.S. “war on terra” is a fraud - Pepe Escobar

By Pepe Escobar ; Courtesy of Asia Times

 

A new scathing report by the Nobel prize-winning Physicians for Social Responsibility has revealed that more than 1.3 million people were killed only during the first ten years of the Global War on Terror (GWOT) in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan alone. What was formerly known as GWOT — or, in Dubya-speak, “war on terra” — was Orwellianized by the Obama administration into “Overseas Contingency Operations” (OCO).

Crucially, the report does not even cover OCO’s trail in Libya, Syria, Somalia and Yemen (one war “won” by NATO/AFRICOM; one ongoing civil war; and two targets of Obama’s nefarious “kill list”.) Moreover, the figures on AfPak and Iraq are far from being the latest. And the total estimate of lethal casualties is considered “conservative”.

 

The record shows that this OCO killing machine ran amok for almost 15 years against whole swathes of the planet — not to mention burning trillions of dollars in U.S. taxpayer funds — and had absolutely zero effect in containing terrorism. Rather the contrary; Asia Times readers are aware of how I’ve defined GWOT as the gift that keeps on giving.

And it all started way before 9/11 — and the official Dubya enshrinement of GWOT.

 

Where’s my jihadi visa?

One just needs to read Michael Springmann’s book Visas for al-Qaeda: CIA Handouts that Rocked the World. Springmann, a former State Department official, currently practices law in the Beltway. Crucially, he was the head of the visa section of the U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia between 1987 and 1989. Until, as part of a very convoluted story, he lost his job; and embarked on the long and winding road towards becoming a whistleblower.

Springmann’s revelation that the Jeddah consulate was a CIA base comes as no surprise — as the free flow of visas was essential to the so-called “Arab Afghans” who were engaged in the 1980s jihad against the former USSR.

 

And the ball kept rolling. While researching his book, Springmann also found out that 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 got their visas in Saudi Arabia; 11 in Jeddah and 4 in Riyadh. Springmann discovered these visas were approved by one Shayna Steinger – “hired directly out of Columbia University with a master’s degree as an FSO4, which is a very high rank for somebody right out of school with no background, experience, or training. And she was supposed to have given very questionable answers to the 9/11 Commission investigating what went on in Jeddah.”

 

After 9/11, Springmann also tried to get in touch with the FBI to tell his story. He’s still waiting for their call (Lars Schall’s interview with Springmann is here.)

Springmann has no doubt the whole genesis of the “war on terra”, pre-9/11, was a racket involving the CIA and the State Department. As he writes, “the international terrorists the United States recruited for wars in Afghanistan and Bosnia thirty-odd years ago are still involved in the fighting elsewhere today. Bosnia wasn’t the only place those saddle tramps and gunslingers were employed. The visas the State Department issued to them then are now tied to the current administration’s continuing wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria. The fanatics I saw get travel papers during my time at Jeddah are either directly involved in or trained those directly involved in fighting U.S. forces today.”

 

Talk to the RAND

There’s nothing new under the GWOT/OCO sun. GWOT/OCO is a mere rebranding of what the Pentagon in the early “axis of evil” days of the Cheney regime called the Long War. And its future was duly conceptualized later on in 2008 by the RAND Corporation report Unfolding the Future of the Long War.

RAND clearly prescribed what has become the new normal. Washington supports the petrodollar GCC racket – House of Saud on top – whatever happens, always in the interest of containing “Iranian power and influence”; diverts Salafi-jihadi resources toward “targeting Iranian interests throughout the Middle East,” especially in Iraq and Lebanon, hence “cutting back … anti-Western operations”; and keeps propping up al-Qaeda — and ISIS/ISIL/Daesh — GCC sponsors and “empowering” viciously anti-Shi’ite Islamists everywhere to maintain “Western dominance.”

 

Technically, the Long War is a fabulous bonanza for the industrial-military complex. Geopolitically, it cuts both ways; it wreaks havoc via Divide and Rule across the Muslim world, and is also a war by proxy on Iran.

Few will remember that the Long War concept was first formulated in the “axis of evil” era by the Highlands Forum, a relatively obscure, neo-con infested Pentagon think tank. Not accidentally the RAND Corporation is a major “partner”.

 

And now, with Long War practitioners such as current Pentagon supremo “Ash” Carter, his deputy Robert Work, and Pentagon intelligence chief Mike Vickers, in charge of the self-described “Don’t Do Stupid Stuff” Obama administration’s military strategy, continuity is the new normal.

And diversification, of course. Nick Turse’s new book, Tomorrow’s Battlefield: US. Proxy Wars and Secret Ops in Africa reads like a hallucinatory trip along the Pentagon’s pivot to virtually the whole continent, fully deploying OCO to fight “terra” via AFRICOM.

OCO is forever. Happy trails, and have a good kill.

 

 

Author: Pepe Escobar April 30, 2015

Asia Times News & Features, Empire of Chaos, Pepe Escobar

AFRICOM, Global War on Terror, NATO, Pepe Escobar

 

A Russian message to the morons in the White House!

The video of the 70 year Celebratory parade in the Beautiful Square, Moscow, that sent shivers down the spines of the US neocon warmongers! So much so, that John Kerry met with Putin and Lavrov to apologise for not attending!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrSzCnz9Sic#t=2141

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article41806.htm

Obama’s Petulant WWII Snub of Russia

Russia will celebrate the Allied victory over Nazism on Saturday without U.S. President Obama and other Western leaders present, as they demean the extraordinary sacrifice of the Russian people in winning World War II – a gesture intended to humiliate President Putin, writes ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern.

By Ray McGovern

May 10, 2015 "Information Clearing House" - President Barack Obama’s decision to join other Western leaders in snubbing Russia’s weekend celebration of the 70^th anniversary of Victory in Europe looks more like pouting than statesmanship, especially in the context of the U.S. mainstream media’s recent anti-historical effort to downplay Russia’s crucial role in defeating Nazism.

Though designed to isolate Russia because it had the audacity to object to the Western-engineered coup d’état in Ukraine on Feb. 22, 2014, this snub of Russia’s President Vladimir Putin – like the economic sanctions against Russia – is likely to backfire on the U.S. and its European allies by strengthening ties between Russia and the emerging Asian giants of China and India.

Notably, the dignitaries who will show up at this important commemoration include the presidents of China and India, representing a huge chunk of humanity, who came to show respect for the time seven decades ago when the inhumanity of the Nazi regime was defeated – largely by Russia’s stanching the advance of Hitler’s armies, at a cost of 20 to 30 million lives.

Obama’s boycott is part of a crass attempt to belittle Russia and to cram history itself into an anti-Putin, anti-Russian alternative narrative. It is difficult to see how Obama and his friends could have come up with a pettier and more gratuitous insult to the Russian people.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel – caught between Washington’s demand to “isolate” Russia over the Ukraine crisis and her country’s historic guilt in the slaughter of so many Russians – plans to show up a day late to place a wreath at a memorial for the war dead.

But Obama, in his childish display of temper, will look rather small to those who know the history of the Allied victory in World War II. If it were not for the Red Army’s costly victories against the German invaders, particularly the tide-turning battle at Stalingrad in 1943-1944, the prospects for the later D-Day victory in Normandy in June 1944 and the subsequent defeat of Adolf Hitler would have been much more difficult if not impossible.

Yet, the current Russia-bashing in Washington and the mainstream U.S. media overrides these historical truths. For instance, a New York Times article by Neil MacFarquhar on Friday begins: “The Russian version of Hitler’s defeat emphasizes the enormous, unrivaled sacrifices made by the Soviet people to end World War II …” But that’s not the “Russian version”; that’s the history.

For its part, the Washington Post chose to run an Associated Press story out of Moscow reporting: “A state-of-the-art Russian tank … on Thursday ground to a halt during the final Victory Day rehearsal. … After an attempt to tow it failed, the T-14 rolled away under its own steam 15 minutes later.” (Subtext: Ha, ha! Russia’s newest tank gets stuck on Red Square! Ha, ha!).

This juvenile approach to pretty much everything that’s important — not just U.S.-Russia relations — has now become the rule. From the U.S. government to the major U.S. media, it’s as if the “cool kids” line up in matching fashions creating a gauntlet to demean and ridicule whoever the outcast of the day is. And anyone who doesn’t go along becomes an additional target of abuse.

That has been the storyline for the Ukraine crisis throughout 2014 and into 2015. Everyone must agree that Putin provoked all the trouble as part of some Hitler-like ambition to conquer much of eastern Europe and rebuild a Russian empire. If you don’t make the obligatory denunciations of “Russian aggression,” you are called a “Putin apologist” or “Putin bootlicker.”

Distorting the History

So, the evidence-based history of the Western-sponsored coup in Kiev on Feb. 22, 2014, must be forgotten or covered up. Indeed, about a year after the events, the New York Times published a major “investigative” article that ignored all the facts of a U.S.-backed coup in declaring there was no coup.

The Times didn’t even mention the notorious, intercepted phone call between Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt in early February 2014 in which Nuland was handpicking the future leaders, including her remark “Yats is the guy,” a reference to Arseniy Yatsenyuk who – after the coup – quickly became prime minister. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “NYT Still Pretends No Coup in Ukraine.”]

Even George Friedman, the president of the Washington-Establishment-friendly think-tank STRATFOR, has said publicly in late 2014: “Russia calls the events that took place at the beginning of this year a coup d’état organized by the United States. And it truly was the most blatant coup in history.”

Beyond simply ignoring facts, the U.S. mainstream media has juggled the time line to make Putin’s reaction to the coup – and the threat it posed to the Russian naval base in Crimea – appear to be, instead, evidence of his instigation of the already unfolding conflict.

For example, in a “we-told-you-so” headline on March 9, the Washington Post declared: “Putin had early plan to annex Crimea.” Then, quoting AP, the Post reported that Putin himself had just disclosed “a secret meeting with officials in February 2014 … Putin said that after the meeting he told the security chiefs that they would be ‘obliged to start working to return Crimea to Russia.’ He said the meeting was held Feb. 23, 2014, almost a month before a referendum in Crimea that Moscow has said was the basis for annexing the region.”

So there! Gotcha! Russian aggression! But what the Post neglected to remind readers was that the U.S.-backed coup had occurred on Feb. 22 and that Putin has consistently said that a key factor in his actions toward Crimea came from Russian fears that NATO would claim the historic naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea, representing a strategic threat to his country.

Putin also knew from opinion polls that most of the people of Crimea favored reunification with Russia, a reality that was underscored by the March referendum in which some 96 percent voted to leave Ukraine and rejoin Russia.

But there was not one scintilla of reliable evidence that Putin intended to annex Crimea before he felt his hand forced by the putsch in Kiev. The political reality was that no Russian leader could afford to take the risk that Russia’s only warm-water naval base might switch to new NATO management. If top U.S. officials did not realize that when they were pushing the coup in early 2014, they know little about Russian strategic concerns – or simply didn’t care.

Last fall, John Mearsheimer, a pre-eminent political science professor at the University of Chicago, stunned those who had been misled by the anti-Russian propaganda when he placed an article in the Very-Establishment journal Foreign Affairs entitled “Why the Ukraine Crisis is the West’s Fault.”

You did not know that such an article was published? Chalk that up to the fact that the mainstream media pretty much ignored it. Mearsheimer said this was the first time he encountered such widespread media silence on an article of such importance.

The Sole Indispensable Country

Much of this American tendency to disdain other nations’ concerns, fears and points of pride go back to the Washington Establishment’s dogma that special rules or (perhaps more accurately) no rules govern U.S. behavior abroad – American exceptionalism. This arrogant concept, which puts the United States above all other nations like some Olympian god looking down on mere mortals, is often invoked by Obama and other leading U.S. politicians.

That off-putting point has not been missed by Putin even as he has sought to cooperate with Obama and the United States. On Sept. 11, 2013, a week after Putin bailed Obama out, enabling him to avoid a new war on Syria by persuading Syria to surrender its chemical weapons, Putin wrote in an op-ed published by the New York Times that he appreciated the fact that “My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust.”

Putin added, though, “I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism,” adding: “It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. … We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.”

More recently, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov drove home this point in the context of World War II. This week, addressing a meeting to mark the 70^th anniversary of Victory in Europe, Lavrov included a pointed warning: “Today as never before it is important not to forget the lessons of that catastrophe and the terrible consequences that spring from faith in one’s own exceptionalism.”

The irony is that as the cameras pan the various world leaders in the Red Square reviewing stand on Saturday, Obama’s absence will send a message that the United States has little appreciation for the sacrifice of the Russian people in bearing the brunt – and breaking the back – of Hitler’s conquering armies. It is as if Obama is saying that the “exceptional” United States didn’t need anyone’s help to win World War II.

President Franklin Roosevelt was much wiser, understanding that it took extraordinary teamwork to defeat Nazism in the 1940s, which is why he considered the Soviet Union a most important military ally. President Obama is sending a very different message, a haughty disdain for the kind of global cooperation which succeeded in ridding the world of Adolf Hitler.

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. A specialist on Russia, he served as chief of the Soviet Foreign Policy Branch during his 27 years as a CIA analyst. He now serves on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).