Leaked Audio of US Secretary of State John Kerry Shows Obama Wanted ISIS to Grow

Wikileaks released a leaked audio of US Secretary of State John Kerry’s meeting with members of the Syrian opposition, which is an evidence of Trump’s assertion that Obama was the founder of ISIS.

US Secretary of State John Kerry (Photo: Getty Images / AFP / Louisa Gouliamak)

On Wednesday, Wikileaks released new evidence of US President-elect Donals Trump’s assertion that Barack Obama was the founder of ISIS – a leaked audio of US Secretary of State John Kerry’s meeting with members of the Syrian opposition at the Dutch Mission of the UN on September 22. The audio also is an evidence of the fact that mainstream media colluded with the Obama’s administration in order to push the narrative for regime change in Syria, hiding the truth about arming and funding ISIS by the US, as it exposed a 35 minute conversation that was omitted by CNN.

Kerry admits that the primary goal of the Obama’s administration in Syria was regime change and the removal of Syrian President Bahar al-Assad, as well as that Washington didn’t calculate that Assad would turn to Russia for help.

In order to achieve this goal, the White House allowed the Islamic State (IS) terrorist group to rise. The Obama’s administration hoped that growing power of the IS in Syria would force Assad to search for a diplomatic solution on US terms, forcing him to cede power.

In its turn, in order to achieve these two goals, Washington intentionally armed members of the terrorist group and even attacked a Syrian government military convoy, trying to stop a strategic attack on the IS, killing 80 Syrian soldiers.

“And we know that this was growing, we were watching, we saw that DAESH [the IS] was growing in strength, and we thought Assad was threatened,” Kerry said during the meeting.

“(We) thought, however,” he continued to say, “We could probably manage that Assad might then negotiate, but instead of negotiating he got Putin to support him.”

“I lost the argument for use of force in Syria,” Kerry concluded.

According to Wikileaks, “the audio gives a glimpse into what goes on outside official meetings. Note that it represents the US narrative and not necessarily the entire true narrative.”

Earlier the audio was published by the New York Times and CNN, however, the both outlets chose only some its part, reporting on certain aspects, and omitted the most damning comments made by Kerry. In fact, they tried to hide the statements that would allow public to understand what has actually taken place in Syria.

The full audio has never been published by the New York Times; the outlet released only selected snippets. CNN deleted the audio at all, explaining this with the request of some of the participants out of concern for their personal safety.

Sorgente: Leaked Audio of US Secretary of State John Kerry Shows Obama Wanted ISIS to Grow

The Israeli pharmaceutical giant Teva must pay over $520 million following corruption charges

Israeli drug firm fined for bribing officials in Russia, Ukraine & Mexico

A building belonging to generic drug producer Teva, Israel’s largest company with a market value of about $57 billion, is seen in Jerusalem. © Baz Ratner / Reuters

The Israeli pharmaceutical giant Teva must pay over $520 million following corruption charges made by the US Department of Justice (DOJ). The company breached the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) by bribing officials in Russia, Ukraine and Mexico.

Teva is the world’s largest manufacturer of generic pharmaceutical products. According to the DOJ, its fully-owned subsidiary Teva LLC (Teva Russia) bribed a top Russian official to increase sales of the multiple sclerosis drug, Copaxone, during drug purchase auctions held by the Russian Ministry of Health.

Between 2010 and at least 2012, Teva earned an extra $200 million from Copaxone sales in Russia. The Russian official allegedly received $65 million through inflated profit margins. His name and department were not disclosed.

Overall, Teva will pay $520 million which includes the US criminal and regulatory penalties for its illegal activity in Russia, Ukraine and Mexico.

In Ukraine, Teva hired a senior government official in the Ministry of Health as “registration consultant.” Between 2010 and 2011, the Israeli company paid him a monthly fee and covered his expenses, amounting to $200,000. In Mexico, Teva bribed doctors to prescribe Copaxone from at least 2005.

“Teva and its subsidiaries paid millions of dollars in bribes to government officials in various countries, and intentionally failed to implement a system of internal controls that would prevent bribery,” said Assistant Attorney General Caldwell.

“Companies that compete fairly, ethically and honestly deserve a level playing field, and we will continue to prosecute those who undermine that goal,” Caldwell added.

“As demonstrated by this case, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act has a long reach. Teva’s egregious attempt to enrich themselves failed and they will now pay a tough penalty,” said William J. Maddalena, Assistan

thanks to: RT

Tappa per tappa: come gli Stati Uniti hanno creato l’Isis

“La cosa più importante da capire sullo Stato Islamico è che è stato creato dagli Stati Uniti”. Lo dichiarava nel 2014 lo storico Robert Freeman in un’intervista a Common Dreams molto utile da rileggere oggi alla luce del bombardamento ‘accidentale’ contro l’esercito siriano di venerdì scorso che ha fatto decine di morti e feriti, facilitando l’avanzata dell’Isis.

Secondo Freeman, la creazione dell’Isis da parte degli Stati Uniti ha attraversato tre fasi principali:

La prima fase della creazione del gruppo Stato islamico si è verificato durante la guerra in Iraq e il rovesciamento del governo laico di Saddam Hussein. Secondo l’autore, il regime di Hussein era “corrotto, ma stabilizzante” – durante il suo governo non c’era Al Qaeda, da cui ha avuto origine l’Isis. Inoltre, gli USA, prosegue lo storico, hanno lasciato il potere in Iraq ad un governo sciita, quando metà della popolazione del paese è sunnita, alimentando l’odio di quest’ultima. Il fatto che l’esercito iracheno e i curdi furono sconfitti dallo Stato Islamico è dipeso dal fatto che i sunniti preferirono schierarsi con i jihadisti piuttosto che con i loro “avversari religiosi” sciiti, prosegue lo storico.

La seconda tappa della creazione dell’Isis da parte degli Stati Uniti, prosegue Freeman, è stata la campagna contro il governo laico di Bashar al Assad in Siria. Il presidente siriano aveva una forza interna dovuta alla “pace relativa” che aveva garantito per molti anni tra le varie sette religiose all’interno del paese. Nei loro tentativi di destabilizzare il governo della Siria, gli Stati Uniti d’America hanno aiutato i “precursori” dello Stato islamico nel paese, tra cui, secondo l&# 39;autore, il Fronte Al-Nusra (Al-Qaeda in Siria).

La terza fase della formazione dello Stato Islamico da parte degli Stati Uniti ha avuto luogo quando “la Casa Bianca ha organizzato insieme all’Arabia Saudita e alla Turchia il finanziamento e il sostegno dei ribelli in Siria”, che, secondo Freeman, erano già uno “stato proto-islamico”. L’Arabia Saudita è un paese che professa il wahhabismo, una delle versioni più “dure e aggressivamente anti-occidentale” dell’Islam. Questo spiega perché 15 dei 19 terroristi che hanno dirottato gli aerei del 11 settembre 2001 erano sauditi, e il leader di al Qaeda Osama bin Laden era dello stesso paese, principale alleato degli Stati Uniti.

Dopo aver creato lo Stato Islamico, gli Stati Uniti d’America mostrano fragilità quando dichiarano di combatterlo, a causa dell’assenza di una “strategia coerente”. In questo senso, i “ribelli moderati”, quelli che gli Stati Uniti hanno addestrato in Siria contro Assad ora si rifiutano di combattere contro lo Stato islamico, che, secondo l’autore, non è sorprendente, dal momento che questi ribelli condividono con i jihadisti la stessa visione di mondo. “Le forze più capaci per sconfiggere lo Stato islamico” nel breve periodo, conclude, sono la Russia, Siria e Iran, ma gli Stati Uniti preferiscono che la situazione peggiori più che per i terroristi per i “nemici degli Stati Uniti”. E quando la situazione peggiora per i terroristi e migliora per i “nemici” degli Stati Uniti, quest’ultimi intervengono e bombardamento direttamente l’esercito siriano per facilitare l’Isis.

FONTE: RT

Notizia del: 19/09/2016

 

Sorgente: Tappa per tappa: come gli Stati Uniti hanno creato l’Isis – World Affairs – L’Antidiplomatico

L’attacco mediatico contro il Venezuela raggiunge il livello più basso di sempre con le ‘culle di cartone’

Di nuovo all’attacco meschino, mediocre, basso e moralmente piccolo come solo le corporazioni neo-liberali da cui sono stipendiati sanno fare.

Protagonisti, come sempre, Omero Cia(i) su Repubblica e, chiaramente, il Fatto Quotidiano. Ma questo è noto, più triste che a questo gioco si presti anche Dacia Maraini su il Corriere della Sera.

Entrambi, ma non sono i soli nel triste panorama dell’informazione italiana, riportano la “notizia” dei bambini nati nei cartoni nell’ospedale di Barcelona in Venezuela e fanno girare questa foto per testimoniare la crisi umanitaria in corso nel paese e come dice apertamente e senza vergogna Cia(i) per chiedere un intervento esterno. Uno di quelli che piace tanto al giornalista italiano, ma molto meno alle popolazioni di Somalia, ex Jugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libia e Siria. Ma questa è un’altra storia.

La foto è stata diffusa da tal Manuel Ferreira Guzman, avvocato dell’opposizione protagonista del colpo di stato contro Chavez del 2002 e del tentativo di colpo di stato del febbraio del 2014 noto come Guarimbas su Twitter e Facebook. Foto riprese da tutti i giornali spagnoli e italiani noti per le mire neo-coloniali sul petrolio venezuelano. Meglio di tutti, come spesso accade, fa il Fatto Quotidiano che addirittura trasforma il Guzman in un medico! Chiaramente così la ‘notizia’ assume più importanza. Siamo ai livelli della bufala più divertente dell’ultimo periodo, quella “dell’ultimo pediatra di Aleppo”.

Sulla foto molto probabilmente si scoprirà a breve che è un falso, come è stato per quest’altra su cui la propaganda neo-liberale ha basato i suoi attacchi, per poi scoprire che era stata scattata in un supermercato degli Stati Uniti.

Nessuno di questi giornali riporterà mai le parole più importanti sulla vicenda, quelle del direttore dell’ospedale in questione. José G. Zurbarán A. che attraverso Twitter ha definito la diffusione delle immagini del bebè come di un “attacco mediatico vergognoso” e le foto pubblicate dagli addetti del reparto maternità dell’ospedale che hanno diffuso le immagini del reparto natalità. Sulla vicenda è stata aperta un’inchiesta interna per conoscere l’origine di questa foto.

Aquí mostramos las imágenes de nuestro hospital @ivsslasgarzas #IvssAnzoátegui Servicio de Neonatología pic.twitter.com/6KKdFDLxal

— IVSS (@ivssoficial) 21 settembre 2016

.@ivssoficial Ratificamos el profesionalismo y dedicación d nuestra #GenteIvss en la atencion del binomio #MadreHijo pic.twitter.com/6R7cFDcswL

— Hosp Guzmán Lander (@ivsslasgarzas) 21 settembre 2016

.@ivssoficial Se determina la presencia de 7 incubadoras en sala contigua de donde tomaron foto tendenciosa #Verdad pic.twitter.com/mHZecjDWSp

— Hosp Guzmán Lander (@ivsslasgarzas) 21 settembre 2016

Y al #Mundo decimos que es #Falso q en el @ivsslasgarzas nuestros niñ@s son atendidos en cajas de cartón @c_rotondaro

— José G. Zurbarán A. (@ZurbaranTrauma) 21 settembre 2016

Ma perché questi giornali italiani invece di occuparsi della sanità venezuelana non si occupano con la stessa ferocia degli 11 milioni di italiani che decidono di non curarsi perché non possono o delle condizioni della sanità greca dove semplicemente una sanità non esiste più? Dopo i colpi di stato contro Paraguay, Honduras e Brasile, il Venezuela è il perno dell’integrazione sovrana regionale dell’America Latina. L’ultimo bastione. Per questo l’attacco è così feroce e lo sarà sempre di più.

P.S Scorrete l’account twitter ufficiale dell’ospedale in questione, guardate le foto dei reparti e poi fatevi un’opinione

Notizia del: 24/09/2016

Sorgente: L’attacco mediatico contro il Venezuela raggiunge il livello pi basso di sempre con le ‘culle di cartone’ – World Affairs – L’Antidiplomatico

Police Killings from Charlotte to Tulsa Spark Calls for Boycotts and Justice

JAISAL NOOR, TRNN: African-American activists and community members gathered in Charlotte, North Carolina on Wednesday to express anger at the police shooting of Keith Scott that spurred mass protests the night before, with some calling for an economic boycott. Meanwhile a witness has come forward saying the 43-year old was shot despite complying with police orders, as the city’s mayor called for calm and peace following the overnight violence.TAHESHIA WILLIAMS: He’s standing there like this, telling them ‘I don’t have anything.’ When they did that, you hear four shots. Boom. boom. boom. boom boom. That man hit the ground and then they just stand there looking at him. I got it on video. I got it on the phone.KERR PUTNEY: I can tell you a weapon was seized, a handgun. I can also tell you we did not find a book that has been made reference to.TAHESHIA WILLIAMS: They replaced it with a gun. That’s what they did. They took the book and replaced it with a gun. That man, he sits out here every day. His son rides and goes to school with my daughter. That man sits out here every day and waits for his son to get off the bus. Do you understand how that baby had to come home to that?NOOR: This comes just days after unarmed black man Terence Crutcher was shot dead by Tulsa Oklahoma police despite having his hands up. That shooting was captured on video and has elicited a very different response from authorities. Meanwhile protesters rallied in Tulsa on Wednesday after the city council abruptly canceled a meeting on the creation of an African American commission, a key demand of the protest. More on the Crutcher shooting later in this story.During a news conference Wednesday, one Nation of Islam activist urged an economic boycott of Charlotte as protest to the latest in a series of police shootings over two years that inspired the Black Lives Matter movement.B.J. MURPHY: Our black manhood and our black people, who are being gunned down in the street. We don’t get no justice. So what I’m calling for and what we’re calling for is an economic boycott of the whole city of Charlotte. Since black lives do not matter for this city, then our black dollars shouldn’t matter. Keep our money in our pocket and let you feel see–we are watching a modern day lynching on social media, on television. It is affecting the psyche of black people. That’s what you saw last night.NOOR: A pastor from Kalamazoo, Michigan also called for a “mass exodus” of worshippers from both black and Caucasian churches that he said had failed to take an appropriate stand against police brutality.About a dozen officers and a handful of protestors were hurt during demonstrations that lasted for hours on Tuesday night. The chaos erupted after police shot dead Keith Lamont Scott, a black man authorities say had a gun when they approached him in a parking lot.But relatives maintain he was unarmed and reading a book inside his car, waiting for his son to be dropped off from school. This is the victim’s sister.SPEAKER: They jumped out they trucks. They said hands up. He got a gun, he got a gun. Pow, Pow, Pow, Pow, Pow. That’s it. He had no gun.NOOR: Police say the shooting happened as officers at this apartment complex were looking for a suspect with an outstanding warrant. They say officers saw Scott get out of his car with a gun. He was not the man police were looking for. His death is the latest in a string of police shootings involving black men that have sparked protests nationwide. According to the Guardian’s the Counted, Keith Scott was the 787th person police have killed this year. Another yet unidentified person has been killed since in Connecticut. Meanwhile A criminal investigation into a police officer in Oklahoma who shot and killed an unarmed black man seen on video with his hands in the air was underway, authorities said on Tuesday.Officer Betty Shelby shot Terence Crutcher, 40, after his sport utility vehicle broke down on Friday. A lawyer for the officer told media outlets that Shelby fired her weapon after Crutcher failed to comply with commands.Crutcher’s family called the shooting a criminal act and is seeking charges. The Justice Department has launched a separate civil rights investigation about the use of force by officers. SPEAKER: They weren’t in danger. As Attorney Solomon Simmons said, it was daylight. They had multiple officers out there. He was not accused of any crime and for the life of us we don’t know why the helicopter police officer thought that he was a big bad dude when they didn’t know anything about him. NOOR: 2016 marks 95 years since the destruction of Black Wall Street when mobs of whites and police attacked the Greenwood section of North Tulsa and 300 black people were killed. Black Wall Street was the economic and cultural center in the African American community in highly segregated Tulsa and a short distance from where Terence Crutcher was shot by officer Betty Shelby.With Kim Brown, this is Jaisal Noor.

Sorgente: Police Killings from Charlotte to Tulsa Spark Calls for Boycotts and Justice

Un F-35A s’incendia in una base dell’Idaho

Sputnik 24/09/2016 Un caccia F-35A s’è incendiato sulla Mountain Home Air Force Base, nello Stato dell’Idaho, informava l’US Air Force. “Il pilota è dovuto uscire dal velivolo all’avviamento del motore a causa dell’incendio a poppavia del velivolo“, dichiarava il portavoce dell’US Air Force capitano Mark Graff in una dichiarazione scritta fornita a Defense News. L’incidente è avvenuto verso mezzogiorno del 23 settembre. Secondo Graff, l’incendio è stato rapidamente spento e non ci sono stati feriti gravi. “Come misura precauzionale, quattro tecnici della 61.ma Unità di manutenzione, tre avieri del 366° Gruppo di manutenzione e un pilota del 61° Squadrone da caccia sono stati portati nel centro medico della base per una diagnosi”, dichiarava Graff. La causa dell’incendio viene indagata. Secondo Defense News, vi sono attualmente 7 F-35A della Luke Air Force Base, in Arizona, schierati nella Mountain Home AF Base per le manovre superficie-aria del 10-24 settembre.

Sorgente: Un F-35A s’incendia in una base dell’Idaho | Aurora

Parole contro prove satellitari: Smentite le menzogne di Obama e Ban Ki-moon

Aleppo. Il ministero della Difesa russo ha diffuso un video ripreso da un drone che mostra il convoglio di aiuti umanitari dell’ONU affiancato da un veicolo dei “ribelli moderati” dotato di un grosso lanciagranate.

I militanti alla guida di un pick-up con una copertura di mortaio hanno utilizzato il convoglio di aiuti  delle Nazioni Unite diretto nei pressi di Aleppo.

L’esercito russo ha mostrato ieri le immagini satellitari di un drone che monitorava il convoglio.  “L’analisi dei filmati attraverso il nostro drone monitora i movimenti del convoglio di aiuti attraverso le aree in attesa militanti ha contribuito a rivelare nuovi dettagli sulla vicenda”, ha dichiarato Konashenkov. “Il video mostra chiaramente come i terroristi si trasferiscono con un camioncino con un mortaio di grosso calibro. ”

Lunedi un convoglio umanitario composto da 31 camion è stato attaccato mentre si dirigeva verso Aleppo. Secondo la Croce Rossa, 20 civili e un operatore umanitario sono morti in seguito.

I primi rapporti dall’organizzazione hanno sostenuto che il convoglio era stato preso di mira da un attacco aereo. La Russia ha negato le accuse, e mostrato come la distruzione dei veicoli interessati non si . “Non ci sono crateri, mentre i veicoli hanno il loro telaio intatto e non sono stati gravemente danneggiati, come sarebbe accaduto in caso di un attacco aereo”, ha dichiarato Konashenkov. Le Nazioni Unite – al contrario della Casa Bianca che non mostra una prova satellitare al contrario del ministero russo – ha poi dovuto ritrattare martedì le sue affermazioni sul fatto che il convoglio sia stato colpito da aerei militari. “Non siamo in grado di determinare se erano in realtà attacchi aerei. Siamo in grado di dire che il convoglio è stato attaccato”, ha dichiarato il portavoce ‘umanitario’ delle Nazioni Unite Jens Laerke.

 

Fonte: RT

 

Notizia del: 21/09/2016

 

 

Sorgente: Parole contro prove satellitari: Smentite le menzogne di Obama e Ban Ki-moon – World Affairs – L’Antidiplomatico

La bufala per far dimenticare l’eccidio di 62 soldati siriani da parte dell’aviazione Usa

Ma perché mai Assad dovrebbe far bombardare un convoglio di aiuti umanitari, organizzato dalla Croce Rossa e diretto verso i -finalmente liberi dell’assedio jihadista – abitanti della periferia di Aleppo?  Si direbbe non se lo chieda nessuna TV o  giornale padronale, che con questa bufala, cercano di far dimenticare l’eccidio intenzionale di 62 soldati siriani da parte dell’aviazione USA.

Ma cosa è successo veramente al convoglio umanitario? I Russi, da parte loro, annunciando la pubblicazione di foto satellitari, negano non solo un coinvolgimento dell’aviazione siriana o russo ma anche l’ipotesi del bombardamento, considerando che non vi è traccia dei tipici crateri ad imbuto conseguenti ai bombardamenti aerei. E le ancora poche foto in circolazione si direbbero attestare che a colpire il convoglio siano stati RPG o missili a spalla, verosimilmente sparati da qualche tagliagole o “ribelle” che dir si voglia.
Ma che importa?!  La “Verità” l’hanno già gridata i media mainstream: é stato Assad! É stato Assad! Probabilmente, tra qualche giorno, una dettaglia inchiesta dimostrerà tutt’altro. Ma a chi volete che allora importi?

Francesco Santoianni

Notizia del: 20/09/2016

Sorgente: La bufala per far dimenticare l’eccidio di 62 soldati siriani da parte dell’aviazione Usa – I media alla guerra – L’Antidiplomatico

Siria. Usa e Israele in soccorso di Daesh e al Nusra

di Stefano Mauro

 

 

 

 

La tregua in Siria è finita. In effetti un reale cessate il fuoco, sancito dai due principali sponsor del conflitto (USA e Russia) senza un convinto appoggio e coinvolgimento delle numerose e incontrollate milizie jihadiste, non c’è mai stato.

 

La stessa amministrazione Obama, come avvenuto nel febbraio 2016, ha tentato nuovamente di correre in soccorso alle fazioni coalizzate contro il regime di Bashar Al Assad. La sospensione del conflitto, secondo alcuni analisti, è stata vista come un estremo tentativo da parte degli americani di fermare gli scontri, in maniera da far riorganizzare le milizie sostenute dagli USA. Del resto la stessa cosa era avvenuta in passato – a febbraio – con migliaia di nuove milizie salafite che entrarono in territorio siriano, dal permeabile confine con la Turchia, con rifornimenti e armi.

 

Quello che, però, è successo il 17 Settembre è stato un qualcosa di nuovo e inaspettato nel conflitto siriano. L’aviazione americana ha bombardato a Deir Ezzor una postazione dell’esercito siriano causando 60 morti e 100 feriti e favorendo l’avanzata delle milizie di Daesh, in una delle poche aree strategiche controllate dalle truppe lealiste. Il pentagono ha subito dichiarato che “si è trattato di un errore” e lo stesso Obama si è scusato con il governo di Damasco. Il ministro degli esteri russo, Lavrov, ha immediatamente etichettato l’episodio come “un chiaro sostegno militare ai terroristi di Daesh”. Lo stesso governo di Damasco ha dichiarato che “il raid americano è un’aggressione evidente e palese contro l’esercito regolare siriano e contro il territorio siriano”.

 

Le scuse e la successiva irritazione americana sono, in effetti, segni palesi dell’errore di valutazione fatto dall’amministrazione statunitense. Errore di valutazione e non, come ripetuto più volte, errore militare. Appare, infatti, impossibile che uno degli eserciti più potenti al mondo abbia commesso un simile sbaglio per diversi motivi.

 

Il primo è il “modus operandi” dell’operazione. Il raid è stato effettuato a 4 riprese per una durata complessiva di 45 minuti: non si tratterebbe, quindi, dello sbaglio di un singolo pilota.

 

Il secondo: l’obiettivo del raid. La collina di Jebel Tudar, occupa una posizione strategica particolare perché si trova lungo la strada verso l’aeroporto. Si tratta di una posizione che le truppe lealiste siriane difendevano da oltre un anno. Dopo l’attacco americano, con un tempestivo e strano “coordinamento”, le truppe di Daesh hanno non solo subito occupato la posizione, ma attraverso la loro agenzia stampa “Amaq” , hanno anche annunciato la conquista di Jebel Tudar.

 

Ultima anomalia: l’annuncio da parte dell’aviazione americana di essere intervenuta in quella zona a supporto dell’aviazione siriana. Sembra inverosimile una dichiarazione del genere perché in quel territorio la coalizione a guida statunitense non era mai intervenuta e tanto meno in supporto degli aerei di Damasco.

 

In conclusione l’attacco americano a Deir Ezzor, ultimo baluardo di Daesh se Raqqa cadrà, ha favorito le truppe jihadiste di Daesh fortificando una posizione strategica per le milizie di Al Baghdadi nelle vie di comunicazione tra la Siria orientale e l’Iraq.

 

L’esercito israeliano, invece, è intervenuto in sostegno alle milizie della coalizione di Fatah Al Sham (ex Al Nusra) nella parte meridionale dello stato siriano. A distanza di una settimana dalla battaglia di Qadissyat sono, ormai, numerosi e precisi i dettagli che riportano un coinvolgimento attivo da parte delle autorità di Tel Aviv. Secondo il quotidiano libanese Al Akbar, le truppe israeliane sono intervenute in quattro diverse occasioni: prevalentemente con aviazione, artiglieria e supporto logistico. Il sostegno si è anche materializzato con l’utilizzo di un ospedale da campo sionista e con il trasporto degli jihadisti più gravi negli ospedali israeliani della zona.

 

L’obiettivo della battaglia era quello di creare un corridoio per mettere in contatto due zone di controllo “ribelli” e conquistare il villaggio druso di Hadar nella zona del Golan occupato. Da diversi anni, infatti, quella zona è una vera spina nel fianco per le milizie salafite che non sono mai riuscite a “sfondare” le linee difensive siriane. L’esercito di Damasco ha avuto, inoltre, il sostegno della popolazione locale drusa che vive uno stato di occupazione sia da parte delle forze sioniste sia da parte di quelle jihadiste.

 

Secondo le fonti del quotidiano libanese As-Safir, la battaglia è durata oltre sei giorni. Durante gli scontri sono stati visti mezzi “ribelli” circolare indisturbati nella zona di controllo israeliana nel tentativo di effettuare una manovra a tenaglia. La reazione difensiva è stata veemente ed ha causato numerose perdite nei ranghi dei ribelli di Fatah Al Sham – circa 200 morti e 500 feriti. Nel tentativo di bombardare postazioni siriane in appoggio ai ribelli, l’esercito israeliano ha perso un caccia F-16 ed un drone (Fonte AFP, Sputnik), perdite ovviamente smentite dal governo di Tel Aviv.

 

Per complicare ulteriormente la situazione ieri un convoglio di aiuti della mezza luna rossa è stato attaccato causando la morte di oltre 20 persone. Secondo gli USA sarebbero stati i russi o l’aviazione siriana; secondo Mosca sarebbero stati i “ribelli” che stavano tentando una sortita sulle linee di Aleppo. Quest’ultima, secondo diversi media mediorientali, sarebbe la versione più convincente visto che in merito al bombardamento non ci sono segni di cratere sulla strada nel tragitto del convoglio.

 

In risposta a questi due episodi ed al recente bombardamento/fantasma, Damasco e Mosca sono state abbastanza chiare circa la loro posizione. Secondo Lavrov “non ci sono più margini per poter rinnovare la tregua che ha solamente permesso alle milizie ribelli di riarmarsi e di rinforzare le loro posizioni”. In un messaggio agli israeliani lo stesso Bashar Al Assad ha dichiarato che “la risposta alle incursioni israeliane in territorio siriano non è stata casuale” aggiungendo che “ci saranno altre risposte militari se l’entità sionista continuerà a sconfinare nel nostro territorio o sosterrà i ribelli”. La sicurezza di Damasco fa presagire che, se lo stato israeliano continuerà nel suo sostegno ai ribelli, si potrebbe aprire un nuovo fronte sulle alture del Golan.

 

Se da una parte il regime siriano sembra essersi rinforzato ed essere in grado di contrastare e rispondere ai numerosi fronti di combattimento, fino a rispondere alle truppe sioniste, dall’altra, però, sembra sempre più

 

( Fonte: Contropiano.org )

 

Sorgente: 22-9-16_Usa-Israele-Daesh

I jet USA attaccano l’Esercito siriano e permettono all’ISIS di conquistare montagne strategica a Deir Ezzor. Replica del Governo siriano: “Questa la prova conclusiva che gli USA appoggiano l’ISIS”

Secondo quanto riferito da Al Masdar news, che cita fonti dell’Esercito siriano, la cosiddetta coalizione anti terrorismo degli Stati Uniti ha attaccato l’Esercito siriano nelle montagne di Thardeh, nel Governatorato di Deir Ezzor

Gli attacchi aerei degli Stati Uniti sulle postazioni dell’esercito siriano hanno permesso all’ISIS diconquistare le montagne strategiche di Thardeh che erano sotto il controllo del governo siriano.

Secondo attivisti locali, gli Stati Uniti hanno attaccato le postazioni dell’esercito siriano con bombe al fosforo, uccidendo diversi soldati e spianando la strada all’ISIS per conquistare tutta l&# 39;area.

L’attacco è stato condotto da 4 aerei da guerra statunitensi che volavano ad ovest dal confine iracheno.

Questa è la seconda volta quest’anno che l’Air Force degli Stati Uniti ha attaccato l’esercito siriano nel Governatorato di Deir Ezzor.

Il Comando Generale delle Forze armate siriane ha definito questo atto un’aggressione grave e palese contro la Repubblica araba siriana ed il suo esercito, e costituisce la prova conclusiva che gli Stati Uniti ed i loro alleati sostengono l’ISIS e altre organizzazioni terroristiche, sottolineando che questo atto rivela la falsità della loro lotta al terrorismo.

Fonte: Al Masdar
Notizia del: 17/09/2016

Sorgente: I jet USA attaccano l’Esercito siriano e permettono all’ISIS di conquistare montagne strategica a Deir Ezzor. Replica del Governo siriano: “Questa la prova conclusiva che gli USA appoggiano l’ISIS” – World Affairs – L’Antidiplomatico

Il Myanmar decide

Nell’agosto 2016 la ministra degli Esteri del Myanmar e Consigliere di Stato (al vertice del governo), Aung San Suu Kyi visitava la Cina. Era la prima nella Repubblica Popolare Cinese nel nuovo ruolo, ottenuto con la vittoria del proprio partito, la Lega nazionale per la democrazia (NLD), nelle elezioni parlamentari del 2015. Allora fu sollevata la seguente questione: quale politica estera sceglierà il “nuovo” Myanmar, filo-americana o filo-cinese? Aung San Suu Kyi, la leader dell’opposizione democratica al governo militare che era al potere nel Paese dal 1988, una combattente per i diritti umani e vincitrice del Nobel pezzo Premio del 1991, sembrava una figura filo-occidentale in quei giorni. Eppure, che ci crediate o no, in Cina è quotata piuttosto bene. Essendo una politica pragmatica, aveva de sempre compreso l’importanza delle relazioni tra Myanmar e Cina, contribuendone allo sviluppo con tutte le forze, a volte rischiando la reputazione di difensore dei diritti umani. Ad esempio, nel 2013, Aung San Suu Kyi a capo della commissione parlamentare che indagava sul caso della società cinese Wanbao, accusata di confiscare illegalmente terre dei cittadini del Myanmar per sviluppare una miniera di rame. In quel caso, Aung San Suu Kyi diede il permesso affinché Wanbao continuasse le attività. Pechino apprezzò il favore. I media cinesi pubblicarono numerosi commenti positivi sulla leader dell’opposizione del Myanmar e l’NLD vinse le elezioni del 2015 con il chiaro sostegno della Cina. Così, quando Aung San Suu Kyi è salita al potere, aveva il sostegno di Stati Uniti e Cina. Doveva sfruttare il passaggio tra questi due estremi, per il massimo vantaggio del Myanmar. Il fatto che il primo Paese visitato dalla nuova Consigliera di Stato fosse la Cina, che non è membro dell’ASEAN, evidenzierebbe la decisione presa. Va inoltre notato che il Ministro degli Esteri cinese Wang Yi visitò il Myanmar il 5 aprile 2016, cinque giorni dopo la cerimonia di giuramento del nuovo governo del Myanmar dell’NLD. Fu il primo ministro degli Esteri a visitare il Myanmar dopo questo importante evento. Ciò testimonia come il Myanmar non solo si appoggi alla Repubblica popolare cinese, ma che la Cina sia interessata a sviluppare rapporti con questo Stato. Non sorprende: risorse naturali e posizione geografica del Myanmar ne fanno un territorio d’importanza strategica per la Cina, che prevede di ridurre la dipendenza dalle petroliere che passano lo stretto congestionato e pericoloso di Malacca. Il Myanmar ha ampie risorse di idrocarburi, e il suo territorio è utilizzato per il trasporto di petrolio dal Medio Oriente e del gas dai porti sull’Oceano Indiano. La Cina ha investito nell’industria e nelle infrastrutture petrolifere e gasifere del Myanmar da anni. Vi costruisce gasdotti e porti e finanzia diversi progetti. Negli ultimi 20 anni la Cina è il principale investitore nell’economia del Myanmar, per decine di miliardi di dollari. Il fatturato commerciale tra i due Paesi ha raggiunto il picco nel 2015, per 20 miliardi di dollari. Va inoltre osservato che fino a poco prima (2010-2011), il Myanmar era sotto le sanzioni occidentali, contribuendo allo sviluppo delle relazioni con la Cina. Ora che un nuovo governo democratico è al potere, le società occidentali cominciano ad aver maggiore interesse sugli investimenti in vari progetti in Myanmar. Tuttavia, il Paese è già abituato a trattare con la Cina ed è tradizionalmente poco fiducioso verso i Paesi occidentali. Inoltre, il Myanmar è ora aperto agli investitori stranieri (oltre la Cina, Singapore, Thailandia, Hong Kong e Gran Bretagna sono tra i più significativi). Nonostante nulla impedisca alle imprese statunitensi d’investire nel Paese, vi è un altro fattore, il più importante tenendo conto degli interessi strategici, la Cina è pronta ad investire in Myanmar più di chiunque altro. Ciò supera tutti i fattori politici e culturali. Gli Stati Uniti, che hanno sostenuto NLD e Aung San Suu Kyi per molti anni, potranno sicuramente ricevere una calda accoglienza e varie preferenze in Myanmar, ma nel Paese possono contare solo sul secondo posto, la Cina sarà ancora prima. L’influenza statunitense in Myanmar può influenzarne i vari e talvolta poco chiari interessi militari e politici, ma la Cina mette al primo posto la sicurezza energetica, il che significa che è pronta ad assegnarvi più fondi.
Va notato che a fianco delle finanze, la Cina ha ancora una leva sul Myanmar, ancora più solida: i gruppi separatisti contro cui il governo del Myanmar ha combattuto per molti anni. La guerra civile ha devastato il Paese per 60 anni, dovuta al confronto tra governo e milizie comuniste. La guerra interessava varie minoranze etniche del Myanmar, che continuarono la lotta armata contro le forze di governo molti anni dopo la sconfitta dei comunisti e la loro deportazione in Cina. Durante la guerra, la guerriglia comunista e i suoi alleati, le bande etniche, apprezzarono il sostegno segreto della Repubblica Popolare Cinese. La guerra si esaurì con la Costituzione del 2008, che rispetta gli interessi di tutti i gruppi etnici fornendogli un’ampia autonomia. Ogni gruppo etnico ha l’opportunità di avere un partito rappresentato nel governo del Myanmar, mentre le forze armate illegali sono state amnistiate e arruolate nell’esercito del Myanmar. Tuttavia, piccoli conflitti continuano di tanto in tanto. Secondo alcune fonti, la maggior parte dei separatisti è strettamente legata alla Cina. Va ricordato che i territori vicino al confine cinese sono i più travagliati. Inoltre, le bande etniche delle minoranze nazionali del Myanmar sostengono di agire per conto dei cinesi. Nel 2015, le autorità del Myanmar riferirono ufficialmente che i separatisti cinesi nello Stato Shan venivano aiutati dalla Cina. Ciò deteriorò le relazioni del governo di allora con la Cina, e potrebbe aver contribuito al sostegno di Pechino all’opposizione nelle elezioni. Alcuni funzionari annunciarono che la Cina aveva usato l’influenza tra i separatisti per sabotare i colloqui di pace tra loro e l’allora governo del Myanmar. Ciò accadde poco prima delle elezioni del 2015, danneggiando gravemente la popolarità della leadership del Myanmar, uno dei motivi della sconfitta.
E’ probabile che la Cina intenda utilizzare i contatti con i ribelli per influenzare il nuovo governo del Myanmar. Secondo Aung San Suu Kyi, avrebbe discusso solo di questioni economiche con la leadership cinese durante la visita di agosto. Va ricordato che il 31 agosto 2016, subito dopo la visita in Cina, la Conferenza di pace di Naypyidaw iniziava, dove si riunivano i rappresentanti di tutti i gruppi etnici del Myanmar per discutere la nuova struttura federale del Paese e altri problemi che turbavano la coesistenza pacifica da molti anni. La presenza del Segretario Generale delle Nazioni Unite Ban Ki-moon alla conferenza la dice lunga sull’importanza dell’evento. Se una pace stabile viene raggiunta da questa conferenza in Myanmar, sarà la maggiore vittoria di Aung San Suu Kyi e del suo governo, e il traguardo più importante nella storia del Myanmar. Si può supporre che la conferenza subito cominciata fosse la principale questione discussa tra il capo del governo del Myanmar e i suoi colleghi cinesi, tra cui le concessioni che il Myanmar doveva fare alla Cina affinché i ribelli filo-cinesi “si comportino bene” senza sabotare i colloqui, come nel 2015. La lotta tra Cina e Stati Uniti per l’influenza nella regione Asia-Pacifico è in corso da molti anni. Ogni Paese della regione è al centro del confronto. Sul Myanmar, Washington ovviamente perde, dato che ora dipende dalla buona volontà della Repubblica Popolare Cinese in molti modi.cqiylqkxgaadchx

Sorgente: Il Myanmar decide

Israeli Arms Industry Faces Existential Threat in New US Aid Agreement

Israeli Arms Industry Faces Existential Threat in New US Aid AgreementSHARMINI PERIES, TRNN: Welcome to the Real News Network, I’m Sharmini Peries coming to you from Baltimore.On Tuesday, a new report was released by the Israel based human rights organization B’Tselem. The report criticizes Israel’s investigations into the killing of nearly 1,400 Palestinian civilians during the 2014 war on Gaza. This comes days after the United States and Israel signed a historic agreement granting Israel the largest military aid package in history. Today we’re going to take a continuing look into the agreement with political economist Shir Hever. Shir is a researcher for the Alternative Information Center based in Jerusalem [inaud.]. He joins us today from Germany. Thank you for joining us Shir. SHIR HEVER: Thanks for having me Sharmini.PERIES: Shir as you know we’ve been covering this MOU between Israel and the United States in a few interviews. The one that is on our site today with Larry Wilkerson as well as the agreement was signed we did an interview with Rania Khalek and Phyllis Bennis and I understand you would like to respond to some of the claims that were made but mainly something that Larry Wilkerson said in his interview that this was the largest aid package ever signed between Israel and the United States and also that Israel is a strategic liability to the US. Those two claims you wanted to address so please do.HEVER: Right so I think this aid agreement is very important and very telling about the development in the relations between Israel and the United States. The claim that this is the largest aid packet that Israel has ever received is nominally true but in real terms it’s actually not true because if we imagine what would’ve happened if the US would’ve kept this aid to Israel constant since 1973, not increased it but just kept it up to inflation, then today the aid would’ve been 16 billion dollars a year. Now instead the United States signed a deal with Israel for 3.8 billion dollars a year. 3.8 is more in nominal terms than the 3 billion that Israel received back in 1973 but it’s purchasing power is less than a quarter of what it was back then. I think that means there is an erosion in the aid and I think we can learn a lot form this ongoing erosion. What exactly is changing in the relation of the two countries. The main thing to understand is there is actually not one hegemonic interests in the US side and not one hegemonic interest on the Israeli side.PERIES: And what do you mean by that? Who else has interest in this MOU?HEVER: This brings me to the second argument that was made by Lawrence Wilkerson that Israel is a strategic liability for the United States. It’s a strategic liability for the United States military of course and for US foreign policy in the Middle East. That I completely agree. But for the US military industry, military industrial complex, the arms companies, Israel serves a very important role because they test and demonstrate the effectiveness of US weaponry and this is what the aid is about. It means that the United Sates gives Israel weapons. It’s a massive subsidy of the US taxpayers to the US arms companies which then sell their weapons at full price but the money’s paid by US tax payers. The weapons are used against Palestinians, against Syrians, against Lebanese by the Israeli military and then the US companies can learn from that and improve their weapons and also market them for better and so on. So for that, Israel is not a strategic liability but actually to borrow a term by Andrew Feistein a scholar of the arms industry, it turns Israel into the US shop window. So when customers of US weaponry want to see how US weapons function, they look at Israel and what Israel is doing with these weapons.PERIES: And while this is somewhat of a subside for the US military industrial complex, the political consequences to this decision to Israel in terms of eliminating subsidies for the Israel arms industry has great implications. Explain that tell us more about the consequences and the implications it will have.HEVER: Yea one Israeli journalist in [inaud.] was actually written that MOU is a way for President Obama to have this revenge on Netanyahu. Actually delivering a terrible deal and a humiliating deal that Netanyahu suffers from and indeed there is a lot criticism in Israel about this deal because of 3 points. The first point is indeed what I mentioned that in real terms the aid is not actually increasing. The second point is that there’s a clause in the term that makes it impossible for the Israeli government to seek additions when there’s a certain need and to appeal directly to congress in order to ask for more money. So they sign the deal and they take it as it is and only under extreme emergencies can they an extra request and they have to give them money back. So actually the aid is very clearly delineated. The third point which I think is the most important is that the Israel arms industry and that one is excluded from the aid deal. Now Israel is the large recipient of US military aid in the world. There is no contesting that. But Israel also has a privilege that no one other country in the world has. They can use a portion of that aid to finance their own arms industry. That means that a lot of companies in Israel are actually developing weaponry and other combat system which are designed to be used by the Israeli military but knocked some directly by the US military defense but rather through the [8] from the United States. This is a privilege that applies to 26% of the aid and Israel is the only country in the world that has that privilege. And that privilege is going to be revoked. And when Obama started the negotiations with Israel about the aid package and of course there was some expectation that the United States was going to increase aid as a kind of compensation for the [Iran] ordeal. Then President Obama made this comment. He said this privilege of the 26% that Israel can use for its own arms industry has to be canceled for the mutual interest of both sides. I think this is a very cynical statement. I think it was completely understood that it’s not a mutual interest of both sides. It’s only in the interest of the US arms companies that this privilege will be revoked. And for the Israeli military industry this is a threat to their very existence. Something that of course I don’t mourn that Israeli arms companies are at threat of disappearing. Of course I think that it would be a very good thing if Israel would stop producing weapons and exporting them. But one must understand that within the Israeli political system, the arms industry is extremely important. There’s no other country in the world with arms industry so important to the economy as it is for Israel. And that’s where we see a very interesting development within Israel that in this part of the economy and that part of the political sphere which is completely funded by the US aid and by the arms exports and the wars is now receiving a terrible blow. There’s no coincidence that shortly after President Obama made that statement that it’s in the interest of both sides to revoke the privilege that Netanyahu fired his Minister of Defense, Moshe Ya’alon who was very deeply embedded within that Israel security elite of the big arms manufacturers. So he was kicked out. Instead Netanyahu appointed a defense minister Avigdor Lieberman who is now part of that elite who is now tighter and who doesn’t care so much who’s going to be the leaders of the arms industry and he’s trying to push his own people there but he doesn’t promote people from inside the industry. As Netanyahu is now fighting to get rid of that influence of that military class, the military elite inside Israel and to push them out of political decision making process, the new MOU package means that this security elite is actually going to lose the branch that they’re sitting on. They’re going to lose their main source of income when the US will cut out that privilege. PERIES: Now Shir there’s another component to this that is rather interesting that this is a 10-year agreement. What implications does that have? I mean does President Obama obviously want to lock in this deal for 10 years? HEVER: The implications are first of all that no matter how the inflation in the United States is going to be and how much the dollar is going to lose its value, Israel cannot get more than 3.8 billion dollars a year. Second it means that during those 10 years the Israeli government is prevented from making appeals to the US government for extra aid. That’s not a small thing because if we look at the last couple of years, every year Israel made special appeal to the US congress asking more money for missiles or for anti-missile systems and so on. All these projects were kind of ways for pro-Israeli mainly republican congress people and senators to show their support for Israel by spending a few millions there, a few hundred millions over here and that’s got to be stopped for the next 10 years. That’s going to be prevented and Senator Graham has already made a statement to Netanyahu, how could you do this to us. How could you sign a deal that makes it impossible for us in the senate to show our support for Israel. And the third thing about such a long term agreement is that it allows this phasing out of Israeli special privilege to be spread out gradually. Not being one blow. So that means that politically it gives Netanyahu some time before the full ramifications of his decision are going to be felt and I think Netanyahu is really counting his days in office and really trying to make sure that he can get as many as possible and stay Prime Minister for as long as he can so if this is phased out he’s hoping maybe there won’t be mass layoffs and thousands of new unemployed people from the arms industry in Israel on his watch when he’s Prime Minister.PERIES: And further we should note that Netanyahu had actually asked for 50 billion dollars in aid but got 39 over 10 years. HEVER: Yea Netanyahu actually played a very interesting political trick with this 50 billion. Because what he did was he told the senior negotiators from the military industry, his big generals and arms manufacturers and he told them that you should go wild. Ask for whatever you want. Maybe the most outrageous demands of the US knowing full well that they’re not going to get their wish. But this way he can shift the blame a little bit on them and make their demands even reasonable and he’s trying to sell the Israeli public on this idea that he somehow got a good deal from the US when I think that it’s quite clear that he didn’t get a good deal at all.PERIES: Alright Shir. I thank you so much for your analysis and we’re looking forward to having you back very soon.HEVER: Thank you very much.PERIES: And thank you for joining us on the Real News Network.

Sorgente: Israeli Arms Industry Faces Existential Threat in New US Aid Agreement

L’F-16 sionista abbattuto dalla difesa siriana sul Golan

ZiaZiad al-Fadil, Syrian Perspective 13/9/2016

Qunaytra: a sud-ovest della capitale provinciale di Qunaytra, tra i villaggi di al-Burayq e Bir al-Ajam, ad ovest di Sasa, la rete della Difesa Aerea Siriana poteva finalmente aprire il fuoco contro i bombardieri dei ratti sionisti. Questa volta, l’aggressore era un F-16 prodotto e fornito dagli USA ed orgoglio dello Stato colono sionista. L’uomo che ha dato l’ordine e preso le coordinate del lancio del missile S-300 contro l’avvoltoio invasore è il Capitano Rayan Dhahar, nipote di mia moglie. Ha confermato il suo ruolo chiamando Layth e fornendo informazioni generiche sull’attacco. Ho ricevuto informazioni a conferma anche dalla moglie di Munzar a Damasco, informando che Munzar era ad al-Baath e aveva visto con i propri occhi il bombardiere sionista abbattuto. Il pilota non fu visto lanciarsi, probabilmente è arrostito sul seggiolino dato che le bombe dell’aereo sono esplose con il missile antiaereo. L’aviogetto è caduto in una zona vicina alle posizioni di al-Qaida e si presume che i terroristi, aperti alleati del sionismo, restituiranno i resti carbonizzati ai loro padroni. I sionisti ora probabilmente studiano attentamente i relitti per trovare qualche parte del pilota nella tipicamente macabra, orribile e raccapricciante pratica sionista di salvare tutte le parti di un corpo. L’Alto Comando siriano ha anche annunciato l’abbattimento del bombardiere e di un drone senza pilota nel Golan occupato. Le Forze Armate siriane sono poste in piena allerta sul fronte occidentale. I sionisti l’hanno negato, indicando alcuna voglia di usare questo fatto come casus belli. L’attacco al bombardiere sionista è avvenuto intorno alla 1:00 del 13 settembre, Damasco. L’aggressore stava sparando su un avamposto dell’Esercito Arabo Siriano mentre i nostri soldati impiegavano l’artiglieria contro i movimenti dei ratti di al-Nusra/al-Qaida. Nel tentativo di sollevare il morale dei parassiti, i terroristi sionisti sono decollati per dimostrasi seri alleati di terroristi e Arabia Saudita.
Salutiamo il Capitano Rayan Dhahar per il suo eroismo nel difendere i cieli siriani e il nostro grande Esercito Arabo Siriano.
14358994 La decisione di far decollare gli F-16 per sostenere i terroristi di al-Qaida, alleati del sionismo, era dovuta agli eventi iniziati l’11 settembre 2016, quando i terroristi effettuarono un feroce attacco nella zona di Tal Hamriya, a sud di Hadhar. Il contrattacco dall’EAS distruggeva un autocarro carico di terroristi di al-Qaida, tutti carbonizzati. Tra i ratti arrostiti vi erano capi sul campo come:
Muhamad Yusuf al-Subayhi (alias Abu Qinwa, noto molestatore di bambini e feticista fecale. Era un capo di al-Qaida)
Ibrahim Umar al-Ahmad (capo della liwa al-Sibatayn, riferimento a due tribù: araba e ebraica)
In questo momento, l’esercito sionista ha inviato degli aiuti sul campo alle rabbiose iene di al-Qaida. Tuttavia, l’attacco è fallito e al-Qaida ha subito perdite molto consistenti in ratti e materiale; tuttavia poté ritirarsi sotto il pesante fuoco dell’artiglieria sionista. I terroristi si sarebbero lamentati di non ricevere aiuti adeguati nella lotta contro l’EAS. Le mie fonti dicono che il principe Muhamad Ibn Salman, Viceprincipe buffone ed architetto del disastro nello Yemen, aveva ricevuto un messaggio urgente da Abu Muthana al-Shami. Contattando i suoi “alleati” dello Stato dell’Apartheid sionista, ne mendicava l’intervento, subito effettuato il 13 settembre 2016. Da quella data, l’EAS ha effettuato un contrattacco eliminando i 3 principali capi sul campo di al-Qaida ed altri 9 capi alleati a Tal Hamriya:
Muhamad Amin Sulayman al-Hariri (tale pappone era il capo di un gruppo ex-ELS (firqat Amud Huran) ora coinvolto nella fantasia chiamata maraqat Qadisiyat al-Janub o battaglia di Qadisiya del Sud, che noia.
Abu Muthana al-Shami (un irsuto suino che comandava tutti i campi di Ahrar al-Sham nel sud, aveva contattato gli scarafaggi sauditi per tentare di aiutare i suoi ratti).
L’Esercito arabo siriano ha resistito sul Golan utilizzando le unità per operazioni speciali di Qutayfa colpendo lo snodo di Abu Hudayj, tra le colline di al-Jarajir nel Qalamun. La zona è controllata dallo SIIL. I commando dell’EAS erano entrati furtivamente in una casa di 2 piani in cui i ratti dormivano, uccidendo l’unica sentinella e collocandovi esplosivi. Quando la casa è andata in fumo, i camerati dei ratti in zona si precipitarono ad estrarre i cadaveri prima che fossero trasformati in pane tostato. Mentre i cameratti si riunivano presso la casa distrutta, i commando inviarono un messaggio riguardante la situazione e l’artiglieria dell’EAS bombardava l’area friggendo altri 11 ratti che, come si è scoperto, erano mercenari di lingua urdu.
A Dayr al-Zur, gli alleati di Obama dello SIIL commettevano un altro macabro atto sgozzando dei patrioti siriani dopo averli appesi a ganci da macellai, come pecore in un grottesco Ayd al-Adha. Erano accusati di spionaggio a favore dei nemici dello Stato islamico, di seguire i movimenti dei terroristi e fotografare i ratti islamisti urinare sul Corano:

alalam_636093601465933541_25f_4x3

alalam_636093601466383586_25f_4x3

alalam_636093601467373685_25f_4x3

alalam_636093601467773725_25f_4x3Ecco i nomi dei patrioti il cui assassinio è stato trasmesso dalla TV dei terroristi:
1. Ibrahim Ali al-Musa
2. Jumah Jaasim al-Abid
3. Amir Faysal al-Yusuf
4. Ibrahim Taha al-Yusuf
5. Abdurahman Salih al-Ahmad
6. Salih Ahmad al-Abdullah
7. Bashar Ahmad al-Ajil
8. Qasim Qalil Alí al-Sulayman
9. Abdullah Muhamad al-Qalifa
10. Muhamad Ibrahim al-Uzaba
11. Abdulmaliq Hasan al-Uzaba
12. Haydar Muhamad al-Abdullah

Sorgente: L’F-16 sionista abbattuto dalla difesa siriana sul Golan | Aurora

‘Ban, ban, ban!’: Paralympians fall victim to US anti-Russian propaganda

The banning of the entire Russian team at the Paralympics in Rio is the latest example of how sport has become a front in the US-led propaganda war against Russia.

Sorgente: ‘Ban, ban, ban!’: Paralympians fall victim to US anti-Russian propaganda — RT Op-Edge

US, EU Accused of Paying Lip Service to Global Arms Treaty

UNITED NATIONS, Aug 22 2016 (IPS) – The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), which was aimed at curbing the flow of small arms and light weapons to war zones and politically-repressive regimes, is being openly violated by some of the world’s arms suppliers, according to military analysts and human rights organizations.

 

The ongoing conflicts and civil wars in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, South Sudan and Ukraine are being fueled by millions of dollars in arms supplies – mostly from countries that have either signed or ratified the ATT, which came into force in December 2014.

Dr. Natalie Goldring, UN Consultant for the Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy and a Senior Fellow with the Security Studies Program at Georgetown University, told IPS: “The Arms Trade Treaty is incredibly important. Put simply, if fully implemented, it has the potential to save lives.”

But if implementation is not robust, the risk is that “business as usual” will continue, resulting in continued violations of international humanitarian and human rights law, she warned.

“Recent and proposed arms sales by States Parties and signatories to the ATT risk undermining the treaty,” said Dr Goldring, who has closely monitored the 20 year long negotiations for the ATT, which was adopted by the UN General Assembly in April 2013.

The reported violations of the international treaty have coincided with a weeklong meeting in Geneva, beginning August 22 through August 26, of ATT’s second Conference of States Parties (CSP).

Recent reports from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Control Arms, Forum on Arms Trade and other non-governmental organizations (NGOs) document the continued transfer of conventional weapons that may be used to violate international humanitarian and human rights law.

Brian Wood, Head of Arms Control and Human Rights at Amnesty International, said the ATT has the potential to save millions of lives, which makes it especially alarming when states who have signed or even ratified the treaty seem to think they can continue to supply arms to forces known to commit and facilitate war crimes, and issue export licenses even where there is an overriding risk the weapons will contribute to serious human rights violations.

“There must be zero tolerance for states who think they can just pay lip service to the ATT.”

He said the need for more effective implementation is painfully obvious: “from Yemen to Syria to South Sudan, every day children are being killed and horribly maimed by bombs, civilians are threatened and detained at gunpoint, and armed groups are committing abuses with weapons produced by countries who are bound by the treaty,” he noted.

Providing a list of “unscrupulous arms transfers,” Amnesty International pointed out that the US, which has signed the ATT, and European Union (EU) member states who have ratified it, including Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, France and Italy, have continued to lavish small arms, light weapons, ammunition, armoured vehicles and policing equipment on Egypt, “despite a brutal crackdown on dissent by the authorities which has resulted in the unlawful killing of hundreds of protesters, thousands of arrests and reports of torture by detainees since 2013.”

In 2014, France issued export licences that again included sophisticated Sherpa armoured vehicles used by security forces to kill hundreds of protesters at the Rabaa al-Adawiya sit in just a year earlier.

Arms procured from ATT signatories have also continued to fuel bloody civil wars, the London-based human rights organization said.

In 2014, Amnesty International said, Ukraine approved the export of 830 light machine guns and 62 heavy machine guns to South Sudan.

Six months after signing the ATT, Ukrainian authorities issued an export licence on 19 March 2015 to supply South Sudan with an undisclosed number of operational Mi-24 attack helicopters.

Three of those attack helicopters are currently in service with South Sudan government forces, and they are reportedly awaiting the delivery of another.

Additionally, in March 2015 the US State Department approved possible military sales of equipment and logistical support to Saudi Arabia worth over $24 billion, and between March 2015 and June 2016, the UK approved the export of £3.4 billion (approximately $4.4 billion) worth of arms to Saudi Arabia.

“These approvals were given when the Saudi Arabia-led coalition was carrying out continuous, indiscriminate and disproportionate airstrikes and ground attacks on civilians in Yemen, some of which may amount to war crimes,” Amnesty International said in a statement released August 22.

Jeff Abramson of the Forum on the Arms Trade said the Geneva meeting takes place during a time of ongoing conflict and controversy over the responsible transfer and use of conventional weapons.

He said key topics that may be addressed, either formally or informally, include better promoting transparency in the arms trade and arming of Saudi Arabia, in light of the humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen — including recent US notification of possible tank sales to Riyadh

Dr Goldring told IPS the US government recently proposed to sale of 153 M1A2 Abrams tanks to Saudi Arabia.

She said the written notification of the proposed sale notes that 20 of the tanks are intended as “battle damage replacements for their existing fleet.”

As Brookings Institution Scholar Bruce Riedel has noted, the Saudis are only using tanks in combat along the Saudi-Yemeni border.

“The US government’s response to apparent Saudi bombings of civilian targets is to sell them more weapons? This makes no sense. This is part of a pattern of continued arms transfers taking place despite a high risk that they will be used to violate international human rights and humanitarian law,. ” declared Dr Goldring.

She said States parties to the ATT are required to address the risks of diversion or misuse of the weapons they provide. But if this criteria are taken seriously, it’s virtually impossible to justify continued weapons deals with countries such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

Countries without strong export control systems have argued that it will take time to fully implement the ATT, while other countries such as the United States have domestic impediments to ratifying the treaty.

But one of the treaty’s strengths, Dr Goldring, argued is its specification of conditions under which arms transfers should be blocked. States do not have to wait for ratification or accession to the treaty to begin implementing such standards.

“The ATT is a new treaty, but we can’t afford to ‘ease into’ it. While we discuss the treaty, lives are being lost around the world. We need to aggressively implement the ATT from the start,” Dr Goldring said.

Another important issue in full implementation of the ATT, she noted, is making the global weapons trade transparent, so that citizens can understand the commitments their governments are making in their names.

“Governments should not be transferring weapons unless they are willing to take responsibility for them. Their opposition to openness and transparency raises questions about what they’re trying to hide,” she added.

But in the end, although it’s important to bring transparency to the discussion of these issues, the real issue is whether the transfers are being controlled. Recent sales raise significant concerns in this regard, Dr Goldring said.

“The Conference of States Parties that is being held this week in Geneva presents a critical opportunity to face these issues. To strengthen the Arms Trade Treaty, the conference must focus on this key substantive concern of the risks entailed in continuing business as usual. States should not allow their attention to be diverted to process issues,” said Dr Goldring who is currently participating in the Geneva meeting,

The writer can be contacted at thalifdeen@aol.com

Sorgente: US, EU Accused of Paying Lip Service to Global Arms Treaty | Inter Press Service

Wikileaks Says They Have 1,700 Emails Proving Hillary Clinton Knew about U.S. Military Weapons Shipments to Al Qaeda and ISIS

Wikileaks head Julian Assange says he has proof that Hillary Clinton lied under oath while giving a public testimony following the 2013 Benghazi terrorist attack. Assange says Wikileaks has 1,700 emails proving Clinton’s statements that she was not involved or aware of any sale of weapons to Syrian “rebels” were a lie. In fact, Assange notes that the former Secretary of State was fully aware of the United States’ involvement in arming rebels in Libya in a bid to help them overtake Qaddafi. Ultimately, it is alleged that those same weapons then made their way to the Islamic State in Syria.

In a Democracy Now interview, Wikileaks’ Julian Assange claimed that the first batch of Hillary Clinton emails was only the beginning. Assange made the bold claims that his organization has more Clinton emails and that the next batch will be even more damning for the former Secretary of State and presidential hopeful. Wikileaks says that the emails contain proof that Hillary Clinton has lied under oath and that she was fully aware of weapons shipments to Al Qaeda and the Islamic State rebels.

The National Review points out that Wikileaks seems to be honing in on statements made by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton following the 2013 Benghazi terrorist attack. In a public testimony, Secretary Clinton claimed that she had no knowledge of weapons transfers to Libya, Turkey, or Syria in the months leading up to the terrorist attack. Clinton said “I don’t have any information on that” when pressed about her personal knowledge of the weapons transfers.

She claimed to have no knowledge of any transfers of weapons from Libya to Turkey, Syria, or any other countries.

It was Senator Rand Paul that asked Clinton the damning question when he pointed out that there were news reports of ships leaving Libya with weapons and asked Clinton if she was aware of these transfers. He specifically asked if she or the United States had been involved in “any procuring of weapons, transfer of weapons, buying, selling, anyhow transferring weapons to Turkey out of Libya.” In response to the question, Clinton tried to deflect by saying “nobody has ever raised that with me.” However, upon further pressing, Senator Paul asked directly if Clinton personally knew of any such transfers which she flatly denied.

It is important to note that Hillary Clinton was under oath when she answered the question from Senator Paul; therefore, if her statements were proven false it would mean she was guilty of lying under oath. Therefore, Julian Assange’s claims that he has numerous emails which implicate Clinton in the weapons transfer, it could mean that the presidential hopeful may need to do some serious damage control.

 

The contents of the emails have not yet been released, but many say they are expecting an “October surprise” from Wikileaks and that the latest leak will happen very soon. If Assange is telling the truth, the leak could prove extremely detrimental to Clinton’s presidential bid as she is already struggling with voter trust following the first batch of emails showing the DNC had favored Clinton during the primaries.

 

What do you think about Wikileaks’ claims that they have proof Hillary Clinton lied under oath? If they have the information, should they release it quickly as the November general election is quickly approaching?

Sorgente: Wikileaks Says They Have 1,700 Emails Proving Hillary Clinton Knew about U.S. Military Weapons Shipments to Al Qaeda and ISIS | Global Research – Centre for Research on Globalization

Wikileaks: Hillary Clinton ha mentito sulla vendita di armi ad Al-Qaeda e ISIS

Nuovi documenti di Wikileaks rivelano che Hillary Clinton ha mentito al Congresso sul fatto che non fosse a conoscenza della vendita di armi ad Al-Qaeda e ISIS.

Il fondatore del portale Wikileaks, Julian Assange, ha dichiarato, ieri, il sito canadese Global Research, ha rivelato che dispone di 1700 messaggi di posta elettronica che mostrano la falsa testimonianza del candidato democratico alal Presidenza USA, quando davanti a una speciale commissione del Congresso ha affermato che non avevano partecipato o non era a conoscenza della vendita di armi ai “ribelli” siriani.

Assage ha spiegato che l’ex Segretario di Stato era pienamente consapevole della complicità degli Stati Uniti nella crisi libica quando sono state inviate armi agli insorti per porre fine al governo libico di Muammar Gheddafi. Si sostiene che queste armi sono  poi finite nelle mani del gruppo terroristico SISI (Daesh, in arabo).

In questo contesto, Assange ha sostenuto che Hillary Clinton ha mentito durante la sua apparizione al Congresso degli Stati Uniti, che si è tenuto dopo gli attacchi al consolato degli Stati Uniti a Bengasi l&# 39;11 settembre 2012. In tale riunione, Clinton ha giurato che non era a conoscenza dei trasferimenti armi verso la Libia, Turchia e Siria nei mesi prima degli attacchi.

Assange ha annunciato che Wikileaks che ha l’accesso alle altre e-mail che sono più “importanti” per il candidato alla presidenza degli Stati Uniti

La questione che Clinton sia stata informata sul dispiegamento di navi con armi in Libia è stata posta per la prima volta dal Senatore Rand Paul, che ha censurato l’intervento della NATO) in Libia nel 2011.

In numerose occasioni, Paul ha lamentato che le politiche della amministrazione del presidente Barack Obama e di alcuni politici statunitensi hanno aiutato la diffusione del terrorismo in Medio Oriente.

Fonte: Hispantv
Notizia del: 15/08/2016

Sorgente: Wikileaks: Hillary Clinton ha mentito sulla vendita di armi ad Al-Qaeda e ISIS – World Affairs – L’Antidiplomatico

Houthis reject Kerry’s peace initiative

Yemen’s Houthi Ansarullah movement has rejected an initiative put forth by US Secretary of State John Kerry to resolve the crisis in the war-torn country.

Mohammed Abdulsalam, the Ansarullah spokesman, said Saturday that the offer aims at depriving the Houthis of their arms in their fight of resistance against the Saudi invasion.

“Whoever has a greedy eye on our weapons, we will have a greedy eye on his life,” Abdulsalam wrote in a message posted on Facebook.

Kerry earlier called on Houthis to hand over their weapons including ballistic missiles and to pull back from the capital Sana’a. In return, the US secretary of state said Houthis and allies can have a share in Yemen’s future unity government.

The proposal comes amid reports that Houthis have stepped up missile attacks on border regions in Saudi Arabia over the past weeks. The attacks are carried out in reaction to deadly Saudi airstrikes that the regime in Riyadh says are meant to undermine Houthis and allies and to restore power to Abd Rabbuh Mansour Hadi, Yemen’s president who has resigned and fled the capital.

About 10,000 people have been killed across Yemen since the Saudi campaign started in March 2015.

The conflict in Yemen re-escalated after peace talks mediated by the United Nations and held in Kuwait collapsed earlier this month. The talks hit a snag after Houthis rejected a similar initiative proposed by the UN, saying it lacked any clear mechanism for transition of power.

Houthis had declared since the start of the talks in April that they were ready for disarmament and withdrawal from key areas they control in case a broad political agreement is reached in which Hadi would have no role.

Sorgente: PressTV-Houthis reject Kerry’s peace initiative

‘Filipino president ‘Duterte Harry’ won’t take orders from former colonial powers’

Duterte is concerned about the prospect that Washington, the former colonial power in the Philippines, might want to manipulate his country against China, Gerald Horne, historian, told RT. Brian Becker of the AntiWar coalition also joins the conversation.

Sorgente: ‘Filipino president ‘Duterte Harry’ won’t take orders from former colonial powers’ — RT Op-Edge

Why US nuked Japanese cities in 1945

The United States launched nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 to demonstrate to the world, particularly to the Soviet Union, that they must obey the Empire’s demands in the future, an American activist and journalist says. 

Mike Billington, the Asia editor for the Executive Intelligence Review, made the remarks in a phone interview with Press TV on Tuesday when asked what message the United States wanted to convey to the world when it nuked the two Japanese cities in the final days of WWII.

This week marks 71 years since the US carried out nuclear strikes against Hiroshima and Nagasaki which killed more than 200,000 people.

In May, US President Barack Obama visited Japan but failed to apologize over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

“There was, as it is very well-known, absolutely no need of the nuclear bombing of Japan. They had already sued for peace through the Vatican,” Billington said.

“It was done entirely as a demonstration to the world that the United States was crazy enough to mass incinerate tens of thousands of people, and as a warning to the Soviet Union in particular that, in fact, they must submit to . . . a pre-emptive nuclear attack on Russia if they did not essentially submit to a one world government based on the British and the United States,” he added.

“That demonstration of lunacy by launching those two nuclear attacks did not stop an invasion. The invasion would never have happened; they were suing for peace. We had MacArthur, the brilliant General [Douglas] MacArthur, [who] had correctly and competently cut off the supply of raw material to the Japanese homeland and they could not have sustained a war any longer,” the activist stated.

“So, the lesson for today is very, very clear which is that Obama is openly threatening to use nuclear weapons. He’s dedicated a trillion dollars to upgrading B-6112 nuclear weapons, and in the words of his military people, the purpose of those upgrading is to make those weapons more usable. That’s their term,” he noted.

“In other words, the old idea of mutual assured destruction (MAD) that the nuclear weapons capable of blowing each other up would prevent either the Russian side or the US side from using nuclear weapons, that’s being discarded in favor of a [policy of] usable nuclear weapon[s],” the analyst observed.

“And of course in the context of the US mass mobilization of forces on Russia’s border, both in Europe and Asia as part of the encirclement of China, and a massing of forces not seen since the time Hitler mobilized his forces on the border of the USSR preparing for the Operation Barbarossa,” he said.

“So we are in an extremely dangerous situation and in which the lesson that should have learned by insanity of the genocidal dropping the nuclear weapons back in 1945 has not been learnt,” he pointed out.

In his concluding remarks, Belington opined that President Franklin “Roosevelt would never have used those nuclear weapons, it’s [happened] only that because he died, sadly too early, and that Harry Truman, a weak puppet of Wall Street and London, was used at British instigation drop those nuclear weapons as a signal to Russia and to the Third World that they had better obeyed the Empire’s demands in the future.”

Sorgente: PressTV-Why US nuked Japanese cities in 1945

Russia: US-backed militants ‘animals’

Russia has lambasted the United States over its support for Takfiri militant groups that launch toxic gas attacks against civilians in Syria, referring to the militants as “animals.” 

“The United States is supporting these animals, who used poison gas against the civilian population,” Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova wrote in a statement posted to social media on Thursday.

She added, “Unfortunately it’s not the only tragedy which the ‘moderates’ backed by Washington stand behind.”

Zakharova was making reference to Tuesday’s chemical attack by US-backed Takfiri militants in the Old City of Aleppo, where artillery shells containing toxic gasses slammed into a residential neighborhood.

At least seven people died and 20 others sustained injuries in the shelling.

On Wednesday, Lieutenant-General Sergey Chvarkov, the director of the Russian Reconciliation Center in Syria, said Moscow had warned Washington about the use of toxic shells by the US-backed ‘moderate’ militant group a day prior to the attack.

The Russian diplomat further held the Nour al-Din al- Zinki terror outfit responsible for the recent chemical attack in the Salaheddine district of Aleppo.


A man receives treatment at a hospital following a Daesh chemical attack in the Sheikh Maqsood neighborhood of Syria’s northwestern city of Aleppo, April 7, 2016.

Members of the militant group are already involved in the beheading of a 12-year-old Palestinian boy, named Abdullah Tayseer al-Issa, in northern Aleppo.

The terrorists initially claimed in a video that the child had been fighting for the Syrian government in Aleppo, thought it was later revealed that the victim was a kidnapped Palestinian refugee from a poor family.

Zakharova also accused the US Air Force of indiscriminately bombing inhabited parts of the town of Ghandour, which lies more than 23 kilometers (14.2 miles) away from the violence-ridden city of Manbij, on July 28. At least 28 people, including seven children, lost their lives and dozens of others sustained injuries.

“If our Western colleagues and above all Washington do everything again not to notice these facts, then any of their talk about an end to bloodshed in Syria will simply become preposterous,” the Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman pointed out.

The US-led coalition has been conducting airstrikes against what are said to be Daesh positions inside Syria since September 2014 without any authorization from Damascus or a UN mandate.

The coalition has repeatedly been accused of targeting and killing civilians. It has also been largely incapable of fulfilling its declared aim of destroying Daesh.

Sorgente: PressTV-Russia: US-backed militants ‘animals’

New deterrence: US plans to upgrade its nuclear bomb

The National Nuclear Security Administration has given the go-ahead for work on upgrading the B61 airborne nuclear bomb, as the Pentagon is eager to embark on a multi-billion-dollar scheme to improve the US nuclear arsenal.

Sorgente: New deterrence: US plans to upgrade its nuclear bomb — RT America

No alle bombe nucleari in Italia

a cura di Pax Christi

“Settant’anni fa, il 6 e il 9 agosto del 1945, avvennero i tremendi bombardamenti atomici su Hiroshima e Nagasaki. A distanza di tanto tempo, questo tragico evento suscita ancora orrore e repulsione. Esso è diventato il simbolo dello smisurato potere distruttivo dell’uomo quando fa un uso distorto dei progressi della scienza e della tecnica, e costituisce un monito perenne all’umanità, affinché ripudi per sempre la guerra e bandisca le armi nucleari e ogni arma di distruzione di massa”.
Papa Francesco, 9 agosto 2015
———————————————————————–
No alle bombe nucleari in Italia
APPELLO DEL CONVEGNO «IL RUOLO DELLA NATO NELLA GUERRA MONDIALE A PEZZI», promosso da Pax Christi, “Mosaico di pace”, Comunità Le Piagge, Unione suore domenicane S. Tommaso d’Aquino, Comitato No Guerra No Nato, S. Niccolò, PRATO, 11 GIUGNO 2016
Sono in fase di sviluppo negli Stati Uniti – documenta la U.S. Air Force – le bombe nucleari B61-12, destinate a sostituire le attuali B61 installate dagli Usa in Italia e altri paesi europei.
La B61-12 – documenta la Federazione degli scienziati americani (Fas) – non è solo una versione ammodernata della B61, ma una nuova arma nucleare: ha una testata nucleare a quattro opzioni di potenza selezionabili, con una potenza media pari a quella di quattro bombe di Hiroshima; un sistema di guida che permette di sganciarla a distanza dall’obiettivo; la capacità di penetrare nel terreno per distruggere i bunker dei centri di comando in un attacco nucleare di sorpresa.
Le B61-12, che gli Usa si preparano a installare in Italia, sono armi che abbassano la soglia nucleare, ossia rendono più probabile il lancio di un attacco nucleare dal nostro paese e lo espongono quindi a una rappresaglia nucleare.
Secondo le stime della Fas, gli Usa mantengono oggi 70 bombe nucleari B61 in Italia (50 ad Aviano e 20 a Ghedi-Torre), 50 in Turchia, 20 rispettivamente in Germania, Belgio e Olanda, per un totale di 180. Nessuno sa però con esattezza quante effettivamente siano le B-61, destinate ad essere sostituite dalle B61-12.
Foto satellitari – pubblicate dalla Fas – mostrano che, per l’installazione delle B61-12, sono già state effettuate modifiche nelle basi di Aviano e Ghedi-Torre.
L’Italia, che fa parte del Gruppo di pianificazione nucleare della Nato, mette a disposizione non solo il suo territorio per l’installazione di armi nucleari, ma – dimostra la Fas – anche piloti che vengono addestrati all’attacco nucleare con cacciabombardieri italiani sotto comando Usa.
L’Italia viola in tal modo il Trattato di non-proliferazione delle armi nucleari, firmato nel 1969 e ratificato nel 1975, che all’Art. 2 stabilisce: «Ciascuno degli Stati militarmente non nucleari, che sia Parte del Trattato, si impegna a non ricevere da chicchessia armi nucleari o altri congegni nucleari esplosivi, né il controllo su tali armi e congegni esplosivi, direttamente o indirettamente».
Chiediamo che l’Italia cessi di violare il Trattato di non-proliferazione e, attenendosi a quanto esso stabilisce, chieda agli Stati uniti di rimuovere immediatamente qualsiasi arma nucleare dal territorio italiano e rinunciare a installarvi le nuove bombe B61-12 e altre armi nucleari.
Liberare il nostro territorio nazionale dalle armi nucleari, che non servono alla nostra sicurezza ma ci espongono a rischi crescenti, è il modo concreto attraverso cui possiamo contribuire a disinnescare l’escalation nucleare e a realizzare la completa eliminazione delle armi nucleari che minacciano la sopravvivenza dell’umanità.
——————————————————————————————–
BOZZA DI MOZIONE DA PROPORRE AI PARLAMENTARI
Considerato che – secondo i dati forniti dalla Federazione degli Scienziati Americani (FAS) – gli Usa mantengono oggi 70 bombe nucleari B61 in Italia (50 ad Aviano e 20 a Ghedi-Torre), 50 in Turchia, 20 rispettivamente in Germania, Belgio e Olanda, per un totale di 180.
Considerato che – come documenta la stessa U.S. Air Force – sono in fase di sviluppo negli Stati Uniti le bombe nucleari B61-12, destinate a sostituire le attuali B61 installate dagli Usa in Europa.
Considerato che – come documenta la FAS – la B61-12 non è solo una versione ammodernata della B61, ma una nuova arma nucleare, con un sistema di guida che permette di sganciarla a distanza dall’obiettivo, con una testata nucleare a quattro opzioni di potenza selezionabili, con capacità di penetrare nel terreno per distruggere i bunker dei centri di comando in un attacco nucleare di sorpresa.
Considerato che foto satellitari, pubblicate dalla FAS, mostrano le modifiche già effettuate nelle basi di Aviano e Ghedi-Torre per installarvi le B61-12.
Considerato che l’Italia mette a disposizione non solo il suo territorio per l’installazione di armi nucleari, ma anche piloti che – dimostra la FAS – vengono addestrati all’uso di armi nucleari con aerei italiani.
Considerato che l’Italia viola in tal modo il Trattato di non-proliferazione delle armi nucleari, firmato nel 1969 e ratificato nel 1975, il quale all’Art. 2 stabilisce: «Ciascuno degli Stati militarmente non nucleari, che sia Parte del Trattato, si impegna a non ricevere da chicchessia armi nucleari o altri congegni nucleari esplosivi, né il controllo su tali armi e congegni esplosivi, direttamente o indirettamente».
I proponenti chiedono al Governo di rispettare il Trattato di non-proliferazione delle armi nucleari e, attenendosi a quanto esso stabilisce, far sì che gli Stati Uniti rimuovano immediatamente qualsiasi arma nucleare dal territorio italiano e rinuncino a installarvi le nuove bombe B61-12 e altre armi nucleari.

Sorgente: www.ildialogo.org No alle bombe nucleari in Italia,a cura di Pax Christi

‘West silence on crimes in Syria deafening’

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif has lashed out at the West for its “deafening” silence on the atrocities committed by the Western-backed militants in Syria.

Zarif posted a tweet on Friday after a video emerged showing US-backed terrorists brutally beheading a child.

The Iranian foreign minister said such acts of brutalities by the Western-sponsored terrorists have turned into the norm in Syria.

The footage, circulated on social media on Tuesday, shows a member of the Nureddin al-Zenki opposition group cutting off the 12-year-old Palestinian boy’s head with a knife on a public road in Aleppo.

Nureddin al-Zenki, which is largely based in Syria’s Aleppo province, has received military support in the past from the United States as part of Washington’s backing for “moderate” militants in Syria.

Before being killed, the boy, identified by activists on social media as Mahmoud Issa, is seen on the back of a truck surrounded by militants who accuse him of being a spy and a member of al-Quds Brigades, the armed wing of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad resistance movement.

However, the Palestinian group issued a statement, strongly denying that Issa was a member and saying the boy was ill. It further said he was killed apparently as revenge by a “terrorist” who had lost his brother in battles near Handarat, north of Aleppo.

Takfiri terrorists have been carrying out horrific acts of violence, such as public decapitations and crucifixions, against all communities, including Shias, Sunnis, Kurds, and Christians, in areas they have overrun in the Arab country.

Sorgente: PressTV-‘West silence on crimes in Syria deafening’

Iran slams US abuse of banking system

Iran’s Ambassador to the United Nations has denounced a US Supreme Court ruling that allows for the seizure of frozen Iranian assets, describing the measure as a clear example of Washington’s political abuse of international financial networks to pressure the Iranian nation.

“The recent political decision of the US court to seize the properties of the Central Bank of Iran (CBI) is a clear example of abusing banking and financial networks for fake and unsubstantiated claims to pressure our nation,” Gholam-Ali Khoshrou said in New York on Thursday.

He added, “The Iranian government is committed to use all possible means at its disposal, including recourse to the International Court of Justice, to recover its properties illegally seized by the US authorities.”

The US Supreme Court ruled on April 20 that Iran’s assets frozen in a bank account, which are worth around $2 billion, should be turned over to American families of those killed in a 1983 bombing in Beirut and other attacks blamed on Iran. Tehran has denied any role in the attacks.

The money, which belongs to the CBI, had been blocked under US sanctions before the court ruling.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif later censured the seizure of the frozen assets as “highway robbery,” vowing that the Islamic Republic will retrieve the sum anyway.


This file photo shows the US Supreme Court building in Washington, DC, the United States.

“It is a theft. Huge theft. It is highway robbery. And believe you me, we will get it back,” Zarif told The New Yorker magazine in an interview published on April 25.

Countering terrorism

Khoshrou further pointed to the scourge of terror, warning that “violent extremism is the most critical challenge that the world is currently facing.

“The international community needs, first and foremost, to focus on this vicious ideology that seeks to instill hatred and anger in the hearts and minds of the youth everywhere in the world,” the Iranian UN ambassador underscored.

He also referred to the unlawful use of force, interference in the domestic affairs of other states, and foreign aggression and occupation as some of the factors that contribute to the spread of terrorism.

“Countering terrorism should be done in full conformity with the United Nations Charter, international law, international human rights and humanitarian law,” Khoshrou stated.

Sorgente: PressTV-Iran slams US abuse of banking system

China Slams US-South Korea Decision to Deploy THAAD Air Defense System

China expressed strong protest against the United States and South Korea agreement to deploy Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile defense system on the Korean peninsula, Chinese Foreign Ministry said Friday.

Sorgente: China Slams US-South Korea Decision to Deploy THAAD Air Defense System

Outrage as US police kill black man

There is growing outrage in the US over the killing of an African American man who was pinned to the ground and shot in the chest by two white police officers outside a convenience store in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

The US Justice Department said on Wednesday it would investigate Tuesday’s killing of Alton Sterling, 37, the latest alleged police brutality against blacks.

A graphic video of the shooting recorded by a bystander shows an officer shooting Sterling five times at close range.

Hundreds of people gathered for a prayer vigil near the spot where Sterling was fatally shot, with activists urging people to protest the “excessive force” used by police against African Americans.

“I’m heartbroken. It’s outrageous. It’s crazy,” said Abdullah Muflahi, the owner of the Triple S Food Mart where Sterling was killed in the parking lot.

Muflahi  said he considered Sterling a friend and allowed him to sell CDs outside his store. He said police took a gun from Sterling’s pocket.


Protester march to the convenience store where Alton Sterling was shot and killed, July 6, 2016 in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. (AFP photo)

Video recorded on the bystander’s cell phone shows an officer approaching Sterling and ordering him to lie down. The two officers then tackle him to the ground, with one pulling a gun from his holster and pointing it at his chest.

The officers were responding to a call about a black man reported to have made threats with a gun, according to Baton Rouge Police Chief Carl Dabadie.

Dabadie told a news conference that the two police officers involved, Blane Salamoni and Howie Lake were both put on administrative leave.

Relatives and acquaintances described Sterling as jovial and friendly, a neighborhood fixture who had peddled copied CDs, DVDs and games in front of the Triple S Food Mart for years.


An image of Alton Sterling that has been widely circulated on US media.

Cameron Sterling, Alton’s 15-year-old son, broke down crying at a news conference as his mother spoke. “He was killed unjustly and without regard for the lives he helped raise,” said the mother, who did not give her name.

The latest police killing comes as law enforcement departments across the United States face increased scrutiny over allegations of excessive force against black people and other minority groups.

Police in the United States killed over 1,150 people in 2015, with the largest police departments disproportionately killing at least 321 African Americans, according to data compiled by an activist group that runs the Mapping Police Violence project.

Sorgente: PressTV-Outrage as US police kill black man

US Political Prisoners: What Washington Doesn’t Want You to Know

The United States holds over 25% of the world’s incarcerated, despite comprising just 5% of the planet’s population. The US doesn’t acknowledge having political prisoners, but political activists from the 1960s and 70s continue to languish in America’s prisons.

Radio Sputnik’s Loud and Clear spoke with Eddie Conway, a former political prisoner and journalist; Noelle Hanrahan, a journalist with Prison Radio who co-wrote and produced the documentary “Mumia: Long Distance Revolutionary” about Mumia Abu-Jamal; Ramona Africa of the MOVE Organization; and Cynthia Dunne, who works as co-counsel for the release of Native American activist Leonard Peltier.

MOVE is a militant organization, founded in 1972 and based in Philadelphia, that has been at the forefront of environmentalism, animal rights, veganism, and, as Africa puts it, “Anything dealing with life.” Their philosophies have, in the past, often put them at odds with the city authorities and, in particular, the notoriously racist Philadelphia mayor Frank Rizzo because, “those representing this system… they don’t care about life, they care about money. How much money they can make and how to keep this system going as it is.”

On May 13, 1985, using neighbor complaints as a pretext, Philadelphia police initiated a shootout and eventually bombed the MOVE house, killing 11 people, including five children. Africa asserts that the attack was in retaliation for the group’s work to the release the so-called MOVE 9, nine organization members who were imprisoned following a police attack in 1978. MOVE-member Africa was the only person to serve time after the 1985 bombing, on a “laundry list of charges,” including possession of explosives. “Because MOVE could not be bought off, bribed, intimidated or beat into submission, the government made a simple decision, that they could just kill us off if they could not control us…that’s what the bombing was about,” she said.

Conway was the minister of information for the Baltimore chapter of the Black Panther party. He was charged with ordering Panthers to shoot at police, and was imprisoned for 44 years, in what most consider to have been a kangaroo court. Conway said that, when it comes to political prisoners, the US says one thing and does another.

“Political prisoners really don’t get any excessive time, they get the same kind of time as other prisoners get. What happens is they’re treated differently,” he said. “If (political prisoners) get a life sentence, they are kept in solitary confinement for 29 or 30 years … the average person that gets a life sentence goes up for parole three or four times, then they get paroled. Political prisoners, because of their politics, can go up for parole 20 times and never get paroled.”

Conway stated that America “claim(s) there’s no political prisoners, but if you have that political label in your file, you’re treated differently no matter what the charge is, and no matter what the amount of time is.”

Hanrahan noted that activist Mumia Abu Jamal faced persecution, in part, because of his sympathetic coverage of the MOVE family. She said that recently Mumia has been denied treatment for Hepatitis C and that such negligence is typical for many prisoners, political prisoners especially.  “At any moment (prisoners) who are political experience this extra level of scrutiny and not getting released and it is very intense.”

Native-American Leonard Peltier was incarcerated for the 1973 shooting of two FBI officers at the Wounded Knee reservation, even though the bullets were shown not to have came from his gun. Dunne described the process for drafting a petition of clemency for Peltier. “We’re asking, because of the unique situation in this case and the government’s history and connection with his case and the American Indian Movement in general, that it’s in the interest of justice to allow Leonard Peltier, who has now served 40 years in maximum security prisons and 5 years in solitary confinement, to go home and live out his final years on the Turtle Mountain reservation where he has family and relatives he’s never met.”

Sorgente: US Political Prisoners: What Washington Doesn’t Want You to Know

‘Chilling’: US-Backed Syrian Groups’ Human Rights Atrocities Exposed

A new report from Amnesty International claims that US-backed groups are responsible for many “chilling” abuses.

The Levant Front, the Free Syrian Army’s 16th division, and the Nour al-Din Zanki movement, are named as culprits in the torture, kidnapping and execution of pro-government fighters, journalists and activists.

Philip Luther, director of Amnesty’s Middle East program said, “While some civilians in areas controlled by armed opposition groups may, at first, have welcomed an escape from brutal Syrian government rule, hopes that these armed groups would respect rights have faded as they have increasingly taken the law into their own hands and committed serious abuses.”

He added that “In Aleppo and Idleb today, armed groups have free rein to commit war crimes and other violations of international humanitarian law with impunity.”

The US often touts its vetting process for the foreign organizations it supports, but it appears that Washington often claims that groups are “moderate” when they have been documented as being violent.

Luther implores those in the US, and in other countries that support Syria, to intervene to stop the mistreatment and killing of innocent people. “States that are members of the International Syria Support Group, including the USA, Qatar, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, which are involved in negotiations over Syria, must pressure armed groups to end such abuses and comply with the laws of war,” he said. “They must also cease any transfer of arms or other support to groups implicated in committing war crimes and other gross violations.”

The report documents, between 2014 and 2015, five cases of people claiming they were tortured by the Nour al-Dine Zinki movement and Jabhat al-Nusra, after being abducted. The report also details 24 cases of abduction by armed groups in Idleb and Aleppo between 2012 and 2016. People were targeted due to their religion, or for being an ethnic minority, or writing articles against the opposition, and even playing music.

One activist, going by the pseudonym “Ibrahim,” claims he was kidnapped and tortured by Jabhat al-Nusra in Aleppo in April 2015. He said he was kidnapped in 2011 for organizing protests supporting the uprising.

He said that he was “..taken to the torture room. They placed me in the shabeh position, hanging me from the ceiling from my wrists so that my toes were off the ground. Then they started beating me with cables all over my body… After the shabeh they used the dulab [tire] technique. They folded my body and forced me to go inside a tire and then they started beating me with wooden sticks.” He was eventually dropped at the side of a road and left to fend for himself.

Luther stated that these incidents should be a top priority for world powers.

“It is critical that Russia and the USA, and the UN Special Envoy to Syria, prioritize detention by government forces and abduction by armed groups during their ongoing talks in Geneva,” he stated. “For its part, the UN Security Council must impose targeted sanctions on leaders of armed groups who are responsible for war crimes.”

Sorgente: ‘Chilling’: US-Backed Syrian Groups’ Human Rights Atrocities Exposed

US Military Personnel Have Committed Nearly 6k Crimes in Okinawa Since 1972

US military personnel have committed over 5,800 crimes on Japan’s Okinawa Islands since the territory was returned to Japan in 1972, according to police figures cited by protesters rallying against US presence in Japan’s southernmost prefecture.

Sorgente: US Military Personnel Have Committed Nearly 6k Crimes in Okinawa Since 1972

Noam Chomsky on the Breakdown of American Society and a World in Transition

Noam Chomsky addresses contemporary developments in both the United States and around the world and challenges prevailing views about class warfare, neoliberalism and the outcome of economic laws.

The US is facing uncertain times. While it remains the only global superpower, it is no longer able to influence events and outcomes to its liking, at least not for the most part. Frustration and worry about the risk of upcoming disasters seem to far outweigh US voters’ hopes for a more rational and just world order. Meanwhile, Noam Chomsky argues, the rise and popularity of Donald Trump is occurring due to the fact that US society is breaking down.

In this exclusive interview with Truthout, Noam Chomsky addresses contemporary developments in both the United States and around the world and challenges prevailing views about class warfare, neoliberalism as the outcome of economic laws, the role of the US as a global power, the status of emerging economies and the power of the Israel Lobby.

CJ Polychroniou: Noam, you have said that the rise of Donald Trump is largely due to the breakdown of American society. What exactly do you mean by this?

Noam Chomsky: The state-corporate programs of the past 35 or so years have had devastating effects on the majority of the population, with stagnation, decline and sharply enhanced inequality being the most direct outcomes. This has created fear and has left people feeling isolated, helpless, victims of powerful forces they can neither understand or influence. The breakdown is not caused by economic laws. They are policies, a kind of class war initiated by the rich and powerful against the working population and the poor. This is what defines the neoliberalism period, not only in the US but in Europe and elsewhere. Trump is appealing to those who sense and experience the breakdown of American society — to deep feelings of anger, fear, frustration, hopelessness, probably among sectors of the population that are seeing an increase in mortality, something unheard of apart from war.

Class warfare remains as vicious and one-sided as ever. Neoliberal governance over the last thirty years, regardless if there was a Republican or a Democratic administration in place, has intensified immensely the processes of exploitation and induced ever-larger gaps between haves and have-nots in American society. Moreover, I don’t see neoliberal class politics being on retreat in spite of the opportunities that opened up because of the last financial crisis and by having a centrist Democrat in the White House.

The business classes, which largely run the country, are highly class conscious. It is not a distortion to describe them as vulgar Marxists, with values and commitments reversed. It was not until 30 years ago that the head of the most powerful union recognized and criticized the “one-sided class war” that is relentlessly waged by the business world. It has succeeded in achieving the results you describe. However, neoliberal policies are in shambles. They have come to harm the most powerful and privileged (who only partially accepted them for themselves in the first place), so they cannot be sustained.

Neoliberal policies are in shambles. They have come to harm the most powerful and privileged, so they cannot be sustained.

It is rather striking to observe that the policies that the rich and powerful adopt for themselves are the precise opposite of those they dictate to the weak and poor. Thus, when Indonesia has a deep financial crisis, the instructions from the US Treasury Department (via the IMF) are to pay off the debt (to the West), to raise interest rates and thus slow the economy, to privatize (so that Western corporations can buy up their assets), and the rest of the neoliberal dogma. For ourselves, the policies are to forget about debt, to reduce interest rates to zero, to nationalize (but not to use the word) and to pour public funds into the pockets of the financial institutions, and so on. It is also striking that the dramatic contrast passes unnoticed, along with the fact that this conforms to the record of the economic history of the past several centuries, a primary reason for the separation of the first and third worlds.

Class politics is so far only marginally under attack. The Obama administration has avoided even minimal steps to end and reverse the attack on unions. Obama has even indirectly indicated his support for this attack, in interesting ways. It is worth recalling that his first trip to show his solidarity with working people (called “the middle class,” in US rhetoric) was to the Caterpillar plant in Illinois. He went there in defiance of pleas by church and human rights organizations because of Caterpillar’s grotesque role in the Israeli occupied territories, where it is a prime instrument in devastating the land and villages of “the wrong people.” But it seems not even to have been noticed that, adopting Reagan’s anti-labor policies, Caterpillar became the first industrial corporation in generations to break a powerful union by employing strike-breakers, in radical violation of international labor conventions. That left the US alone in the industrial world, along with apartheid South Africa, in tolerating such means of undermining workers’ rights and democracy — and now I presume the US is alone. It is hard to believe that the choice was accidental.

There is a widespread belief at least among some well-known political strategists that issues do not define American elections — even if the rhetoric is that candidates need to understand public opinion in order to woo voters — and we do know of course that media provide a wealth of false information on critical issues (take the mass media’s role before and during the launching of the Iraq war) or fail to provide any information at all (on labor issues, for example). Yet, there is strong evidence indicating that the American public cares about the great social, economic and foreign policy issues facing the country. For example, according to a research study released some years ago by the University of Minnesota, Americans ranked health care among the most important problems facing the country. We also know that the overwhelming majority of Americans are in support of unions. Or that they judged the war against terror to be a total failure. In the light of all of this, what’s the best way to understand the relation between media, politics and the public in contemporary American society?

It is well-established that electoral campaigns are designed so as to marginalize issues and focus on personalities, rhetorical style, body language, etc. And there are good reasons. Party managers read polls, and are well aware that on a host of major issues, both parties are well to the right of the population — not surprisingly; they are, after all, business parties. Polls show that a large majority of voters object, but those are the only choices offered to them in the business-managed electoral system, in which the most heavily funded candidate almost always wins.

Similarly, consumers might prefer decent mass transportation to a choice between two automobiles, but that option is not provided by advertisers — indeed, by markets. Ads on TV do not provide information about products; rather, they provide illusion and imagery. The same Public Relations firms that seek to undermine markets by ensuring that uninformed consumers will make irrational choices (contrary to abstract economic theories) seek to undermine democracy in the same way. And the managers are well aware of all of this. Leading figures in the industry have exulted in the business press that they have been marketing candidates like commodities ever since Reagan, and this is their greatest success yet, which they predict will provide a model for corporate executives and the marketing industry in the future.

The Obama administration has avoided even minimal steps to end and reverse the attack on unions.

You mentioned the Minnesota poll on health care. It is typical. For decades, polls have shown that health care is at or near the top of public concerns — not surprisingly, given the disastrous failure of the health care system, with per capita costs twice as high as comparable societies and some of the worst outcomes. Polls also consistently show that large majorities want a nationalized system, called “single payer,” rather like the existing Medicare system for the elderly, which is far more efficient than the privatized systems or the one introduced by Obama. When any of this is mentioned, which is rare, it is called “politically impossible” or “lacking political support” — meaning that the insurance and pharmaceutical industries, and others who benefit from the current system, object. We gained an interesting insight into the workings of American democracy from the fact that in 2008, unlike 2004, the Democratic candidates — first Edwards, then Clinton and Obama — came forward with proposals that at least begun to approach what the public has wanted for decades. Why? Not because of a shift in public attitudes, which have remained steady. Rather, [the] manufacturing industry has been suffering from the costly and inefficient privatized health care system, and the enormous privileges granted, by law, to the pharmaceutical industries. When a large sector of concentrated capital favors some program, it becomes “politically possible” and has “political support.” Just as revealing as the facts themselves is that they are not noticed.

Much the same is true on many other issues, domestic and international.

The US economy is facing myriad problems, although profits for the rich and corporations returned long ago to the levels they were prior to the eruption of the 2008 financial crisis. But the one single problem which most of academic and financial analysts seem to focus on as being of most critical nature is that of government debt. According to mainstream analysts, US debt is already out of control, which is why they have been arguing consistently against big economic stimulus packages to boost growth, contending that such measures will only push the US deeper into debt. What is the likely impact that a ballooning debt will have on the American economy and on international investor’s confidence in the event of a new financial crisis?

No one really knows. Debt has been far higher in the past, particularly after World War II. But that was overcome thanks to the remarkable economic growth under the wartime semi-command economy. So we know that if government stimulus spurs sustained economic growth, the debt can be controlled. And there are other devices, such as inflation. But the rest is very much guesswork. The main funders — primarily China, Japan, oil producers — might decide to shift their funds elsewhere for higher profits. But there are few signs of such developments, and they are not too likely. The funders have a stake in sustaining the US considerable economy for their own exports. There is no way to make confident predictions, but it seems clear that the entire world is in a tenuous situation, to say the least.

You seem to believe, in contrast to so many others, that the US remains a global economic, political and of course military superpower even after the latest crisis — and I do have the same impression, as well, as the rest of the world economies are not only not in any shape to challenge America’s hegemony but are looking toward the US as a savior of the global economy. What do you see as the competitive advantages that US capitalism has over the EU economy and the newly emerging economies in Asia?

The 2007-08 financial crisis in large measure originated in the US, but its major competitors — Europe and Japan — ended up suffering more severely, and the US remained the choice location for investors who are looking for security in a time of crisis. The advantages of the US are substantial. It has extensive internal resources. It is unified, an important fact. Until the civil war in the 1860s, the phrase “United States” was plural (as it still is in European languages). But since then the phrase has been singular, in standard English. Policies designed in Washington by state power and concentrated capital apply to the whole country. That is far harder in Europe. A couple of years after the eruption of the latest global financial crisis, the European Commission task force issued a report saying that “Europe needs new bodies to monitor systemic risk and co-ordinate oversight of financial institutions across the region’s patchwork of supervision,” though the task force, headed then by a former French central banker, “stopped well short of suggesting a single European watchdog” — which the US can have any time it wants. For Europe, it would be “an almost impossible mission,” the task force leader said. [Several] analysts, including the Financial Times, have described such a goal as politically impossible, “a step too far for many member states reluctant to cede authority in this area.” There are many other advantages to unity. Some of the harmful effects of European inability to coordinate reactions to the crisis have been widely discussed by European economists.

When a large sector of concentrated capital favors some program, it becomes “politically possible” and has “political support.”

The historical roots of these differences between Europe and the US are familiar. Centuries of … conflict imposed a nation-state system in Europe, and the experience of World War II convinced Europeans that they must abandon their traditional sport of slaughtering one another, because the next try would be the last. So we have what political scientists like to call “a democratic peace,” though it is far from clear that democracy has much to do with it. In contrast, the US is a settler-colonial state, which [murdered] the indigenous population and consigned the remnants to “reservations,” while conquering half of Mexico, then expanding beyond. Far more than in Europe, the rich internal diversity was destroyed. The civil war cemented central authority, and uniformity in other domains as well: national language, cultural patterns, huge state-corporate social engineering projects such as the suburbanization of the society, massive central subsidy of advanced industry by research and development, procurement and other devices, and much else.

The new emerging economies in Asia have incredible internal problems, unknown in the West. We know more about India than China, because it is a more open society. There are reasons why it ranks 130th in the Human Development Index (about where it was before the partial neoliberal reforms); China ranks 90th, and the rank could be worse if more were known about it. That only scratches the surface. In the 18th century, China and India were the commercial and industrial centers of the world, with sophisticated market systems, advanced health levels by comparative standards, and so on. But imperial conquest and economic policies (state intervention for the rich, free markets rammed down the throats of the poor) left them in miserable conditions. It is notable that the one country of the [global] South that developed was Japan, the one country that was not colonized. The correlation is not accidental.

Is the US still dictating IMF policies?

It’s opaque, but my understanding is that IMF’s economists are supposed to be, maybe are, somewhat independent of the political people. In the case of Greece, and austerity generally, the economists have come out with some strongly critical papers in the Brussels programs, but the political people seem to be ignoring them.

On the foreign policy front, the “war on terror” seems to be a never ending enterprise and, as with the Hydra monster, a new head pops when one is cut off. Can massive interventions of force wipe out terrorist organizations like ISIS?

Upon taking office, Obama expanded intervention forces and stepped up the wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan, just as he had promised he would do. There were peaceful options, some recommended right in the mainstream: in Foreign Affairs, for example. But these did not fall under consideration. Afghan president Hamid Karzai’s first message to Obama, which went unanswered, was a request to stop bombing civilians. Karzai also informed a UN delegation that he wanted a timetable for withdrawal of foreign (meaning US) troops. Immediately he fell out of favor in Washington, and accordingly shifted from a media favorite to “unreliable,” “corrupt,” etc. — which was no more true than when he was feted as our “our man” in Kabul. Obama sent many more troops and stepped up bombing on both sides of the Afghan-Pakistan border — the Durand line, an artificial border established by the British, which cuts the Pashtun areas in two and which the people have never accepted. Afghanistan in the past often pressed for obliterating it.

The entire world is in a tenuous situation, to say the least.

That is the central component of the “war on terror.” It was certain to stimulate terror, just as the invasion of Iraq did, and as resort to force does quite generally. Force can succeed. The existence of the US is one illustration. The Russians in Chechnya is another. But it has to be overwhelming, and there are probably too many tentacles to wipe out the terrorist monster that was largely created by Reagan and his associates, since nurtured by others. ISIS is the latest one, and a far more brutal organization than al-Qaeda. It is also different in the sense that it has territorial claims. It can be wiped out through massive employment of troops on the ground, but that won’t end the emergence of similar-minded organizations. Violence begets violence.

US relations with China have gone through different phases over the past few decades, and it is hard to get a handle on where things stand today. Do you anticipate future US-Sino relations to improve or deteriorate?

The US has a love-hate relation with China. China’s abysmal wages, working conditions, and lack of environmental constraints are a great boon to US and other Western manufacturers who transfer operations there, and to the huge retail industry, which can obtain cheap goods. And the US now relies on China, Japan and others to sustain its own economy. But China poses problems as well. It does not intimidate easily… When the US shakes its fist at Europe and tells Europeans to stop doing business with Iran, they mostly comply. China doesn’t pay much attention. That’s frightening. There is a long history of conjuring up imaginary Chinese threats. It continues.

Do you see China being in a position any time soon to pose a threat to US global interests?

Among the great powers, China has been the most reserved in use of force, even military preparations. So much so that leading US strategic analysts (John Steinbrunner and Nancy Gallagher, writing in the journal of the ultra-respectable American Academy of Arts and Sciences) called on China some years ago to lead a coalition of peace-loving nations to confront the US aggressive militarism that they think is leading to “ultimate doom.” There is little indication of any significant change in that respect. But China does not follow orders, and is taking steps to gain access to energy and other resources around the world. That constitutes a threat.

Indian-Pakistani relations pose clearly a major challenge in US foreign policy. Is this a situation the US can actually have under control?

To a limited extent. And the situation is highly volatile. There is constant ongoing violence in Kashmir — state terror by India, Pakistan-based terrorists. And much more, as the recent Mumbai bombings revealed. There are also possible ways to reduce tensions. One is a planned pipeline to India through Pakistan from Iran, the natural source of energy for India. Presumably, Washington’s decision to undermine the Nonproliferation treaty by granting India access to nuclear technology was in part motivated by the hope of undercutting this option, and bringing India to join in Washington’s campaign against Iran. It also may be a related issue in Afghanistan, where there has long been discussion of a pipeline (TAPI) from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan and then India. It is probably not a very live issue, but quite possibly is in the background. The “great game” of the 19th century is alive and well.

In many circles, there is a widespread impression that the Israel lobby calls the shots in US foreign policy in the Middle East. Is the power of the Israel lobby so strong that it can have sway over a superpower?

My friend Gilbert Achcar, a noted specialist on the Middle East and international affairs generally, describes that idea as “phantasmagoric.” Rightly. It is not the lobby that intimidates US high tech industry to expand its investments in Israel, or that twists the arm of the US government so that it will pre-position supplies there for later US military operations and intensify close military and intelligence relations.

When the lobby’s goals conform to perceived US strategic and economic interests, it generally gets its way: crushing of Palestinians, for example, a matter of little concern to US state-corporate power. When goals diverge, as often happens, the Lobby quickly disappears, knowing better than to confront authentic power.

I agree totally with your analysis, but I think you would also agree that the Israel lobby is influential enough, and beyond whatever economic and political leverage it carries, that criticisms of Israel still cause hysterical reactions in the US — and you certainly have been a target of right-wing Zionists for many years. To what do we attribute this intangible influence on the part of the Israel lobby over American public opinion?

That is all true, though much less so than in recent years. It is not really power over public opinion. In numbers, by far the largest support for Israeli actions is independent of the lobby: Christian religious fundamentalist. British and American Zionism preceded the Zionist movement, based on providentialist interpretations of Biblical prophecies. The population at large supports the two-state settlement, doubtless unaware that the US has been unilaterally blocking it. Among educated sectors, including Jewish intellectuals, there was little interest in Israel before its great military victory in 1967, which really established the US-Israeli alliance. That led to a major love affair with Israel on the part of the educated classes. Israel’s military prowess and the US-Israel alliance provided an irresistible temptation to combine support for Washington with worship of power and humanitarian pretexts… But to put it in perspective, reactions to criticism of US crimes are at least as severe, often more so. If I count up the death threats I have received over the years, or the diatribes in journals of opinion, Israel is far from the leading factor. The phenomenon is by no means restricted to the US. Despite much self-delusion, Western Europe is not very different — though, of course, it is more open to criticism of US actions. The crimes of others usually tend to be welcome, offering opportunities to posture about one’s profound moral commitments.

Under Erdogan, Turkey has been in a process of unfolding a new-Ottoman strategy towards the Middle East and Central Asia. Is the unfolding of this grand strategy taking place with the collaboration or the opposition of the United States?

Turkey of course has been a very significant US ally, so much so that under Clinton it became the leading recipient of US arms (after Israel and Egypt, in a separate category). Clinton poured arms into Turkey to help it carry out a vast campaign of murder, destruction, and terror against its Kurdish minority. Turkey has also been a major ally of Israel since 1958, part of a general alliance of non-Arab states, under the US aegis, with the task of ensuring control over the world’s major energy sources by protecting the ruling dictators against what is called “radical nationalism” — a euphemism for the populations. US-Turkish relations have sometimes been strained. That was particularly true in the build-up to the US invasion of Iraq, when the Turkish government, bowing to the will of 95% of the population, refused to join. That caused fury in the US. Paul Wolfowitz was dispatched to order the disobedient government to mend its evil ways, to apologize to the US and to recognize that its duty is to help the US. These well-publicized events in no way undermined Wolfowitz’s reputation in the liberal media as the “idealist-in-chief” of the Bush administration, utterly dedicated to promoting democracy. Relations are somewhat tense today too, though the alliance is in place. Turkey has quite natural potential relations with Iran and Central Asia and might be inclined to pursue them, perhaps raising tensions with Washington again. But it does not look too likely right now.

On the western front, are plans for the eastward expansion of NATO, which go back to the era of Bill Clinton, still in place?

One of Clinton’s major crimes in my opinion — and there were many — was to expand NATO to the East, in violation of a firm pledge to Gorbachev by his predecessors after Gorbachev made the astonishing concession to allow a united German to join a hostile military alliance. These very serious provocations were carried forward by Bush, along with a posture of aggressive militarism which, as predicted, elicited strong reactions from Russia. But American redlines are already placed on Russia’s borders.

What are your views about the EU? It is still largely a trailblazer for neoliberalism and hardly a bulwark for US aggression. But do you see any signs that it can emerge at some point as a constructive, influential actor on the world stage?

It could. That is a decision for Europeans to make. Some have favored taking an independent stance, notably De Gaulle. But by and large European elites have preferred passivity, following pretty much in Washington’s footsteps.

Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.

C.J. Polychroniou

C.J. Polychroniou is a political economist/political scientist who has taught and worked in universities and research centers in Europe and the United States. His main research interests are in European economic integration, globalization, the political economy of the United States and the deconstruction of neoliberalism’s politico-economic project. He is a regular contributor to Truthout as well as a member of Truthout’s Public Intellectual Project. He has published several books and his articles have appeared in a variety of journals, magazines, newspapers and popular news websites. Many of his publications have been translated into several foreign languages, including Croatian, French, Greek, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish and Turkish.

Sorgente: Noam Chomsky on the Breakdown of American Society and a World in Transition

Target Russia. Target China. Target Iran

Not a day goes by without US Think Tankland doing what it does best; pushing all sorts of scenarios for cold – and hot – war with Russia, plus myriad confrontations with China and Iran.

That fits into the Pentagon’s Top Five existential threats to the US, where Russia and China sit at the very top and Iran is in fourth place – all ahead of «terrorism» of the phony Daesh «Caliphate» variety.

Here I have come up with some concise realpolitik facts to counterpunch the hysteria – stressing how the Russian hypersonic missile advantage renders useless the whole construct of NATO’s paranoid rhetoric and bluster.

The US Aegis defense system has been transferred from ships to land. The Patriot missile defense system is worthless. Aegis is about 30% better than the THAAD system; it may be more effective but their range is also limited.

Aegis is not a threat at all to Russia – for now. Yet as the system is upgraded – and that may take years – it could cause Russia some serious concern, as Exceptionalistan is increasingly pushing them eastward, so near to Russia’s borders.

Anyway, Russia is still light-years ahead in hypersonic missiles. The Pentagon knows that against the S-500 system, the F-22, the awesomely expensive F-35 and the B-2 stealth airplanes – stars of a trillion-dollar fighter program – are totally obsolete.

So it’s back to the same old meme: «Russian aggression», without which the Pentagon cannot possibly fight for its divine right to be showered with unlimited funds.

Washington had 20,000 planners at work before WWII was ended, focused on the reconstruction of Germany. Washington had only six after the destruction of Iraq in 2003’s Shock and Awe.

That was no incompetence; it was «Plan A» from the get-go. The former USSR was deemed a mighty threat at the end of WWII – so Germany had to be rebuilt. Iraq was a war of choice to grab oil fields – mixed with the implementation of hardcore disaster capitalism. No one in Washington ever cared or even wanted to rebuild it.

«Russian aggression» does not apply to Iraq; it’s all about Eastern Europe. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov anyway has made it clear that the deployment of the Aegis will be counterpunched in style – as even US corporate media starts to admit that the Russian economy is healing from the effects of the oil price war.

Take a look at my liquid asssets

Here my purpose was to show that China is not a House of Cards. Whatever the real Chinese debt to GDP ratio – figures vary from as low as 23% to 220% – that is nothing for an economy the size of the Chinese, especially because it is entirely internally controlled.

China keeps over $3 trillion in US dollars and other Western currencies in reserves while it gradually delinks its economy from the real House of Cards: the US dollar economy.

So under these circumstances what does foreign debt mean? Not much. China could – although they don’t do it yet – produce more yuan and buy back their debt, as much as the US with quantitative easing (QE) and the European Central Bank (ECB) as it asks certain ‘favorite countries’ (strong NATO supporters) to produce more than their share of euros.

And yet Beijing doesn’t really need to do this. China, Russia, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and what’s left of the BRICS (Brazil is on hold until at least 2018) are slowly but surely forging their own internal currency and currency transfer system (in China and Russia it works already internally) to sideline SWIFT and the Bank of International Settlements (BIS).

When they are ready to roll it out for the rest of the world to join them, then US dollar-based foreign debt will be meaningless.

US Think Tankland, as usual, remains clueless. As one of my Chinese sources explains, «whenever a Western big mouth mentions China’s debt ‘problem’ they quote a figure that seems to come out of thin air, and it includes all debts, central, provincial, city government levels, estimated all corporate debts, loans from banks outside China. Meanwhile, they compare this total number in China with those of Western countries and Japan’s central government debt alone».

The source adds, «China is operating with a balance sheet of the equivalent to $60 trillion. Loans from external sources is in the $11 trillion range while cash and equivalent is in the $3.6-4 trillion range. All this cash – or very liquid asset – is the biggest discretionary force in the hands of China’s leaders while nothing worth mentioning is in the hands of any other Western government».

Not to mention that globally, Beijing is betting on what the World Economic Forum calls the Fourth Industrial Revolution. China is already the central hub for global production, supply, logistics and value chain. Which leads us to One Belt, One Road (OBOR); all roads lead to the Chinese-driven New Silk Roads, which will connect, deeper and deeper, China’s economy and infrastructure all across Eurasia. OBOR will simultaneously expand China’s global power while geopolitically counterpunching the so far ineffective «pivot to Asia» – Pentagon provocations in the South China Sea included – and improving China’s energy security.

Sanctions, like diamonds, are forever

Another major Exceptionalistan fictional narrative is that the US is «worried» about the inability of European banks to do business in Iran. That’s nonsense; in fact, it’s the US Treasury Department that is scaring the hell out of any European bank who dares to do business with Tehran.

India and Iran have struck a $500 million landmark deal to develop the Iranian port of Chabahar – a key node in what could be dubbed the New India-Iran Silk Road, connecting India to Central Asia via Iran and Afghanistan.

Immediately afterwards the US State Department has the gall to announce that the deal will be «examined» – as the proverbial Israeli-firster US senators question whether the deal violates those lingering sanctions against Iran that refuse to go away. This happens in parallel to a mounting official narrative of «unrest» contaminating former Soviet republics in Central Asia – especially Kazakhstan and Tajikistan. CIA-paid hacks should know those sources of unrest well – as the CIA itself is fomenting it.

India doing business with Iran is «suspicious». On the other hand, India is more than allowed to formalize a historic military cooperation deal with the US hazily dubbed the «Logistics Support Agreement»  (LSA) – according to which the two militaries may use each other’s land, air and naval bases for resupplies, repairs and vaguely-defined «operations».

So it’s all hands on deck all over Exceptionalistan to counter Russia, China and prevent any real normalization with Iran. These localized offensives – practical and rhetorical – on all fronts always mean one thing, and one thing only; splitting and fracturing, by all means necessary, the OBOR Eurasian integration. Bets can be made that Moscow, Beijing and Tehran simply won’t be fooled.

Sorgente: Target Russia. Target China. Target Iran

IRAQ. Il mondo post-coloniale e la commissione Chilcot

Di Gian Paolo Calchi Novati

Roma, 12 luglio 2016, Nena News – Come ha scritto Chomsky, il mondo occidentale, grazie ai suoi valori e al suo sistema istituzionale, si distingue da altre civiltà perché è capace di riconoscere i massacri che commette o sono commessi in suo nome.  Avendo in mente questo postulato, la vicenda della Commissione Chilcot, che ha indagato sulle responsabilità del governo inglese nella guerra in Iraq del 2003, assume l’aspetto di un apologo che trascende gli eventi specifici.

Un organo espresso dall’establishment di una grande potenza occidentale, – che aveva appena compiuto il passo, falso secondo alcuni benpensanti gelosi di antichi privilegi, di far decidere al popolo il proprio futuro europeo – ha rivelato le falsità e in ultima analisi i crimini dello Stato e personalmente del capo del governo in occasione di un evento di grande portata, che non ha ancora finito di proiettare le sue tragiche conseguenze su tutti noi.

La Commissione era presieduta da un Lord. E anche chi comincia a temere, e persino a lamentare in pubblico, i rischi impliciti in pratiche troppo democratiche, davanti a un Lord non ha argomenti. Non si può neanche dire che gli ottimati hanno rimediato alla distrazione o alla connivenza del popolo. Il popolo di Londra, pur senza conoscere tutti i documenti, aveva già emesso il suo giudizio nella grande dimostrazione di quel “sabato” che Ian McEwan ha posto come proemio di un suo romanzo.

Negli anni bui dell’amministrazione di Bush junior, quando l’unipolarismo (sia pure “imperfetto”, come dimostrò Samuel Huntington in un saggio su Foreign Affairs) conferiva poteri assoluti agli Stati Uniti, che avevano vinto la guerra fredda e non mancavano di ricordarlo in tutte le occasioni, il New York Times identificò nell’opinione pubblica “la seconda potenza mondiale”. Allora c’era ancora spazio per una mobilitazione di massa.

 I rapporti di forza, nel 2003 come nel 2016, hanno impedito però e impediscono di trasformare la denuncia in un’azione politica adeguata. Persino la Brexit si è imposta facendo leva probabilmente su motivazioni tutt’altro che nobili. Un argomento forte per il Leave poteva essere proprio l’impotenza dell’Europa di fronte alla “linea rossa” della guerra che attraversa ormai incontrastata i nostri giorni.

 Le rimostranze tante volte espresse, soprattutto dall’Africa, per l’andamento a senso unico della giustizia penale internazionale trovano una conferma perfetta nell’”affare Blair”. L’incriminazione di Bechir o Gbagbo a confronto del trattamento riservato a Blair, chiamato ovunque per conferenze strapagate, e degli incarichi che gli sono stati conferiti a livello internazionale (addirittura nel Medio Oriente), e che forse svolge ancora, sembra fatta apposta per avallare l’impressione di un sistema che, in tutte le sue espressioni, garantisce all’Occidente un’impunità assoluta.

 Naturalmente Blair non fu mai escluso dal G7 o G8 e quando i disastri degli “errori” commessi in Iraq stavano ancora bruciando si improvvisò, con l’aiuto di Bono, benefattore dell’Africa.

Il costo dei privilegi concessi a Blair, come a Bush, ma anche ai capi di stato e di governo che hanno condotto la guerra contro la Serbia in Kosovo e che hanno via via dato vita a tanti interventi militari con o senza Onu in Asia e Africa, “terre vacanti” come ai tempi del colonialismo reale, si fa sentire pesantemente in tutte le crisi. La pax americana dei nostri giorni ricorda la pax britannica all’epoca della regina Vittoria: più di una guerra all’anno secondo la storia dell’imperialismo inglese di fine Ottocento. scritta da Niall Ferguson.

Di sicuro, quando l’anno prossimo l’Europa celebrerà in Campidoglio i 60 anni dei Trattati di Roma, il tema principale sarà la pace che l’unità dell’Europa ha assicurato. L’autoreferenzialità dell’Europa in un’epoca che si vorrebbe caratterizzata dalla globalizzazione nasconde una forma implicita di esclusività che è di per sé una causa di tensione. Che la sfida all’Occidente sia condotta da movimenti spesso di pura distruzione e al servizio di cause inaccettabili è un prodotto dei tempi. Anche nei nostri paesi la “protesta” degli ultimi o dei penultimi assume l’aspetto dell’”antipolitica”. Si deve andare ben oltre le degenerazioni dell’integralismo religioso o identitario per spiegare le forme che ha assunto il “populismo” dei “dannati della terra”.

Rabindranath Tagore, in un ciclo di conferenze pubblicato nel 1917 con il titolo Nationalism, aveva bollato la nazione come un ricettacolo di potere angusto e spietato, tendente a generare conformismo, e si augurava per l’India una fuoriuscita dalle concezioni basate su razza, etnia o religione. Se la coscienza nazionale non si trasformerà in coscienza sociale, scriveva Fanon, non ci sarà nessun riscatto.

Le contraddizioni che inceppano le sorti della storia impersonata dall’Europa portatrice oltremare di modernità e in ultima analisi di liberta ai popoli arabi, asiatici e africani recalcitranti, sono le stesse a cui Edward Said imputa la perdurante sottomissione dell’Oriente e in genere dei colonizzati all’impero reale o virtuale che detta le sue condizioni con la forza. La tragedia della resistenza del Sud e nel Sud contro il colonialismo e le altre forme di subordinazione, anche di quella che si presenta come nazionalista, è che «essa debba lavorare, almeno fino a un certo punto, per recuperare forme già stabilite, o quanto meno influenzate o infiltrate dalla cultura dell’impero».

La transizione post-coloniale e post-autoritaria nel sistema globale del Terzo mondo, esteso per l’occasione ai Balcani e al Caucaso, è inquinata dall’asimmetria coloniale. Colonizzato significa oggi essere cose potenzialmente anche molto diverse, in posti diversi e in epoche diverse, ma sempre inferiori.

Il mondo post-coloniale è un mondo dopo il colonialismo ma non senza il colonialismo.

Una delle ossessioni del colonialismo e in genere dell’Occidente nei suoi rapporti con le “aree esterne”– lo sanno bene gli storici indiani e dell’India – è la pretesa incapacità degli “indigeni” di organizzare la propria sovranità e di affrontare i problemi di stabilità o di sviluppo senza un contributo dal Centro. È così che i diritti dei popoli a regime illiberale, Kant avrebbe detto non repubblicani, sono alla mercé della “grande politica”.

Nel clima del post-bipolarismo, al posto del comunismo e della rivoluzione, come nemico dell’Occidente è subentrato il “terrorismo”, per il quale non può valere nessuna comprensione come in fondo poteva accadere per il marxismo o i movimenti di liberazione.

È essenziale (e in un certo senso auspicabile) per il sistema ideologico occidentale che si crei un abisso, anche di moralità, fra l’Occidente civilizzato e quanti per qualsiasi ragione non riescono ad apprezzare l’impegno dell’Occidente. Si è fatta ancora più insistita così la pretesa che solo l’azione, ormai pressoché puramente militare, di una o più potenze occidentali, può tirar fuori gli ex-sudditi degli imperi europei – senza differenze fra Iraq, Libia o Bangladesh – dall’arretratezza e dal pericolo per sé e per gli altri.

Sorgente: IRAQ. Il mondo post-coloniale e la commissione Chilcot

Dangerous Maneuvers: What’s Behind NATO Military Buildup in Black Sea

The NATO buildup in the Black Sea is part of the alliance’s strategy to expand its military presence along Russia’s borders. The move would destabilize the situation in the region, analysts say.

Sorgente: Dangerous Maneuvers: What’s Behind NATO Military Buildup in Black Sea

‘Big Mistake’: Germany Leads NATO Games Near Russia 75 Years After Nazis

The country’s ex-Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder blasted the Merkel administration for the threatening provocation that risks sparking a new Cold War or worse.

On Saturday, former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder called the build-up along the Russian border during the summer of hostilities a “serious mistake” only days after the country’s forces took the lead in NATO’s Anaconda-2016 war games on the 75th anniversary of the German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941.

The Anaconda War Games, billed as a response to “Russian aggression” by the United States and Allied Forces involves over 30,000 NATO troops in Poland and follows several rounds of war games along Russia’s border in recent months. The provocative wargames also constitute the single largest movement of foreign troops within Poland’s borders since World War II.

Last year, when American think-tanks first started to beat the drums of a new Cold War saying Russia may have designs on invading NATO countries, President Vladimir Putin attempted to dispel these concerns saying, “I think that only an insane person and only in a dream can imagine that Russia would suddenly attack NATO.”

The Obama administration appears to have indulged in the fantasy by increasing US defense appropriations along Russia’s border by fourfold to repel a prospective attack from Russian forces. More concerning, they have brought the rest of NATO’s membership along for the ride with Poland expected to call for permanent troops to be situated along their border and with a missile defense shield established in Romania and a new one under construction in Poland.

The former German Chancellor remains concerned to see that the beleaguered Merkel government, which recent polling shows carries less than a 25 percent approval rating, also fancies itself part of the new Cold War fantasy.

“Overall, the EU needs Russia and Turkey in terms of security policy,” said Schroeder blasting the government for outlandishly taking part of it the massive military buildup along Russia’s border on the anniversary of the Nazi invasion.

The Russian government has responded by developing the Yu-74 ultra-maneuverable hypersonic glide vehicle which military analysts confirm has the capacity to penetrate any missile defense system and has also looked to beat back US and NATO threats from the Baltic region with a series of “buzzing” incidents — flying fighter jets next to American battleships.

The Kremlin remains steadfastly opposed to being baited into massively increasing defense appropriations to ward off a threat that should not exist and continues to responsibly explore international avenues of diplomacy against the American and German-led provocations.

Sorgente: ‘Big Mistake’: Germany Leads NATO Games Near Russia 75 Years After Nazis

L’Argentina scarica l’opposizione venezuelana. Dopo la sconfitta all’OSA gli Usa preparano la “Freedom-2”

Il 31 maggio, dopo l’intervento del Segretario Generale dell’OSA (1), Luis Almagro, l’opposizione venezuelana dichiarava che il governo del presidente Maduro doveva essere sostituito da “un governo di transizione”. Passate 48 ore, durante le quali Luis Almagro è stato criticato nel mondo intero, il quadro politico è totalmente cambiato.

L’Argentina ha bocciato la relazione di Almagro, il presidente del Consiglio Permanente dell’OSA ha cestinato il documento dell’opposizione con un categorico “no necesariamente sirve”, mentre le eccellenze della Casa Bianca, in preda ad una crisi isterica puntavano al tutto per tutto con la “Freedom 2”.

Giovedì sera, 2 di giugno, Henry Ramos Allup, il presidente del Parlamento venezuelano e capo indiscusso della coalizione di opposizione MUD (2), alla presenza dei corrispondenti esteri apostrofava con rabbia e volgarità il governo argentino di Maurizio Macri per aver scaricato l’opposizione venezuelana, dopo che il presidente del Consiglio Permanente dell’OSA, l’ambasciatore argentino Juan José Arcuri, aveva sconfessato l’intervento del Segretario Generale dell’OSA, Luis Almagro, che con una relazione riproponeva il 31 maggio il dossier del “Foro Penal Venezolano” – un gruppo di pressione creato e controllato da Freedom House (3).

Per l’opposizione venezuelana e, soprattutto per la Casa Bianca, la “reviravuelta” dell’ambasciatore argentino Juan José Arcuri è stata un brutto colpo, che in meno di 48 ore ha annullato il successo dell’operazione di sovversione istituzionale denominata “Freedom”, organizzata con molta pazienza dalla CIA e messa in campo dall’ambasciatore degli USA nell’OSA, Michael Fitzpatric.

Purtroppo, nonostante lo smacco, l’ambasciatore Michael Fitzpatric mandava una “velina” al “Washington Post” e al “Los Angeles Times”, in cui era riaffermata la necessità di continuare l’operazione “Freedom” attraverso il piano B “Freedom-2”, proprio come era stata pianificata dall’ex-comandante del South Atlantic Command John Kelly, e poi attualizzata dall’ammiraglio Kurt Tidd. Infatti, prevedendo il successo del Segretario Generale dell’OSA, Luis Almagro, nella seduta del 31 maggio – a metà marzo l’ammiraglio Kurt Tidd aveva ordinato la mobilitazione preventiva della “Task Force Bravo”, nella base di Palmerola, a Comayaguas, in Honduras e quella dei reparti speciali della “Joint Interagency Task Force South Jafts” localizzati nelle basi di Rainha Beatriz (isola di Aruba), Hato Rey (isola di Curaçao) e in tutte le 6 basi FOL (Operazione Avanzate) che gli USA hanno in Colombia (Arauca, Florencia, Larandia, Leticia, Puerto Leguizamo e Tre Esquinas).

Nello stesso tempo, l’ammiraglio Kurt Tidd richiedeva anche l’eventuale trasferimento del Primo Battaglione 228 del reggimento aereo verso la base di Hato Rey, nell’isola di Curaçao che, tuttora, è un dominio olandese e quindi soggetto all’autorità militare della NATO. In questa base, che è poco distante dall’aeroporto internazionale della capitale, Willemstad, dovrebbero aver sostato i 18 aerei incursori RC-135 Combat, i 30 elicotteri UH-60 Blackhawak e i tradizionali CH-47 per il trasporto di truppe e della logistica militare.

Da ricordare che la base di Hato Rey , nell’isola di Curaçao, dista solo un centinaio di chilometri da Maracaibo, che oltre ad essere la seconda città del Venezuela, capitale dello stato di Zulia è, anche, il cuore dell’industria petrolifera del paese (4). Per questo, sfruttando il ruolo dell’Olanda nella NATO, l’uso della base di Hato Rey e “la collaborazione” dei militari olandesi è d’importanza strategica per garantire il funzionamento della “CME”. Vale a dire le “contromisure d’intercettazione elettronica”, con cui è possibile decifrare tutte le comunicazioni venezuelane militari e quelle considerate “confidenziali”, oltre a poter provocare il “caos nelle reti di comunicazione radio, telefoniche e internet” del Venezuela e, quindi riuscire a isolare i comandi delle Forze Armate di Caracas.

Queste informazioni, pubblicate oggi su quasi tutti i siti e giornali che si occupano di Venezuela, smentiscono apertamente la “grande stampa” statunitense e soprattutto quella spagnola, confermando quello che il presidente Nicolas Maduro e lo Stato Maggiore delle Forze Armate Bolivariane avevano detto a partire del 15 marzo denunciando “…la preparazione di un piano eversivo che si doveva concludere con l’intervento di unità degli Stati Uniti…”. E’ opportuno ricordare che autorevoli giornali come il The New York Times, il Wall Street Jornal ed El Pais come pure le televisioni CNN, FOX, BBC e quelle dei gruppi mediatici News Corporation di Rupert Murdoch e AOL Time Warner nei suoi editoriali dicevano che “…Il presidente Maduro aveva inventato la storia dell’intervento straniero per giustificare la realizzazione di un auto-golpe in Venezuela!”.

Oggi, invece, tutti sanno che l’operazione “Freedom” era e continua ad essere un progetto che giustifica l’intervento militare delle unità del South Atlantic Command per “…riordinare la società venezuelana dopo l’implosione della dittatura chavista!”.

Un’operazione che fa ricordare il blocco contro Cuba e le invasioni di Granada e poi di Haiti e che, oggi – nonostante sia stato smascherata dai giornali statunitensi -, a causa dell’instabilità nel Brasile e in funzione dello scontro elettorale tra Donald Trump e Hillary Clinton, ambedue nemici di sangue del governo chavista, continua inalterata con il suo piano B, “Freedom-2”, insistendo nella “strategia di accerchiamento e asfissia del governo bolivariano”.

Freedom – 2: la fiction e la realtà

Il lavoro di talpa dell’ambasciatore statunitense nell’OSA, Michael Fitzpatrick e quello del Segretario Generale dell’OSA, l’uruguaiano Luis Almagro, – considerato dalla diplomazia cinese un “tipo sospetto”, quando era ambasciatore dell’Uruguay a Pechino – oggi sembra una fiction fantapolitica, costruita nello stesso tempo in cui le antenne della CIA orchestravano in Brasile “l’impeachment” golpista contro la presidente Dilma Rousseff.

Infatti, il colpo di stato istituzionale in Brasile è servito per rompere l’asse geo-strategico che legava il paese di Lula al Venezuela bolivariano. Da ricordare che, il 2 dicembre del 2002, quando gli oligarchi venezuelani, dopo essersi appropriati della PDVSA e aver sabotato la centrale elettronica della rete di oleodotti, con la conseguente paralisi della distribuzione urbana dei prodotti raffinati (gas, benzina e nafta), proclamavano il “Grande Paro Petrolifero” chiedendo a Chavez di rinunciare. Fu, appunto il Brasile che salvò Chavez e il governo bolivariano con l’invio, durante una settimana, di una ventina di super-petroliere cariche di benzina, gas e nafta.

Di conseguenza, il rischio di un’esplosione popolare in Brasile, dove è in preparazione uno sciopero generale contro il golpe di Temer e contro l’ingerenza degli Stati Uniti e la possibile rivolta popolare in Venezuela contro i settori ricchi della società e il possibile intervento armato degli Stati Uniti, hanno determinato l’opportuna “reviravuelta” del governo di destra di Maurizio Macri.

A questo proposito bisogna ricordare che subito dopo la sua elezione, Maurizio Macri aveva raffreddato tutti i rapporti con il governo bolivariano, al punto di oscurare il segnale satellitare di Telesur, minacciando anche l’esclusione del Venezuela dal Mercosur. Da parte sua, la ministra degli esteri, Susanna Malcorra, pochi giorni prima di assumere l’incarico s’incontrava a Caracas con Diosdado Cabello per proporre un eventuale accordo con l’opposizione. Tanto che Diosdado Cabello, pubblicamente qualificò la ministra argentina come “…la personificazione fisica della CIA”.

Subito dopo rappresentanti del MUD, tra cui lo stesso Henry Ramos Allup, intrecciavano relazioni così forti con la presidenza e il ministro degli esteri dell’Argentina che molti politologi, tra i quali Leopoldo Puchi e Maryclén Stelling ammettevano che “…il ritorno degli USA in America Latina passa per il rafforzamento del governo di Maurizio Macri e della sua sfera di influenze nel continente, vista la situazione confusa del Brasile…”

Quindi per quali motivi l’ambasciatore argentino Juan José Arcuri, presidente del Consiglio Permanente dell’OSA, rigettava la fiction dell’ambasciatore statunitense nell’OSA, Michael Fitzpatrick? Perché il presidente argentino, Maurizio Macri ha trasgredito l’ordine imperiale di Barack Obama? Perché il ministro degli esteri argentino, Susanna Malcorra, ha scaricato l’opposizione venezuelana, tanto osannata fino al 31 maggio?

Quello che è certo è che le ultime grandi manifestazioni realizzate dalla CTA e dalla CGT a Buenos Aires, Cordoba e Rosario, hanno dimostrato che il governo Macri continua in bilico tra governabilità e instabilità, considerando che il rischio di una ribellione popolare guidata dai peronisti è sempre presente. Per questo la ministra degli esteri, Susanna Malcorra, non ha voluto correre rischi ed ha ordinato all’ambasciatore argentino Juan José Arcuri, presidente del Consiglio Permanente dell’OSA, di rigettare la “fiction” dell’ambasciatore statunitense nell’OSA, Michael Fitzpatrick.

D’altra parte erano le stesse “eccellenze” della CIA che, dopo il “Flop” del 2 giugno nell’OSA, dicevano in anteprima il rischio di una possibile ribellione popolare in Venezuela contro il settore privato che stava affamando il popolo. Nello stesso tempo le “eccellenze” della Casa Bianca criticavano le eterne divisioni dell’opposizione e si lamentavano per la quasi incomunicabilità tra i tre maggiori partiti oppositori (5).

Da segnalare che le rivelazioni sui legami dei differenti capi dell’opposizione con le attività dei gruppi mafiosi, dediti all’usura, al contrabbando e soprattutto alla speculazione sui prezzi dei generi di prima necessità e dei medicinali hanno sempre più allontanato dall’opposizione quei i settori popolari che nel passato mese di gennaio votarono per i candidati del MUD. Un sentimento che si è rafforzato quando le autorità e lo stesso presidente Maduro hanno denunciato la scoperta di magazzini strapieni di generi alimentari e di medicinali, che poi erano rivenduti a prezzi di usura in qualsiasi negozio privato meno che nei supermercati. Per esempio, secondo la giornalista Concepcion Barrero in una officina dell’Avenida Urdaneta, dove si riparano moto o automobili di lusso, i “Bachaqueros” avevano organizzato un posto di vendita per rivendere decine di prodotti “introvabili”, come per esempio dal latte in polvere, allo zucchero, dai pannolini infantili, agli antibiotici etc.

E’ evidente che i “Bachaqueros” sono un fenomeno di mafia locale che sfrutta la situazione di crisi per arricchirsi con la speculazione. Però è anche vero che questi “Bachaqueros” sono i tentacoli di un capitalismo arrogante – asservito alle multinazionali – che per anni ha truffato il governo bolivariano e che adesso si arricchisce con il “desabastecimiento”. Una classe di impresari, che pur sapendo di essere incapace di governare un paese come il Venezuela è altrettanto incapace di mobilitare in termini politici il popolo venezuelano contro il governo bolivariano. Una classe che, a tutti i costi, vuole annullare l’immagine e l’ideologia del chavismo spingendo il paese sempre più nel caos.

Un contesto complesso e compromettente che non è sfuggito al ministro degli esteri argentino, Susanna Malcorra, che ha subito appoggiato la proposta del presidente di UNASUR, Ernesto Samper secondo cui l’opposizione dovrebbe: “…riaprire il dialogo con il governo di Nicolas Maduro per risolvere i gravi problemi economici determinati negli ultimi mesi!”.

Il fenomeno del “desabastecimiento” e la complicità con l’opposizione

Un errore del chavismo è stato quello di credere che gli oligarchi dell’industria privata, della distribuzione commerciale, del sistema bancario e i rappresentanti delle multinazionali avrebbero rispettato la democrazia e la Costituzione bolivariana, poiché cittadini venezuelani. Cioè un grande patriota come Chavez non poteva immaginare che gli oligarchi, pur di arricchirsi, arrivassero al punto di tradire la patria venezuelana. Per questo il governo, in molti casi, ha finanziato i servizi eseguiti dalle imprese private così come gli introiti del petrolio erano usati per realizzare le riforme sociali e le infrastrutture per modernizzare il paese. L’industria privata non è stata mai pregiudicata dal chavismo e tantomeno il governo ha esercitato un controllo repressivo sul settore commerciale privato.

Comunque la ripetizione dei casi di corruzione obbligò il governo Chavez a essere più vigile e per questo nel 2011 cominciò a sospettare che alcuni settori dell’industria privata stessero truffando il governo. Però, l’euforia del prezzo del barile del petrolio salito fino a 120 dollari, minimizzò questi dubbi, poiché prevalse la certezza che si trattava di situazioni particolari e non di un progetto politico gestito dagli oligarchi della Federcamera (6).

In realtà, la truffa diventò progetto politico, subito dopo la quarta vittoria consecutiva di Chavez nelle elezioni presidenziali del 2012, quando il comandante, a causa del tumore, dovette ritirarsi gradualmente dalla scena politica, per poi morire nel 2013. Un periodo nel quale l’opposizione riprese forza con Henrique Capriles Randoski, governatore dello stato di Miranda fin dal 2008, Leopoldo Lopez, leader del partito “Voluntad Popular” e Henry Ramos Allup, a capo della vecchia ” Acciòn Democratica”.

Fu appunto nel 2012 che gli oligarchi dell’industria decisero di ridurre gradualmente la produzione, che però nel settore di paste alimentari – egemonizzato dalla multinazionale Cargill e dalle industrie venezuelane Empresas Alimentares Polar, Pastas Sindoni e Mary – soffrirà una immediata riduzione del 60%. Per questo, il governo dovette autorizzare un aumento di 6 miliardi di dollari nelle importazioni di generi di prima necessità che, nel 2012, passarono da 33 a 39 miliardi di dollari. Da non dimenticare che le imprese private legate alle importazioni erano tutte di proprietà della multinazionale Cargil, e dei gruppi venezuelani Empresas Alimentares Polar, Pastas Sindoni e Mary.

Quindi, e non per casualità, è nel 2012 che cominciano i primi problemi di “desabastecimiento”, dei prodotti alimentari, di quelli igienici e dei medicinali. Prodotti che le grandi imprese di distribuzione – come per esempio la Polar che oltre a produrre controlla il 31% della distribuzione dei generi alimentari – cominciano a nasconderli in magazzini lontani dalle città o addirittura lungo la frontiera colombiana associandosi ai narcos.

La scomparsa dei medicinali e dei prodotti per gli ospedali diventò drammatica nel 2013, quando le multinazionali Pfizer, Merck, Bayer, Abbot e Novartis pur avendo ricevuto dal governo il pagamento di 434 milioni di dollari, consegnarono alle farmacie e agli ospedali soltanto il 50,8% delle importazioni fatturate, il che equivale a una truffa di 213 milioni di dollari, realizzata dalle suddette imprese. Nel 2014, il governo Maduro, preoccupato con la mancanza di medicinali nelle farmacie e negli ospedali, decise di risolvere in maniera definitiva il “desabastecimiento” pagando alle imprese Pfizer, Merck, Bayer, Abbot e Novartis un totale di 500 milioni di dollari. Purtroppo il risultato fu lo stesso: il 60% dei medicinali acquistati non arrivavano nelle farmacie e negli ospedali!

Purtroppo nell’Encuesta de Condiciones de Vida del 2015, realizzata dall’Università Cattolica Andrés Bello, nella relazione della Red Defendamos la Epidemologia Nacional, nei dossier prodotti dal Foro Penal Venezolano, dal Observatorio Venezolano de Conflitividad Social e dalla Relatoria Especial para la Liberdad de Expresion del la CIDH (7) non si dice che queste imprese in soli due anni hanno truffato il governo per un valore di quasi 500 milioni di dollari, provocando negli ospedali decine e decine di decessi a causa della mancanza di medicine, soprattutto quelle che limitano la moltiplicazione delle cellule tumorali maligne nei bambini e negli anziani.

La mafia dei “Bachaqueros”

Pochi giorni dopo la scoperta nello stato di Aragua, nel mese di aprile, di immensi magazzini ripieni di medicinali e di prodotti di ogni tipo per gli ospedali – dai bisturi alle sedie a rotelle – il sindaco di uno dei municipi metropolitani di Caracas (8), Jorge Rodríguez, denunciava l’esistenza di una rete mafiosa, denominata dal popolo “Bachaqueros”.

Una rete costituita da impensabili punti vendita dove si esercita alla luce del giorno la vendita di tutti quei generi di prima necessità che per i media sono introvabili. La denuncia di Jorge Rodríguez, in realtà, ha aperto un nuovo capitolo sulla false tesi diffuse dai media, secondo cui la scarsità dei prodotti sarebbe stata causata dalla burocrazia e dall’incapacità delle cooperative di gestire le reti di distribuzione. In realtà, i gruppi mafiosi dei Bachaqueros, dopo aver ricevuto dalle industrie i prodotti, li nascondono all’interno del paese, per poi organizzare la vendita selettiva degli stessi con prezzi aumentati fino al 1000%. In questo modo i gruppi mafiosi hanno usato il progetto politico del “desabastecimiento” per moltiplicare i propri guadagni.

Infatti, Jorge Rodríguez spiega che tutti i generi alimentari e quelli di prima necessità nascosti e poi ridistribuiti dai Bachaqueros sono in vendita nelle ferramenta, nelle tintorie, nelle cartolerie, nelle officine, nei bar, nei ristoranti, cioè in tutti i tipi di negozi commerciali che non siano supermercati. Lì si trova di tutto, anche i medicinali, ma logicamente a prezzi di usura o in dollari. Per questo, il sindaco del municipio Libertador ricorda che “…Oggi, dopo due anni e mezzo di desabastecimiento, i gruppi mafiosi che in passato erano associati ai narcos colombiani per smerciare le bustine di cocaina nelle strade di Caracas, nelle spiagge di Maracaibo e nelle città di Valencia, Cumana, Maturin, Barquisimeto, Maracay e Petare, adesso controllano tutta la distribuzione clandestina dei generi di prima necessità. Però il “The New York Times” e lo spagnolo “El Pais” continuano a dire che c’è il desabastecimiento perché il governo ha nazionalizzato le fabbriche. Purtroppo l’errore che abbiamo fatto è stato proprio quello di non averle nazionalizzate come dicono!”.

Fino a quando durerà la pazienza dei chavisti?

Subito dopo il fallito tentativo di imporre al Venezuela l’articolo 20 della Carta Democratica dell’OSA, alcuni analisti della CIA confessavano ai giornalisti del “Washington Post” e del “Los Angeles Post” che, adesso, quello che più temevano era una ribellione generalizzata da parte delle vittime del “desabastecimiento”, non contro il governo Maduro, ma soprattutto contro chi aveva appoggiato, provocato e ridotto alla fame il popolo con il sabotaggio dell’economia, cioè gli impresari e la parte ricca della società venezuelana.

Nello stesso tempo il direttore della CIA, John O Brennan, aveva inviato alla Casa Bianca una relazione in cui si avvisava che: a) le relazioni all’interno dei gruppi dell’opposizione e dello stesso MUD nell’Assemblea Nazionale erano sempre più confuse e settarie, in seguito allo sganciamento del governo Macri e a causa delle rivelazioni sul piano “Freedom”; b) l’opposizione non è mai riuscita a bloccare con le sue manifestazioni la capitale, Caracas, soprattutto dopo il fallito tentativo di sollevazione popolare annunciato, in aprile, dal governatore di Miranda, Henrique Capriles Randoski; c) l’arresto dei 187 “guarimbas” e la confessione di essere stati pagati dal cassiere di “Voluntad Popular”, il partito di Leopoldo Lopez, anche lui in prigione, ha ridotto al minimo la possibilità di provocare la Polizia e, soprattutto le Forze Armate Bolivariane con fenomeni di guerriglia urbana: d) la dichiarazione del generale Cliver Alcalà, capo della REDIG (Rete Strategica di Difesa Integrale Guayana) secondo cui l’attuale ricerca dal parte del governo Maduro di un dialogo e di una pacificazione, in realtà era utilizzata dall’opposizione e dagli USA per promuovere sempre più il caos nel paese, era un avviso estremamente pericoloso per la futura sopravvivenza dell’opposizione; e) la relazione si concludeva con un’emblematica constatazione in base alla quale, John O Brennan sottolineava: “…Sappiamo che le Forze Armate Bolivariane non interverranno mai contro eventuali rivolte popolari dirette per riappropriarsi dei generi alimentari nascosti nei negozi dei Bachaqueros, per cui fino a quando gli abitanti dei Barrios e dei “Ranchos” più poveri di Caracas accetteranno in silenzio gli effetti del “desabastecimiento”?

Questa è una domanda a cui nessun analista del “Center for Intelligence George Bush” a Langley o nella Casa Bianca vuole o può rispondere, anche perché sanno che un “estalido popular”( 9) a Caracas può determinare altri “estalidos” con gravi ripercussioni soprattutto in Brasile, in Argentina, in Colombia e in Paraguay!

*Achille Lollo è giornalista di “Contropiano”, corrispondente in Italia di di “Brasil de Fato”, articolista del giornale “Correio da Cidadania” e editor del programma TV “Contrappunto Internazionale”. Collabora con la rivista “Nuestra America”.

Note:

(1) OSA, in italiano significa Organizzazione degli Stati Americani che è formata da 34 paesi, tra cui gli Stati Uniti. La sede della Segreteria Generale e del Consiglio Permanente è in Washington.

(2) MUD (Mesa de la Unidad Democratica – Tavolo dell’Unità democratica) fu creato nel 2008, ristrutturato nel 2009 con la partecipazione di 18 partiti dell’opposizione, a cui si sommano altri 15 gruppi oppositori anti-chavisti, che però non hanno accettato allinearsi con i partiti della destra di Henrique Capriles Radonski, Leopoldo Lopez e Henry Ramos Allup. Nel 30 luglio 2014 ci fu un’altra divisione con l’abbandono di Ramon Guillermo Aveledo dalla Segreteria Esecutiva del movimento.

(3) Freedom House è un’organizzazione (ufficialmente) non governativa, creata nel 1941 per affermare “la leadership americana negli affari internazionali che è essenziale per la causa dei diritti umani e della libertà“. Per questo 90% dei suoi finanziamenti provengono dal Dipartimento di Stato e il 10% dalle fondazioni statunitensi: Bradley , Smith Richardson Foundation, Nicholas B. Ottaway Foundation, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, John S. & James L., Knight Foundation e la John Hurford Foundation.

(4) La grande produzione di gas e petrolio (3,5 milioni di barili al giorno) a Maracaibo spinse la PDVSA a costruire la mega-raffineria di El Tablazo, dove oltre all’etanolo, al propano e al butano del gas naturale si producono fertilizzanti, alcool isopropilico ed una intera filiera di materie plastiche, tra cui il polietilene e il poli-vinile cloruro (PVC). C’è pure un’immensa miniera di carbone a cielo aperto. Più di 40% della struttura industriale del Venezuela è concentrata nella provincia di Maracaibo.

(5) L’opposizione è divisa in tre grandi partiti “Primero Justicia” del governatore dello stato di Miranda, Henrique Capriles Radonski, “Voluntad Popular” di Leopoldo Lopez e “Acciòn Democratica” e “Un Nuevo Tiempo” di , Henry Ramos Allup.

(6) Federcamera è l’equivalente venezuelana della Confindustria italiana.

(7) Queste ONGs sono state create in Venezuela con finanziamenti del Dipartimento di Stato e della Freedom House.

(8) Il “Municipio Bolivar Libertador” è uno de cinque municipi del Distretto Metropolitano di Caracas, di cui José Rodríguez è il sindaco .

(9) “Estalido” nel dialetto popolare di Caracas rappresenta l’inizio della rivolta popolare contri i ricchi della città. Infatti Caracas è circondata da due costoni interamente occupati da Barrios popolari e dai Ranchos, cioè le baraccopoli dei più poveri.

6 giugno 2016

Contropiano

“L’Argentina scarica l’opposizione venezuelana. Dopo la sconfitta all’OSA gli Usa preparano la Freedom-2pubblicato il 06-06-2016 in Contropiano, su [http://contropiano.org/news/internazionale-news/2016/06/06/argentina-opposizione-venezuelana-080083] ultimo accesso 07-06-2016.

 

Sorgente: L’Argentina scarica l’opposizione venezuelana. Dopo la sconfitta all’OSA gli Usa preparano la “Freedom-2” «

Thousands of Germans Participate in Anti-Drone Protest Near US Air Base

About 5,000 Germans protested against drone strikes near the US military air base located Germany, local media reported.

BERLIN (Sputnik) — Some 5,000 Germans protested on Saturday near the US military air base located in Ramstein, Germany against drone strikes, local media reported.

Sorgente: Thousands of Germans Participate in Anti-Drone Protest Near US Air Base

In the Face of Russian Warnings, US Says It Will Remain in Black Sea

Russia has warned that the presence of the USS Porter in the Black Sea is a provocation, but the United States says it intends to stay.

The USS Porter, an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, entered the Black Sea last month, sparking criticism from Moscow as being yet another example of the US military encroaching on Russia’s borders.

“American warships do enter the Black Sea now and then. Certainly, this does not meet with [Russia’s] approval and will undoubtedly lead to planning response measures,” said Andrey Kelin, head of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s European Cooperation Department.

“If a decision is made to create a permanent force, of course, it would be destabilizing, because this is not a NATO sea.”

But the US Navy has no intention of leaving the region. Speaking from the USS Mason in the Mediterranean, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus told reporters that the Western presence is necessary to prevent “Russian aggression.”

“We’re going to be there,” he said. “We’re going to deter. That’s the main reason we’re there – to deter potential aggression.”

Referring to the deployment of two US Navy aircraft carriers to the Mediterranean ahead of the NATO Summit in Warsaw next month, Mabus added that the Pentagon plays an important role in maritime security.

“We’ve been in the Mediterranean continuously for 70 years now, since World War II,” he said. “We’ve been keeping the sea lanes open…It’s what we do.”

With its own Black Sea Fleet operating out of Sevastopol, Russia views these maneuvers as the latest example of NATO’s eastward expansion. The alliance plans to station four new battalions in the Baltics and Poland, and has installed a new missile defense system in the region.

Any permanent stationing of a US warship in the waterway would be a violation of the Montreux Convention, which states that countries without a Black Sea coastline cannot keep military ships in the region for more than 21 days.

Sorgente: In the Face of Russian Warnings, US Says It Will Remain in Black Sea

Russia Vows Countermeasures After US Vessel Enters Black Sea

Months after Russian jets responded to the USS Donald Cook in the Baltic, a US destroyer is now testing the waters of the Black Sea.

On Monday, the guided-missile destroyer USS Porter entered the Black Sea to participate in bilateral military exercises as part of Operation Atlantic Resolve.

“The United States continues to demonstrate its commitment to the collective security of our NATO allies and support for our partners in Europe,” reads a statement from the US Navy, adding that the ship’s operations are meant to “enhance maritime security and stability, readiness, and naval capability with our allies and partners.”

The Russian government has criticized the presence of a US warship near its borders as a provocation and has vowed to take necessary countermeasures.

“American warships do enter the Black Sea now and then. Certainly, this does not meet with [Russia’s] approval and will undoubtedly lead to planning response measures,” said Andrey Kelin, head of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s European Cooperation Department.

Kelin also expressed disapproval of the USS Harry S. Truman’s deployment to the Mediterranean, ahead of NATO’s Warsaw summit in July, a move he described as an obvious “show of power.”

“There is nothing special about the movement of US vessels in this case. We know that aircraft carriers are moving the Mediterranean Sea and elsewhere, they have a right to do so, this is freedom of navigation,” he said.

“But in general, this is a definite increase in [Russia-US] relations and all this is done ahead of the NATO summit in Warsaw – this is a demonstration of force.”

The USS Porter is expected to make port calls while operating in the Black Sea.

“We will see how things move forward,” Kelin said. “But overall, we can absolutely not give up on the most important channel of cooperation and dialogue.”

Speaking with radio Zvezda, military expert Viktor Murakhovsky also condemned the presence of American warships near Russia’s borders.

“Permanent deployment of US destroyers in the European theater of war is already a provocation,” he said, noting that there are four other similar US vessels permanently stationed at a Spanish naval base.

In April, the USS Donald Cook sailed near Russian waters in the Baltic Sea, resulting in its interception by a pair of Su-24 bomber jets. US officials described the jets’ maneuvers as “aggressive,” as well as “unsafe and unprofessional.”

Writing about the incident for The American Conservative, political commentator Pat Buchanan observed that “the Russian planes carried no missiles or bombs.” This, he argued, was an indication that their “message [was]: What are the Americans doing here?”

“US warships based in Bahrain confront Iranian subs and missile boats in the Gulf. Yet in each of these regions it is not US vital interests that are threatened, but the interests of allies who will not man-up to their own defense duties, preferring to lay them off on Uncle Sam,” Buchanan said.

“And America is beginning to buckle under the weight of its global obligations.”

Sorgente: Russia Vows Countermeasures After US Vessel Enters Black Sea

US Army major brandishes gun, threatens to kill Muslims attending mosque during Ramadan

Insulting Muslim Americans by leaving bacon at their mosque wasn’t enough for a US Army reserve major. He then brandished a handgun and made death threats, according to the local sheriff’s office in North Carolina.

Sorgente: US Army major brandishes gun, threatens to kill Muslims attending mosque during Ramadan — RT America

J. Steppling: “Hillary è più temibile di Trump perché ama la guerra. E’ una sadica sociopatica”

J. Steppling: Hillary è più temibile di Trump perché ama la guerra. E' una sadica sociopatica

L’AntiDiplomatico intervista il noto drammaturgo statunitense. “La propaganda anti russa è davvero senza respiro. Ed è iniziata, in particolare per opera dei liberal a stella e strisce, grazie alla colonizzazione dei Clintons di Hollywood”.

di Alessandro Bianchi*

John Steppling è un grande drammaturgo e sceneggiatore statunitense. Uno dei fondatori del Padua Hills Playwrights Festival e Rockefeller Fellow, ha vinto nel corso della sua carriere numerosi riconoscimenti, tra cui il PEN-West come miglior sceneggiatore. L’influenza di Steppling, attraverso le sue prime opere Close, The Shaper, and The Dream Coast, è stata enorme per tutta una generazione di commediografi californiani, tra cui Jon Robin Baitz, Marlene Mayer, Kelly Stuart e Michael Sargent. Per una delle sue ultime opere Phantom Luck ha vinto nel 2010 il prestigioso LA Award.

Nel corso della sua carriera si è molto occupato di politica con libertà e coraggio. Doti che in occidente non sono molto comuni. Sono note, in particolare, le sue critiche contro le scelte sanguinarie in politica estera degli Stati Uniti.

Dopo il grande giornalista australiano John Pilger, come AntiDiplomatico abbiamo avuto il privilegio di rivolgere anche a Steppling alcune domande sulla politica internazionale attuale.

L’Intervista.

Partirei da una domanda brutale sulle campagne presidenziali statunitensi. Ma cosa è diventato il suo Paese se come migliore candidato, in quanto meno pericoloso per la sopravvivenza del mondo, offre Donald Trump?

“Beh, la domanda è veramente centrale. Ma io direi che razza di paese è quello che offre Donald Trump e Hillary Clinton, ma anche George Bush o Ronald Reagan o Spiro Agnew o Mitt Romney?  Per non parlare di Bill Clinton, colui che tra cent’anni, se esisterà ancora il genere umano, sarà ricordato come il peggior presidente della storia degli Stati Uniti per aver introdotto il Patriot act, il NAFTA, l’espansione della NATO e aver distrutto lo stato di diritto nel paese. Ha fatto tutto questo con la presunzione di portare avanti il volere di una democrazia liberale. Rispetto a queste scelte di estrema destra intraprese da questo Presidente, Nixon passa come un socialista. Non eleggiamo mai il migliore e più intelligente. Si tratta solo di teatro elettorale”.

In un recente sondaggio oltre il 53% dei cittadini statunitensi si sono dichiarati contrari sia a Hillary Clinton che a Donald Trump. Per quanto tempo nell’immaginario collettivo continueremo a considerare gli Stati Uniti una democrazia? 
“Non credo che negli Stati Uniti ci sia una democrazia funzionante dal 1963. L’anno dove un colpo di stato è intercorso nel paese. Certo, a qualche buon pensante può dar fastidio quest’ultima definizione, chiamatelo come volete, ma l’assassinio di Kennedy non è stato chiaramente opera di Lee Harvey Oswald, ma di una manovra interna allo Stato, probabilmente ordita dai fratelli Dulles e altri neo-colonialisti anti comunisti. Kennedy odiava la CIA. Ha iniziato come un prodotto tipico del suo background, è vero, ma aveva cambiato indirizzo… o perlomeno abbastanza da giustificare la sua fine. Quindi, non penso che gli Stati Uniti siano da allora una democrazia. Alcune elezioni locali contano in modo limitato, ma è tutto qui. In questo contesto, ritengo che fino a quando le masse di cittadini non si ribellino a questo spettacolo triste, nulla cambierà.
Continuare con questa farsa è una prospettiva altamente auto-lesionista. E questo è il motivo per cui lo Stato promuove, tramite i media mainstream, l’elezione come se fosse una corsa tra cavalli o qualunque altro sport. Le persone diventano ossessionate dalle tattiche e non dal senso più profondo della politica”.
Bernie Sanders era realmente il cambiamento che in molti in Europa hanno descritto?

“No”.

Cosa accadrebbe al mondo con una presidenza di Hillary Clinton?
“Beh Hillary mi spaventa molto di più di Trump. E penso di aver già risposto alla domanda. La paura all’interno degli Stati Uniti con Trump è che quest’ultimo seguirà e darà potere al pensiero dei suoi seguaci. Si temono, quindi, aumenti in crimini basati sull’odio e attacchi contro le comunità di immigrati. Non può Trump logicamente deportare 10 milioni di persone o costruire un muro ridicolo, ma dovrà comunque fare qualcosa per soddisfare la rabbia dei suoi seguaci. In politica estera Trump è completamente imprevedibile, probabilmente preferisce e predilige alcune tendenze isolazioniste. Detto questo, la verità è che Trump di politica estera conosce davvero poco e dovrà affidarsi a collaboratori e consiglieri che saranno gli stessi che utilizzerebbe Hillary, che sono gli stessi che ha utilizzato Bush, Bill Clinton… Nulla cambia. I joint chiefs, i ricchi donatori, i falchi intorno al Pentagono e i guerrieri di vecchia data come Kissinger, sono tutti loro che decidono la politica estera statunitense.
Ma io temo di più Hillary perché lei ama la guerra. E’ una sadica sociopatica. E’ così, non sto esagerando. Molto dipenderà poi da chi sceglierà per guidare il Dipartimento di Stato, io ho previsto qualcuno alla Wesley Clark. La Clinton provocherà la Russia e la Cina il più possibile. E, con il fedele alleato Israele, perseguirà con violenza i suoi obiettivi bellici in Medio Oriente”.
Cosa ha provato quando ha visto Obama parlare recentemente ad Hiroshima e non chiedere scusa per quanto fatto dal suo paese, dichiarando poi quasi sarcasticamente – in quanto alla guida della prima potenza atomica del mondo – di auspicare un pianeta senza armi nucleare?
“Nessuna sorpresa. Ma ho provato vergogna per il mio paese”.
L’espansionismo sempre maggiore degli Stati Uniti arriverà ad un punto di rottura e collisione con la Cina? 
“Per rispondere a questa domanda dobbiamo considerare che gli Stati Uniti sono una grande potenza militare ma sono anche un paese in una delicata fase economica. Riescono ad imporre il loro volere al resto del mondo dal punto di vista militare, ma sempre meno dal punto di vista economico. Come gli Usa si comportano con la Cina, è esattamente lo stesso che li ha portati a devastare l’Iraq e la Libia. Sono stupidi e provinciali in molti aspetti. E questo è il motivo per cui sin dai tempi di Dulles hanno pensato di inviare spie da infiltrare nel governo di Mao. Dal tempo del colpo di stato in Iran, gli Stati Uniti non hanno mai dato peso alla storia o alla cultura”.
Anche se è la Nato che sta portando le sue installazioni sempre più a est, in Europa la nostra informazione alimenta un pericolo di una Russia aggressiva. A chi giova alimentare questo sentimento di russofobia?
“La propaganda anti russa è davvero senza respiro. Ed è iniziata, in particolare per opera dei liberal a stella e strisce, grazie alla colonizzazione dei Clintons di Hollywood. Guardate, ad esempio, la serie TV House of Cards: è pura propaganda Clintoniana. Spacey conosce Bill, naturalmente, e lo show runner era un ex operaio nella “mafia” di Hillary. Poi guardate Madam Secretary … un altro esempio di intrattenimento ad uso promozionale dell’agenda Clinton. E Obama è, naturalmente, un boiardo di partito, un funzionario che è stato elevato a Presidente per ragioni di forza maggiore. E ‘stata una mossa brillante. Pensate che, anche dopo la sua misera presidenza, immorale e orribile, è molto amato da molti liberal. I professionisti bianchi adorano Obama e ora accoglieranno Hillary. Il baraccone di Bernie Sanders era, come ha scritto Bruce Dixon, il cane del pastore che doveva portare i liberal di sinistra (pecore) a bordo con Hillary. A quasi nessuno piace Hillary. E’ un terribile candidato”.
Dall’avvento delle cosiddette primavere arabe, iniziate con il noto discorso di Obama all’Università del Cairo del 2009, il Mediterraneo orientale è divenuto una polveriera. Si è trattato di un piano esterno di distruzione pianificata di stati sovrani ostili a Washington, Libia e Siria in particolare, o reale ricerca di democrazia e libertà?
“Penso che sia stato così. Voglio dire, questo è esattamente quello che la classe dominante negli Stati Uniti, stupida, culturalmente ignorante, ha voluto. Ma l’origine di questo metodo che ha portato alla distruzione di paesi sovrani in quell’aerea ha una data precisa: il bombardamento della ex Jugoslavia per l’espansione della Nato e la creazione di un sacco di piccoli stati dipendenti. Hanno distrutto l’ultimo paese nominalmente socialista in Europa con la demonizzazione di Milosevic e i serbi, sostenendo i croati fascisti e il KLA. E poi hanno creato questo feudo protettorato gangster in Kosovo. Perfetto.
La distruzione dell’Ex Jugoslavia è anche il momento in cui la nuova sinistra di marca e flaccida, la sinistra di carriera negli Stati Uniti e nel Regno Unito ha iniziato ad essere complice. Zizek è il peggiore, naturalmente. Mi spiegate perché qualcuno pensa ancora che sia di sinistra? E ‘un razzista dichiarato e cripto-fascista. Ma altri, come Richard Seymour e Zunes, ma, in generale, tutti i pseudo liberal hypster a vita bassa della stampa come VICE sono coloro che hanno servito in blocco il Dipartimento di Stato degli Stati Uniti e lo si può vedere anche in pubblicazioni come Jacobin. C’è da rabbrividire. La loro copertura culturale è imbarazzante. Questo populismo falso che ha infettato la sinistra liberal bianca è dannosa”.
E’ giusto definire oggi Aleppo come la “Stalingrado della Siria” e “il cimitero dei sogni del fascista Erdogan” come ha dichiarato il presidente siriano Assad?
“Beh, non è lontano dal dire il vero. Assad è certamente oggi il principale obiettivo occidentale”.
Che ruolo giocano, secondo lei, le ONG dei diritti umani nel contesto internazionale attuale? 
“Penso che Arundhati Roy abbia espresso la critica più efficace sulle ONG un decennio fa. Sono lì per impedire che movimenti di massa si formino. Ecco a cosa servono. Le “bande degli aiuti” servono a limitare il potenziale per la rivoluzione nei vari paesi. Guardate chi sono le persone che gestiscono Amnesty oggi, persone legate a doppio filo con i raccapriccianti think tank con sede a Washington e gruppi statali di facciata del Dipartimento come Freedom House e simili”.
14 anni fa, falliva il colpo di stato in Venezuela contro il presidente democraticamente eletto Hugo Chavez e iniziava l’uscita degli Stati Uniti dall’America Latina. Poco dopo, gli Usa invasero l’Iraq. Oggi che nel Mediterraneo orientale l’egemonia traballa, Washington utilizza tutte le sue armi note per tornare in America Latina. Ha ragione secondo Lei il Presidente Rafael Correa quando dice che siamo di fronte ad un nuovo Piano Condor nella regione? 
“Ha assolutamente ragione. Gli sforzi di destabilizzazione in Venezuela sono stati tremendi. Ma anche in Ecuador, come in Brasile. La mano di Hillary l’abbiamo vista in Honduras. E abbiamo visto i Clintons ad Haiti. Il disegno è chiaro”.
E se si, considerando anche quanto avvenuto in Brasile, Ecuador e Bolivia, quali tecniche vengono utilizzate oggi?
“Oscar Schemel ha scritto a proposito: “Una delle variabili su cui si basano queste campagne è l’aggravamento dei problemi, l’esagerazione degli stessi,  attraverso una campagna mediatica crescente per generare un clima di ansia. Dopo appena una settimana di code, le persone stavano comprando le candele, oltre al cibo, perché hanno sentito dell’avvicinarsi di un colpo di stato, di saccheggi e di esplosione sociale”.
Questa è la guerra psicologica totale. Il Dipartimento di Stato Usa si infiltra e mistifica la situazione reale. Propaganda al lavoro. E i famosi Op Ed (Editoriali) dei principali quotidiani, la maggior parte dei quali sono di proprietà dell’elite al potere, fanno il resto. Gli Stati Uniti sono i principali responsabili. Ma, secondo voi, come sono diventate ricche le famiglie del Sud America che vogliono un ritorno al feudalesimo? E, che tristezza, vedere servi del neo-colonialismo statunitense come Leopoldo Lopez presi a modello dalla finta sinistra negli Stati Uniti, nel Regno Unito e in Europa. E’ stupefacente. Ma vedete, è così profondo il timore di questi nuovi personaggi in cerca di carriera a sinistra di essere chiamati stalinisti, o essere legati al comunismo reale … che preferiscono essere associati a stridenti reazionari”.
Il futuro del mondo offre al momento due possibili binari: un unilateralismo statunitense, soprattutto in caso di presidenza Clinton, fatto di aree di “libero” scambio imposte in giro per il mondo sul Modello Nafta (il TTIP in Europa ad esempio), con milioni di poveri disperati prodotti e profitti per le multinazionali, e la distruzione pianificata con il caos di tutti i paesi che si ribellano a questa visione stile Libia e Siria; oppure un periodo di multilateralismo, rispetto della sovranità, autodeterminazione dei popoli e di pace se si dovesse rafforzare il progetto alternativo al Washington Consensus dei Brics e l’integrazione regionale dell’America Latina ideata e voluta da Chavez, Castro, Lula e Kirchner. Siamo lontani dalla realtà? E quale delle due visioni prevarrà?
“Non posso fare previsioni, chiaramente. Ma so che quello che l’elite degli Stati Uniti vuole è il dominio globale. Questa è l’idea di fondo che muove operazioni sotto falsa bandiera, la propaganda mediatica e la costante infiltrazione di movimenti di opposizione al fine di neutralizzare ogni possibile reazione. Utilizzano pura propaganda per abbattere chi si oppone. E la guerra economica, chiaramente. Se tutto fallisce, alla fine, bombardano”.

*Si ringrazia per la realizzazione dell’intervista Andre Vltchek

thanks to: l‘Antidiplomatico

Wall Street dietro il Colpo di Stato in Brasile

Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 1 giugno 2016

Il controllo sulla politica monetaria e la riforma macroeconomica è l’obiettivo del colpo di Stato. Gli obiettivi principali di Wall Street sono la Banca Centrale, che domina la politica monetaria nonché le operazioni di cambio, il Ministero delle Finanze e la Banca del Brasile (Banco do Brasil). A nome di Wall Street e del “consenso di Washington”, il “governo” ad interim post-golpe di Michel Temer ha nominato un ex-amministratore delegato di Wall Street (con cittadinanza statunitense) a capo del Ministero delle Finanze. Henrique de Campos Meirelles, ex-presidente della FleetBoston Financial Global Banking (1999-2002) ed ex-capo della Banca centrale sotto la presidenza di Lula è stato nominato ministro delle Finanze il 12 maggio. Il nuovo presidente della Banca Centrale del Brasile, Ilan Goldfajn (Goldfein) è stato capo economista della Itaú, la maggiore banca privata del Brasile. Goldfajn ha stretti legami con FMI e Banca Mondiale, ed è amico intimo finanziario di Meirelles.

Cenni storici
Il sistema monetario brasiliano del real è fortemente dollarizzato. Le operazioni di debito interno portano ad un aumento del debito estero. Wall Street è intenta mantenere sul Brasile una camicia di forza monetaria. Dal governo di Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Wall Street ha esercitato il controllo sugli elementi economici chiave, come Ministero delle Finanze, Banca del Brasile e Banca centrale. Sotto i governi di Fernando Henrique Cardoso e Luis Ignacio da Silva (Lula), la nomina del governatore della Banca Centrale venne approvata dal Wall Street.

Cardoso, Lula, Temer nominati per conto di Wall Street
Arminio Fraga: presidente della Banca Centrale (4 Marzo 1999 – 1 gennaio 2003) manager degli hedge fund e socio di George Soros nel Quantum Fund di New York, dalla doppia cittadinanza Brasile-Stati Uniti.
Henrique de Campos Meirelles, Presidente della Banca centrale, (1 gennaio 2003-1 gennaio 2011). Doppia cittadinanza Brasile-Stati Uniti. Presidente e CEO della Boston Bank (1996-1999) e Presidente della FleetBoston Financial Global Banking (1999-2002). Nel 2004, FleetBoston si fuse con Bank America. Prima della fusione FleetBoston era la settima banca negli Stati Uniti. Bank America è attualmente la seconda banca degli Stati Uniti. Dopo essere stato licenziato da Dilma nel 2010, Meirelles ritorna venendo nominato ministro delle Finanze dal “presidente ad interim” Michel Temer.
Ilan Goldfajn, capo economista della Itaú, la maggiore banca privata del Brasile. Goldfajn è stato nominato dal “governo” ad interim di Michel Temer a capo della Banca centrale (16 maggio 2016). Doppia cittadinanza Israele-Brasile. Goldfajn aveva precedentemente lavorato presso la Banca centrale di Arminio Fraga ed Henrique Mereilles. Ha stretti legami personali col Prof. Stanley Fischer, attualmente vicepresidente della Federal Reserve. Inutile dire che la nomina di Golfajn alla Banca centrale è stata approvata da FMI, Tesoro degli Stati Uniti, Wall Street e Federal Reserve. Va notato che Stanley Fischer aveva già ricoperto la carica di di vicedirettore generale del Fondo monetario internazionale e di Governatore della Banca centrale d’Israele. Sia Fischer che Goldfajn sono cittadini israeliani, con legami con la lobby pro-Israele.

Incaricato da Dilma Rousseff alla Banca centrale, non approvato da Wall Street
Alexandre Tombini Antônio, Governatore della Banca Centrale (2011-2016), funzionario di carriera presso il Ministero delle Finanze. Cittadinanza: Brasile.

Sfondo storico
All’inizio del 1999, sulla scia immediata dell’attacco speculativo contro la valuta nazionale brasiliana (Real), il presidente della Banca centrale, Professor Francisco Lopez (nominato il 13 gennaio 1999, Mercoledì Nero) fu licenziato e sostituito da Arminio Fraga, cittadino degli Stati Uniti e dipendente del Quantum Fund di George Soros a New York.

“La volpe nominata a guardia del pollaio”.
Più concretamente, gli speculatori di Wall Street venivano incaricati della politica monetaria del Brasile. Sotto Lula, Henrique de Campos Meirelles è stato nominato Presidente della Banca Centrale del Brasile. Fu in precedenza presidente e CEO di una delle più grandi istituzioni finanziarie di Wall Street. FleetBoston era il secondo maggiore creditore del Brasile, dopo Citigroup. A dire il vero, era in conflitto di interessi. La nomina fu concordata prima dell’adesione di Lula alla presidenza. Henrique Meirelles era un convinto sostenitore del controverso Piano Cavallo argentino degli anni ’90: un “piano di stabilizzazione” di Wall Street che rase al suolo l’Argentina economicamente e socialmente. La struttura essenziale del Piano Cavallo argentino fu replicata in Brasile nell’ambito del Piano Real, applicando una moneta nazionale convertibile dollarizzata (Real). Ciò che tale piano implicava è che il debito interno diveniva debito estero denominato in dollari. Al momento dell’adesione di Dilma alla presidenza nel 2011, a Meirielles non fu rinnovata la presidenza della Banca centrale.

La sovranità nella politica monetaria
Il ministro delle Finanze Mereilles del “governo” ad interim supporta la cosiddetta “indipendenza della Banca centrale”. L’applicazione di tale falso concetto implica che il governo non dovrebbe intervenire nelle decisioni della banca centrale. Ma non ci sono restrizioni alle “volpi di Wall Street”. La questione della sovranità nella politica monetaria è cruciale. L’obiettivo del colpo di Stato è negare la sovranità del Brasile nella formulazione della politica macroeconomica.

Le volpi di Wall Street
Sotto Dilma, la “tradizionale” scelta di una “volpe di Wall Street” fu abbandonata con la nomina di Alexandre Tombini Antônio, funzionario governativo di carriera che guidò la Banca Centrale del Brasile dal 2011 al maggio 2016. Al momento dell’adesione di Michel Temer a “presidente ad interim”, Henrique de Campos Meirelles veniva nominato a capo del Ministero delle Finanze. A sua volta, Meirelles ha nominato i suoi compari a capo della Banca centrale e del Banco do Brasil. Meirelles viene descritto dai media statunitensi come “amico del mercato”.

Nomine economiche di Michel Temer:
– Henrique de Campos Meirelles, Ministro delle Finanze,
– Ilan Golfajn, Presidente della Banca Centrale del Brasile, socio nominato da Meirelles
– Paolo Caffarelli, Banca del Brasile, socio nominato da Meirelles.

Conclusioni
Ciò che è in gioco con vari meccanismi, anche operazioni d’intelligence, manipolazione finanziaria e propaganda mediatica, è la destabilizzazione della struttura statale e dell’economia nazionale del Brasile, per non parlare dell’impoverimento di massa del popolo brasiliano. Gli Stati Uniti non vogliono affrontare o negoziare un governo nazionalista riformista sovrano. Quello che vogliono è un loro Stato-fantoccio. Lula era “accettabile” perché seguiva le istruzioni di Wall Street e FMI. Mentre l’agenda politica neoliberista non ha prevalso con Rousseff, che implementava un’agenda riformista-populista scacciando il pilastro macroeconomico sponsorizzato da Wall Street durante la presidenza Lula. Secondo il direttore generale del Fondo Monetario Internazionale Heinrich Koeller (2003) Lula è stato “Il nostro miglior presidente”: “Sono entusiasta (dell’amministrazione Lula); ma è meglio dire che sono profondamente colpito dal Presidente Lula” (Conferenza stampa del FMI, 2003).
Sotto Lula non c’era bisogno del “cambio di regime”. Luis Ignacio da Silva aveva approvato il “Washington Consensus”. La scomparsa temporanea di Henrique de Campos Meirelles dopo l’elezione di Dilma Rousseff è stata fondamentale. Wall Street non approvò le nomine di Dilma a Banca centrale e Ministero delle Finanze. Se Dilma avesse scelto di mantenere Henrique de Campos Meirelles, il colpo di Stato molto probabilmente non ci sarebbe stato.

Il regime dei fantocci degli Stati Uniti a Brasilia
Un ex-CEO/presidente di una delle più grandi istituzioni finanziarie statunitensi (e cittadino degli Stati Uniti) controlla le importanti istituzioni finanziarie del Brasile e definisce l’agenda macroeconomica e monetaria di un Paese di oltre 200 milioni di persone. Si chiama colpo di Stato… di Wall Street.

Ilan Goldfajn

Ilan Goldfajn

La credibilità di Temer crolla subendo per 8 anni il divieto a cariche pubbliche
Glenn Greenwald, Global Research, 4 giugno 2016
Brazil-Coup-Appointment-Of-President-Michel-Temer-Called-Farce-680x382Era evidente fin dall’inizio che obiettivo fondamentale dell’impeachment della Presidentessa del Brasile Dilma Rousseff era sostenere i veri ladri a Brasilia e consentirgli di impedire, ostacolare e in ultima analisi uccidere l’indagine CarWash (così come d’imporre un programma neoliberale di privatizzazioni e austerità radicali). A 20 giorni dalla presa del potere del presidente “ad interim” Michel Temer, schiaccianti prove della sua corruzione sono emerse dimostratesi vere: già due dei ministri intermedi del gabinetto tutto bianco e maschile di Temer, tra cui il ministro anticorruzione, sono stati costretti a dimettersi dopo la pubblicazione di registrazioni segrete che dimostrano il loro complotto per ostacolare le indagini (in cui, insieme a un terzo elemento del gabinetto, sono coinvolti personalmente). Ma lo stillicidio della corruzione dei ministri di Temer serve ad oscurare la sua. Anche lui è implicato in numerose indagini di corruzione e ora è formalmente accusato di aver violato le leggi elettorali e, per punizione, gli sono vietate le cariche politiche per otto anni. Ieri, un tribunale elettorale regionale a San Paolo, da dove proviene, ha emesso la sentenza dichiarandolo “non ammissibile” a qualsiasi carica politica, avendo ad oggi una “fedina sporca” nelle elezioni. Temer è stato riconosciuto colpevole di spendere più fondi per la campagna di quanto la legge consenta. Dati intrighi, corruzione ed illegalità del governo ad interim di Temer, la violazione della legge non è il peggiore reato. Ma simboleggia potentemente la truffa antidemocratica che le élite brasiliane tentano di perpetrare. In nome della corruzione hanno rimosso la leader democraticamente eletta del Paese e la sua sostituzione, con qualcuno che, anche se non legalmente vietato, è ora escluso per otto anni dalla carica che vuole occupare. Poche settimane fa, l’impeachment di Dilma è apparsa inevitabile. I media oligarchici del Brasile avevano efficacemente focalizzato l’attenzione esclusivamente su di lei. Ma poi, tutti hanno cominciato a guardare chi congegnava il suo impeachment, chi avrebbe avuto il potere e per quali motivazioni, e tutto è cambiato. Ora il suo impeachment, anche se ancora probabile, non sembra inevitabile: la scorsa settimana, O Globo ha riferito che due senatori già a favore ora ci ripensavano alla luce dei “fatti nuovi” (i nastri rivelati sui ministri di Temer) e ieri anche Folha riferiva che numerosi senatori tendono a ripensarci. In particolare, i media brasiliani non pubblicano più i sondaggi sull’opinione pubblica su Temer e l’impeachment di Dilma. Nel frattempo, l’opposizione cresce contro tale attacco alla democrazia, sia a livello nazionale che internazionale. Le proteste contro Temer sono sempre più grandi e intense. Due dozzine di parlamentari inglesi hanno denunciato l’impeachment come colpo di Stato. Tre dozzine di europarlamentari hanno sollecitato la cessazione dei negoziati commerciali con il governo ad interim del Brasile per mancanza di legittimità. Il gruppo anti-corruzione Transparency International ha annunciato di por fine al dialogo con il nuovo governo finché non elimina la corruzione dai nuovi ministeri. Il New York Times parla delle dimissioni del ministro anti-corruzione a soli 20 giorni dalla nomina, descritta come “un altro colpo a un governo zoppicante per uno scandalo, a poche settimane da quando Temer ha sostituito Dilma Rousseff”. Ma forse niente indica più la farsa pericolosa che le élite brasiliane tentano di perpetrare quanto il fatto che il loro capo è ormai bandito dalla carica in cui è stato installato, poiché condannato per aver infranto la legge. Questa non è solo la distruzione della democrazia nel quinto Paese più popoloso del mondo, né l’imposizione di un ordine del giorno di privatizzazioni e attacchi ai poveri a vantaggio dei plutocrati internazionali. E’ letteralmente l’affermazione di sporchi corrotti criminosi che cinicamente sono al potere in nome della lotta alla corruzione.
Ieri sera, a un evento a Rio de Janeiro mi è stato chiesto, come sempre in questi casi, del possibile coinvolgimento degli Stati Uniti nel cambio di governo. Qui i quattro minuti della mia risposta:

Sorgente: Wall Street dietro il Colpo di Stato in Brasile | Aurora

The Legacy of the Obama Administration: An Interview With Noam Chomsky

President Barack Obama delivers remarks at Concord Community High School in Elkhart, Indiana, June 1, 2016. (Zach Gibson / The New York Times)President Obama delivers remarks at Concord Community High School in Elkhart, Indiana, June 1, 2016. (Zach Gibson / The New York Times)

 

Anyone looking attentively at contemporary developments in the United States will surely notice that the country is undergoing a profound crisis of purpose and institutional legitimacy under a neoliberal regime in overdrive. And this is occurring less than eight years after the election of Barack Obama, whose political campaign raised hopes for a shift away from the neoconservative fallacies and imperial crimes that characterized the administration of George W. Bush.

Welcome to the future of the past. The United States is a nation in disarray whose economic and political elite are still trying to recapture and reproduce the Gilded Age at a time when the overwhelming majority of citizens are experiencing a sharp decline in their standard of living and an increase in large-scale economic insecurity, coupled with sharply diminishing social services, a collapsing infrastructure and loss of hope in the future. Hence the explanation for the rise of political charlatans like Donald Trump, a man who aspires to become president without even pretending to have what may be loosely described as a coherent ideology (which is why the popular version among certain segments of the US progressive movement that Donald Trump is a “fascist” is a crude joke). Hence, also, the appearance on the national political stage of Bernie Sanders, whose message about the need for a more democratic United States resonates extremely well with young people, many of whom fear that, given the current conditions, their future will involve massive unemployment and economic insecurity.

Be that as it may, it seems beyond reasonable doubt at this point that the November election will be between a Republican candidate who believes that the rich deserve to get richer off the brutal exploitation of the working class and a Democrat who has fully embraced neoconservatism on foreign policy issues and is in bed with the Wall Street wolves. In this respect, Hillary Clinton hardly offers a meaningful alternative to Donald Trump, whose incoherent mumblings have scared even the Republican establishment to the point that his opponent can count on measurable support, both in terms of money and votes, from traditional conservatives and many neoconservatives.

With the November election still several months away, it would be instructive to reflect on the state of the country and the world under the Obama administration as the past always shapes and conditions the present. Noam Chomsky, one of the US’ premier dissidents, social critics and intellectuals for more than half a century, was among a handful of souls who never “bought” the promotion of Barack Obama as a real reformer, let alone a sincere progressive. In this exclusive interview with Truthout, Chomsky lays bare the reasons why Obama’s election did not lead to any significant changes in the realms of foreign and economic policy making, although it did represent some kind of progress after eight grim years of neoconservative rule under a messianic administration.

CJ Polychroniou: Barack Obama was elected in 2008 as president of the United States in a wave of optimism, but at a time when the country was in the full grip of the financial crisis brought about, according to Obama himself, by “the reckless behavior of a lot of financial institutions around the world” and “the folks on Wall Street.” Obama’s rise to power has been well documented, including the funding of his Illinois political career by the well-known Chicago real estate developer and power peddler Tony Rezko, but the legacy of his presidency has yet to be written. First, in your view, did Obama rescue the US economy from a meltdown, and, second, did he initiate policies to ensure that “reckless financial behavior” would be kept at bay?

Noam Chomsky: On the first question, the matter is debated. Some economists argue that the bank rescues were not necessary to avoid a serious depression, and that the system would have recovered, probably with some of the big banks broken up. Dean Baker for one. I don’t trust my own judgment enough to take a strong position.

On the second question, Dodd-Frank takes some steps forward — making the system more transparent, greater reserve requirements, etc. — but congressional intervention has cut back some of the regulation, for example, of derivative transactions, leading to strong protests [of] Frank. Some commentators, Matt Taibbi for one, have argued that [the] Wall Street-Congress conniving undermined much of the force of the reform from the start.

What do you think were the real factors behind the 2008 financial crisis?

The immediate cause of the crisis was the housing bubble, based substantially on very risky subprime mortgage loans along with exotic financial instruments devised to distribute risk, reaching such complexity that few understand who owes what to whom. The more fundamental reasons have to do with basic market inefficiencies. If you and I agree on some transaction (say, you sell me a car), we may make a good bargain for ourselves, but we do not take into account the effect on others (pollution, traffic congestion, increase in price of gas, etc.). These “externalities,” so called, can be very large. In the case of financial institutions, the effect is to underprice risk by ignoring “systemic risk.” Thus if Goldman Sachs lends money, it will, if well-managed, take into account the potential risk to itself if the borrower cannot pay, but not the risk to the financial system as a whole. The result is that risk is underpriced. There is too much risk for a sound economy. That can, in principle, be controlled by sound regulation, but financialization of the economy has been accompanied by deregulation mania, based on theological notions of “efficient markets” and “rational choice.” Interestingly enough, several of the people who had primary responsibility for these destructive policies were chosen as Obama’s leading economic policy advisers (Robert Rubin, Larry Summers, Tim Geithner and others) during his first term in the White House. Alan Greenspan, the great hero of a few years ago, eventually conceded quietly that he did not understand how markets work — which is quite remarkable.

There are also other devices that lead to underpricing risk. Government rules on corporate governance provide perverse incentives: CEOs are highly rewarded for taking short-term risks, and can leave the ruins to someone else, floating away on their “golden parachutes,” when collapse comes. And there is much more.

Didn’t the 2008 financial crisis reveal once again that capitalism is a parasitic system?

It is worth bearing in mind that “really existing capitalism” is remote from capitalism — at least in the rich and powerful countries. Thus in the US, the advanced economy relies crucially on the dynamic state sector to socialize cost and risk while privatizing eventual profit — and “eventual” can be a long time: In the case of the core of the modern high-tech economy, computers and the internet, it was decades. There is much more mythology that has to be dismantled if the questions are to be seriously posed.

Existing state-capitalist economies are indeed “parasitic” on the public, in the manner indicated, and others: bailouts (which are very common, in the industrial system as well), highly protectionist “trade” measures that guarantee monopoly pricing rights to state-subsidized corporations, and many other devices.

During his first term as president, you admitted that Obama faced an exceptionally hostile crowd in Capitol Hill, which of course remained hostile throughout his two terms. Be that as it may, was Obama ever a real reformer or was he more of a public manipulator who used popular political rhetoric to sideline the progressive mood of the country in an era of great inequality and mass discontent over the future of the USA?

Obama had congressional support for his first two years in office, the time when most presidential initiatives are introduced. I never saw any indication that he intended substantive progressive steps. I wrote about him before the 2008 primaries, relying on the webpage in which he presented himself as a candidate. I was singularly unimpressed, to put it very mildly. Actually, I was shocked, for the reasons I discussed.

Consider what Obama and his supporters regard as his signature achievement, the Affordable Care Act. At first, a public option (effectively, national health care) was dangled. It had almost two-thirds popular support. It was dropped without apparent consideration. The outlandish legislation barring the government from negotiating drug prices was opposed by some 85 percent of the population, but was kept with little discussion. The Act is an improvement on the existing international scandal, but not by much, and with fundamental flaws.

Consider nuclear weapons. Obama had some nice things to say — nice enough to win the Nobel Peace Prize. There has been some progress, but it has been slight and current moves are in the wrong direction.

In general: much smooth rhetoric, some positive steps, some regression, overall not a very impressive record. That seems to me a fair assessment, even putting aside the quite extraordinary stance of the Republican party, which made it clear right after Obama’s election that they were, substantially, a one-issue party: prevent the president from doing anything, no matter what happens to the country and the world. It is difficult to find analogues among industrial democracies. Small wonder that the most respected conservative political analysts (such as Thomas Mann or Norman Ornstein of the conservative American Enterprise Institute) refer to the party as a “radical insurgency” that has abandoned normal parliamentary politics.

In the foreign policy realm, Obama claimed to strive for a new era in the US, away from the militarism of his predecessor and towards respect for international law and active diplomacy. How would you judge US foreign and military strategy under the Obama administration?

He has been more reluctant to engage troops on the ground than some of his predecessors and advisers, and instead has rapidly escalated special operations and his global assassination (drone) campaign, a moral disaster and arguably illegal as well [on the latter matter, see Mary Ellen O’Connell, American Journal of International Law volume 109, 2015, 889f]. On other fronts, it is a mixed story. Obama has continued to bar a nuclear weapons-free (technically, WMD-free) zone in the Middle East, evidently motivated by the need to protect Israeli nuclear weapons from scrutiny. By so doing, he is endangering the Nonproliferation Treaty, the most important disarmament treaty, which is contingent on establishing such a zone. He is dangerously escalating tensions along the Russian border, extending earlier policies. His trillion-dollar program for modernizing the nuclear weapons system is the opposite of what should be done. The investor-rights agreements (called “free trade agreements”) are likely to be generally harmful to populations, [and] beneficial to the corporate sector. Sensibly, he bowed to strong hemispheric pressures and took steps towards normalization of relations with Cuba. These and other moves amount to a mixed story, ranging from criminal to moderate improvement.

Looking at the state of the US economy, one can easily argue that the effects of the financial crisis of 2007-08 are not only still around, but that we have in place a set of policies which continue to suppress the standard of living for the working population and produce immense economic insecurity. Is this because of neoliberalism and the peculiarities of the nature of the US economy, or are there global and systemic forces at play such as the free movement of capital, automation and the end of industrialization?

The neoliberal assault on the population remains intact, though less so in the US than in Europe. Automation is not a major factor, and industrialization isn’t ending, just being off-shored. Financialization has of course exploded during the neoliberal period, and the general policies, pretty much global in character, are designed to enhance private and corporate power. That sets off a vicious cycle in which concentration of wealth leads to concentration of political power, which in turn yields legislation and administrative practices that carry the process forward. There are countervailing forces, and they might become more powerful. The potential is there, as we can see from the Sanders campaign and even the Trump campaign, if the white working class to which Trump appeals can become organized to focus on their real interests instead of being in thrall to their class enemy.

To the extent that Trump’s programs are coherent, they fall into the same general category of those of Paul Ryan, who has granted us the kindness of spelling them out: increase spending on the military (already more than half of discretionary spending and almost as much as the rest of the world combined), and cut back taxes, mainly on the rich, with no new revenue sources. In brief, nothing much is left for any government program that might be of benefit to the general population and the world. Trump produces so many arbitrary and often self-contradictory pronouncements that it isn’t easy to attribute to him a program, but he regularly keeps within this range — which, incidentally, means that his claims about supporting Social Security and Medicare are worthless.

Since the white working class cannot be mobilized to support the class enemy on the basis of their actual programs, the “radical insurgency” called “the Republican Party” appeals to its constituency on what are called “social-cultural issues”: religion, fear, racism, nationalism. The appeals are facilitated by the abandonment of the white working class by the Democratic Party, which offers them very little but “more of the same”…. It is then facile for the liberal professional classes to accuse the white working class of racism and other such sins, though a closer look often reveals that the manifestations of [this] deep-rooted sickness of the society are simply taking different forms among various sectors.

Obama’s charisma and undoubtedly unique rhetorical skills were critical elements in his struggle to rise to power, while Donald Trump is an extrovert who seeks to project the image of a powerful personality who knows how to get things done even if he relies on the use of banalities to create the image he was to create about himself as a future leader of a country. Do personalities really matter in politics, especially in our own era?

I am very much down on charismatic leaders, and as for strong ones, [it] depends on what they are working for. The best, in our own kind of societies, I think, are the FDR types, who react to, are sympathetic to and encourage popular movements for significant reform. Sometimes, at least.

And politicians to be elected to a national office have to be pretty good actors, right?

Electoral campaigns, especially in the US, are being run by the advertising industry. The 2008 political campaign of Barack Obama was voted by the advertising industry as the best marketing campaign of the year.

Obama’s last State of the Union address had all the rhetoric of someone running for president, not someone who has been in office for more than seven years. What do you make of this — Obama’s vision of how the country should be and function eight to 10 years from now?

He spoke as if he had not been elected eight years ago. Obama had plenty of opportunities to change the course of the country. Even his “signature” achievement, the reform of the health care system, is a watered-down version, as I pointed out earlier. Despite the huge propaganda assault denouncing government involvement in health care, and the extremely limited articulate response, a majority of the population (and a huge majority of Democrats) still favor national health care, Obama didn’t even try, even when he had congressional support.

You have argued that nuclear weapons and climate change represent the two biggest threats facing humankind. In your view, is climate change a direct effect of capitalism, the view taken by someone like Naomi Klein, or related to humanity and progress in general, a view embraced by the British philosopher John Gray?

Geologists divide planetary history into eras. The Pleistocene lasted millions of years, followed by the Holocene, which began at about the time of the agricultural revolution 10,000 years ago and recently the Anthropocene, corresponding to the era of industrialization. What we call “capitalism,” in practice various varieties of state-capitalism, tends in part to keep to market principles that ignore non-market factors in transactions: so-called externalities, the cost to Tom if Bill and Harry make a transaction. That is always a serious problem, like systemic risk in the financial system, in which case the taxpayer is called upon to patch up the “market failures.” Another externality is destruction of the environment — but in this case the taxpayer cannot step in to restore the system. It’s not a matter of “humanity and progress,” but rather of a particular form of social and economic development, which need not be specifically capitalist; the authoritarian Russian statist (not socialist) system was even worse. There are important steps that can be taken within existing systems (carbon tax, alternative energy, conservation, etc.), and they should be pursued as much as possible, along with efforts to reconstruct society and culture to serve human needs rather than power and profit.

What do you think of certain geoengineering undertakings to clean up the environment, such as the use of carbon negative technologies to suck carbon from the air?

These undertakings have to be evaluated with great care, paying attention to issues ranging from narrowly technical ones to large-scale societal and environmental impacts that could be quite complex and poorly understood. Sucking carbon from the air is done all the time — planting forests — and can presumably be carried considerably further to good effect, but I don’t have the special knowledge required to provide definite answers. Other more exotic proposals have to be considered on their own merits — and with due caution.

Some major oil-producing countries, such as Saudi Arabia, are in the process of diversifying their economies, apparently fully aware of the fact that the fossil fuel era will soon be over. In the light of this development, wouldn’t US foreign policy toward the Middle East take a radically new turn once oil has ceased being the previous commodity that it has been up to now?

Saudi Arabian leaders are talking about this much too late. These plans should have been undertaken seriously decades ago. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states may become uninhabitable in the not-very-distant future if current tendencies persist. In the bitterest of ironies, they have been surviving on the poison they produce that will destroy them — a comment that holds for all of us, even if less directly. How serious the plans are is not very clear. There are many skeptics. One Twitter comment is that they split the electricity ministry and the water ministries for fear of electrocution. That captures much of the general sentiment. It would be good to be surprised.


thanks to: C.J. Polychroniou

truthout

Sanders pushes Democrats to rebuke Israel

US presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is pushing the Democratic Party to rebuke Israeli crimes against the Palestinians.

US presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has begun shifting the Democratic Party toward rebuking Israeli crimes against the Palestinians, putting pressure on his rival Hillary Clinton to handle a growing divide within the party.

Support for Israel has long been a policy of the Democratic Party, but consensus on the issue has eroded in recent years.

Tensions between the administration of President Barack Obama and Israel have increased and so has the strain among liberal Democrats about Israel’s policies toward the Palestinian people.

Last year, Obama and many fellow Democrats were angered when Republican lawmakers scheduled an address to Congress by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in which he condemned Washington’s nuclear deal with Iran.

The scale of civilian casualties in Israel’s attack on the Gaza Strip in 2014 also alienated many liberal Democrats. Nearly 2,200 Palestinians, including 577 children, were killed in Israel’s onslaught. Over 11,100 others – including 3,374 children, 2,088 women and 410 elderly people – were also injured.


Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton speaks at an event on May 25, 2016 in Buena Park, California. (AFP photo)

Despite those tensions, Clinton and many party leaders are still eager to show their unwavering support for Israel, largely due to the deep political support Israel enjoys among top officials in both political parties.

In contrast, Sanders, who is Jewish and has spent months of his youth living in Israel, has spoken of seeking a more “evenhanded” treatment of Palestinians.

In an interview with The Los Angeles Times on Wednesday, Sanders declared himself “100% supportive of Israel’s right to exist.” Israel, he said, has a right “to take all actions that are needed to protect itself from terrorism.”

“But I believe that for too long our country and our government have not given the Palestinian people the respect that they need,” he added. “Long term, if there’s going to be peace in the Middle East, a lasting peace, the Palestinian people are going to have to be treated with respect and dignity.”

According to polls, a majority of Americans support Israel, but the Democratic Party is increasingly split over some of the actions of Israel and how much sympathy to express for the plight of Palestinians.

However, among liberal Democrats surveyed in a poll taken last month, 40 percent said they sympathized more with Palestinians than Israel, compared with 33 percent who sympathized more with Israel.

Sanders supporters also expressed more sympathy with the Palestinians than with Israel, the poll found. His campaign has paid attention to concerns from many liberals, including Jewish liberals, that the suffering of Palestinians has been ignored in mainstream US politics and that criticism of the Israel is less tolerated here than it is even within Israel.

Sorgente: PressTV-Sanders pushes Democrats to rebuke Israel

Operazione Condor 2.0: golpe contro il Venezuela

 

Nil Nikandrov  Strategic Culture Foundation 27/05/2016maduro-fanb-63003

Nei discorsi il Presidente venezuelano Nicolás Maduro ritorna costantemente sul tema del nuovo piano Condor che gli Stati Uniti cercano d’intraprendere in America Latina e nei Caraibi. Il nome in codice “Condor” fu usato la prima volta per camuffare l’oppressione orchestrata dalle giunte militari in Sud America (principalmente Cile, Brasile, Argentina, Bolivia, Uruguay e Paraguay) negli anni ’70-’80. Molto si sa oggi del sostegno attivo delle agenzie d’intelligence e del dipartimento di Stato degli USA a tali operazioni repressive. La campagna fu coordinata dal segretario di Stato del momento Henry Kissinger, e un tribunale penale internazionale ancora detiene i documenti che l’incriminano. Almeno 7000 persone furono uccise nelle operazioni Condor: politici, sindacalisti, personaggi pubblici, giornalisti, diplomatici, accademici… Il Venezuela è l’obiettivo principale del nuovo piano Condor. L’amministrazione Obama fa di tutto per precipitare il Paese nel caos e nella violenza sottoponendolo a terrorismo criminale, fame e saccheggio, cercando d’innescare l’intervento militare diretto. Pochi giorni fa il dipartimento di Stato ha ospitato un incontro di tre ore cui partecipavano l’uruguaiano Luis Almagro, segretario generale dell’OAS e filo-statunitense, e il comandante dell‘US Southern Command. Il Presidente venezuelano Nicolás Maduro ha descritto la riunione tra “complici”, sottolineando che sa bene ciò di cui discutevano: “Sono ossessionati dal Venezuela. E perché? Perché non possono sopprimere la rivoluzione bolivariana”. Maduro sostiene che il Venezuela è sottoposto ad “aggressione mediatica, politica e diplomatica, così come da estremamente gravi minacce negli ultimi dieci anni”. Una strategia attuata per giustificare l’intervento straniero. La minaccia statunitense a indipendenza e sovranità del Venezuela appare molto più credibile. L’ordine esecutivo del presidente Obama nomina il Venezuela come Paese che pone una minaccia alla sicurezza nazionale degli USA, allarmando i leader bolivariani. Il Ministero degli Esteri russo ha risposto a tale ordine in modo simile, “ciò incoraggia direttamente la violenza e l’interferenza straniera negli affari interni del Venezuela”. L’appello dell’ex-presidente colombiano Alvaro Uribe affinché truppe straniere invadano il Venezuela è considerato dalla dirigenza bolivariana come l’ultimo capitolo della guerra delle informazioni “approvata da Washington” nel periodo che precede la guerra stessa. L’US Southern Command pianifica ulteriori sviluppi sul fronte del Venezuela, seguendo tale scenario.
Il sistema di difesa aerea del Venezuela ha registrato l’incremento delle attività di spionaggio del Pentagono. Nella conferenza stampa del 17 maggio il Presidente Maduro ha rivelato che i confini del Paese sono stati violati due volte da un Boeing 707 E-3 Sentry utilizzato dall’US Air Force per supportare le comunicazioni continue con unità armate nelle zone di conflitto o disattivare le apparecchiature elettroniche di governo ed esercito. Un portavoce del Pentagono ha smentito: “I nostri aerei volano minimo a 100 miglia dal confine del Venezuela”, aggiungendo che “i piloti statunitensi rispettano i confini nazionali riconosciuti a livello internazionale”. Nessuno in Venezuela crede a tale sfacciata menzogna del Pentagono sul “rispetto dei confini”, perché nessuno ha dimenticato gli attacchi contro Jugoslavia, Libia e Iraq. Le operazioni speciali della CIA sono anche un ricordo forte come il tentativo del 2004 d’infiltrare un distaccamento di “paramilitares” in Venezuela dalla Colombia per attaccare il palazzo presidenziale e assassinare il Presidente Hugo Chávez. La risposta del Venezuela è stata rafforzare le difese. Dopo l’incidente con l’aereo spia statunitense, esercitazioni su larga scala soprannominate Independencia II sono state lanciate coinvolgendo non solo i militari, ma anche le forze di difesa civile. La parlamentare Carmen Meléndez, già Ministra della Difesa durante l’amministrazione Chávez, ha dichiarato senza mezzi termini “Dobbiamo essere pronti a qualsiasi scenario”. Le esercitazioni sono state eseguite in sette Regioni della Difesa Integrale, 24 zone territoriali della Difesa Integrale e 99 aree della Difesa Integrale. 520000 soldati e miliziani bolivariani vi hanno preso parte. Il Ministro della Difesa Vladimir Padrino è stato categorico nella valutazione dei risultati delle esercitazioni: “Non c’è altra scelta se non trasformare il Venezuela in una fortezza inespugnabile, e questo può essere raggiunto attraverso un’alleanza civile-militare”. Alla luce della difficile situazione nel Paese, l’aggravarsi della crisi economica e l’aumento delle proteste di un segmento di pubblico influenzata dall’opposizione, il Presidente Maduro ha firmato un decreto che dà poteri di emergenza al governo. Il documento, valido per 60 giorni, espande l’autorità del governo nell’adottare ulteriori misure per garantire la sicurezza. I militari possono anche intervenire per puntellare l’ordine pubblico. Aziende, società, imprese, organizzazioni non governative con legami stranieri saranno soggette a controlli più rigorosi e i loro conti congelati, e anche i beni confiscati, se viene rilevata qualche attività sleale. Saranno forniti cibo ed energia elettrica alle classi più vulnerabili della popolazione. Il Ministero degli Esteri del Venezuela agisce per limitare il personale diplomatico degli Stati Uniti a 17-18 persone. Questo è molto scomodo per l’ambasciata degli Stati Uniti dato che le sue agenzie d’intelligence hanno bisogno di circa 180-200 diplomatici statunitensi attivi per lavorare. Per rappresaglia l’ambasciata degli Stati Uniti ha annunciato che non avrebbe più rilasciato visti turistici o di lavoro: “E’ impossibile mantenere il precedente standard di servizio per centinaia di migliaia di cittadini venezuelani che visitano l’ambasciata degli Stati Uniti di Caracas ogni anno”.
In preparazione per la seconda edizione del repressivo Piano Condor in Venezuela, le agenzie d’intelligence statunitensi hanno assegnato un ruolo importante all’intrattabile opposizione interna, che Chavez ha sempre dichiarato essere al servizio del governo degli Stati Uniti. Per le agenzie d’intelligence statunitensi e i gruppi di opposizione che controllano, le elezioni parlamentari in Venezuela del 6 dicembre 2015 aprono ulteriori opportunità per destabilizzare il Paese. L’opposizione ha promesso che dopo le elezioni le lunghe code e le carenze dei consumi sarebbero scomparse, ottenendo per la prima volta la maggioranza nell’Assemblea Nazionale dopo 17 anni. Tuttavia, il Paese non ci ha guadagnato nulla e l’opposizione ora utilizza il Parlamento per soffiare ancora sul fuoco dei disordini civili. Il Presidente Maduro ha dichiarato la disponibilità a dichiarare lo Stato di emergenza se la sovversione dell’opposizione continua. Per esempio, l’ultima marcia a Caracas dell’opposizione del Blocco di Unità Democratica (MUD) si è conclusa con scontri tra opposizione e polizia. Le forze dell’ordine, tra cui alcune donne, hanno riportato ferite quando sono stati spietatamente picchiate con barre di metallo. Alcuni aggressori sono stati rapidamente perseguiti e arrestati. Si è scoperto che la “protesta” era stata organizzata da Coromoto Rodríguez, capo della sicurezza del capo del parlamento Ramos Allup. Negli anni ’70 Rodríguez era un membro della polizia segreta (conosciuta come DISIP) coinvolto nelle torture dei prigionieri e poi nel servizio di sicurezza del presidente Carlos Andrés Pérez, mentre lavorava per la CIA. Gli arresti dei militanti ha permesso ai Sebin (servizi segreti bolivariani) di scoprire il ruolo di Rodríguez nell’istigare le rivolte a Caracas. Ora l’opposizione venezuelana si appresta a tenere un referendum per far dimettere il Presidente Maduro. Ai primi di maggio ha incaricato il Consiglio Nazionale Elettorale di verificare gli 1,85 milioni di firme (invece delle 200000 previste per legge) a una petizione per il referendum abrogativo. Tuttavia, il Vicepresidente Aristóbulo Istúriz ha affermato che ci sono molte irregolarità nella raccolta delle firme dell’opposizione e che il referendum non si terrà fino a che ognuno di quei nomi sarà verificato. I capi del MUD cercano di sfruttare la situazione per provocare “proteste spontanee” chiudendo strade, appiccando incendi e sabotando le linee elettriche e idriche e le forniture di cibo. Ma vi è una campagna molto più radicale di terrore all’orizzonte che potrebbe sostituire l’attuale torbida crociata dei radicali. Sempre più gli agenti dei Sebin e della polizia scoprono arsenali di armi da fuoco di fabbricazione statunitense, granate ed esplosivi a Caracas e in altre città.
Gli statunitensi da tempo alimentano una sete vendicativa per dare una lezione ai bolivariani, risalente a quando Hugo Chávez era ancora in vita, una volta che iniziò a perseguire una politica indipendente fin dall’insediamento nel 1999. Le sue iniziative per modernizzare l’America Latina a favore degli interessi dei latinoamericani furono sostenute da Cuba e abbracciate da una nuova generazione di leader latino-americani. Il dominio degli Stati Uniti sull’emisfero occidentale ha iniziato a indebolirsi. Chavez e i suoi sostenitori hanno combattuto per creare blocchi regionali unificati, spingendo a creare un’alleanza difensiva sudamericana, a usare il Sucre come valuta regionale e a sviluppare altri progetti senza input statunitensi. Ora il successore di Chávez, il Presidente Maduro, è oggetto di aspre accuse. I media filo-statunitensi l’accusano del fallimento del “modello economico bolivariano” citando statistiche fasulle su “indici di gradimento bassi” e propagandano aggressivamente l’idea di cacciare il presidente con la forza. I capi dell’opposizione, molti dei quali hanno parteciparono a precedenti iniziative per destabilizzare il regime, fanno appello direttamente alle Forze Armate del Paese chiedendo d’“intervenire”… Henrique Capriles Radonski, dagli stretti legami con la CIA, era soprattutto diretto. Ma il Ministro della Difesa Generale Padrino López ha esposto la posizione dell’esercito: “Il Presidente è la massima autorità dello Stato a cui abbiamo giurato lealtà e sostegno incondizionato”. I tentativi dell’opposizione di suscitare una ribellione tra i militari non hanno finora avuto successo. Gli ideali patriottici di Hugo Chavez sono ancora vivi sotto le armi e si spera che l’Operazione Condor faccia cilecca in Venezuela: i militari venezuelani rimarranno fedeli a costituzione bolivariana e Presidente.nicolas-maduro-miliciasLa ripubblicazione è gradita in riferimento alla rivista on-line Strategic Culture Foundation.

Traduzione di Alessandro Lattanzio – SitoAurora

 

Sorgente: Operazione Condor 2.0: golpe contro il Venezuela | Aurora

Gli USA vogliono la guerra con la Russia – United States wants war with Russia

20.05.2016 David Swanson

 

Gli USA vogliono la guerra con la Russia

(Foto di Whitehouse Media)

 

Dopo decenni di provocazioni alla Russia, il governo degli Stati Uniti sembra aver concluso che i russi sono tutti santi e ha deciso di intensificare le provocazioni confidando che nulla vada storto, per non andare sul nucleare.
O le cose stanno così, oppure il governo degli Stati Uniti vuole davvero la Terza Guerra Mondiale.

Questo articolo è stato prima pubblicato il 18/5/16 su American Herald Tribune

Traduzione di Leopoldo Salmaso da Pressenza.com
(NOTA: sono riprodotti i link originari, con l’avvertenza che portano a testi in inglese)

Io non tratterei un ratto malato come gli Stati Uniti trattano la Russia. Il governo russo ha esercitato un’incredibile moderazione al punto che gli Stati Uniti sembra abbiano deciso che possono permettersi di essere ancora più cattivi, una mossa che addetti ai lavori di Washington ora apertamente dicono essere guidata dagli affari sulle armi:
“Questa faccenda dell’esercito è come la storia di ‘Chicken-Little: sta cadendo il cielo’[1]“, ha detto un alto ufficiale del Pentagono. “Questi qua vogliono farci credere che i russi sono alti 3 metri. C’è una spiegazione più semplice: l’esercito cerca un pretesto e una fetta del bilancio più grossa. E il modo migliore per ottenerla è dire che i russi sono in grado di atterrare sul nostro retro e su entrambi i nostri fianchi allo stesso tempo. Che corbelleria!”

In realtà, gli Stati Uniti spendono oltre 8 volte più della Russia in armamenti, senza contare la “Sicurezza della Patria”, l’Energia, lo Stato, i Veterani, ecc. Il mondo contiene ancora armi nucleari sufficienti a distruggere la vita umana se solo una piccola frazione di esse vengono utilizzate, e il 93 per cento appartengono alla Russia e agli Stati Uniti.

Perché non sono sparite le armi nucleari, quando Gorbaciov era disposto a rinunciarvi?

Perché Reagan non era disposto a rinunciare a uno stupido, non funzionante, e fraudolento scudo tecnologico contro una minaccia che non sarebbe esistita se avesse fatto l’accordo. Quella tecnologia è di nuovo nelle sale cinematografiche e nei notiziari: Star Wars.

La guerra fredda continua. L’Unione Sovietica si è sciolta, la Germania si è riunificata, ma la guerra fredda continua al Pentagono. Il Patto di Varsavia si è sciolto, ma la NATO si espande. Quando la Germania si è riunificata, gli Stati Uniti promisero alla Russia che la NATO non si sarebbe mai allargata verso est. Da allora la NATO ha aggiunto nella sua alleanza Repubblica Ceca, Polonia, Ungheria, Slovacchia, Romania, Bulgaria, Lituania, Lettonia, Estonia, Slovenia, Albania e Croazia. Dopo il colpo di stato in Ucraina sostenuto dagli Stati Uniti, e contro i desideri del popolo ucraino, la NATO sta spingendo per una partnership con l’Ucraina, e con la Georgia.

Immaginate se la Russia avesse promesso di non espandere il Patto di Varsavia e poi avesse aggiunto Groenlandia, Canada, Bermuda, Bahamas, Cuba e Messico. Se la Russia affermasse di aver fatto tutto quello per proteggersi dall’Iran, quanti esperti statunitensi considererebbero seria, non risibile, quella pretesa? E se la Russia avesse fatto un accordo con l’Iran in base al quale le ispezioni più rigorose che qualsiasi nazione abbia mai subito verifichino che l’Iran non ha armi minacciose, e la Russia si vantasse di questo accordo, ma intanto la Russia continuasse ad espandere il Patto di Varsavia, forse che gli Stati Uniti lo prenderebbero come quel gesto innocuo di amicizia che la NATO dice rappresentino le proprie azioni?

Anche la NATO è “alla ricerca di un pretesto” e si è precipitata a far guerra in Jugoslavia, Afghanistan e Libia. Gli Stati Uniti e alcuni suoi alleati della NATO stanno facendo guerre in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libia, Siria, Somalia e Yemen. In alcuni di quei luoghi, guerre statunitensi di droni e guerre per procura si sono trasformate in guerre di terra, perfettamente innescate per un’ulteriore espansione. Eppure gli Stati Uniti dicono che i loro interventi sono “difensivi”, descrivono la Russia come aggressiva, e accusano falsamente la Russia di invadere l’Ucraina, un mito che Hillary Clinton ha usato facendo di Vladimir Putin l’equivalente di “Hitler”.

Ora gli Stati Uniti hanno inviato navi nel Mar Nero, carri armati in Georgia, hanno pianificato un’enorme “esercitazione” militare in Polonia, hanno aperto in Romania un sito di “difesa missilistica” che la Russia definisce una “minaccia diretta” (e una violazione del trattato sulle forze nucleari a medio raggio), e hanno iniziato a costruire un altro sito di “difesa missilistica” in Polonia. In occasione dell’apertura del nuovo sito in Romania, c’è un video on-line del Segretario Generale della NATO Jens Stoltenberg che lo descrive come un “lavoro di squadra” che coinvolge Romania, Polonia, Spagna, Turchia, Germania, Danimarca, Paesi Bassi e Regno Unito. Il discorso ampolloso di Stoltenberg afferma ripetutamente che “La difesa missilistica è per la difesa. E’ difensiva”. Stoltenberg sostiene che i missili “di difesa missilistica” sono troppo vicini alla Russia per intercettare missili russi, e così non coglie il punto che la Russia vede i missili statunitensi come offensivi, altro che “difensivi”.

Perfino CBS News considera impossibile prendere completamente sul serio il controsenso della NATO:
“I funzionari USA dicono che lo scudo missilistico rumeno, che è costato 800 milioni di $, ha lo scopo di respingere le minacce missilistiche provenienti dall’Iran e non è rivolto contro la Russia. Ma la NATO nel gennaio 2015 ha deciso di istituire centri di comando e controllo in Lettonia, Estonia, Lituania, Polonia, Romania e Bulgaria entro la fine del 2016 – almeno in parte in risposta alle sfide provenienti dalla Russia e dagli estremisti islamici e per rassicurare i partner orientali”.

Quali minacce? In sostanza ‘i giganti di tre metri che atterrano sul retro e su entrambi i fianchi degli Stati Uniti contemporaneamente’ – in altre parole: soldi da fare.

Leggete con attenzione quest’altro pezzo da CBS News:
“Il presidente Obama e altri capi di Stato e di governo della NATO si sono incontrati a settembre e hanno deciso una revisione delle capacità e delle postazioni di difesa dell’Alleanza, chiamata Readiness Action Plan (Piano di Pronta Azione) o RAP, considerando l’annessione della penisola di Crimea e la presunta interferenza militare in Ucraina orientale da parte della Russia”.

La parola chiave è “presunta”. Sono passati anni dagli annunci settimanali che la Russia aveva invaso l’Ucraina, cosa che ovviamente non ha mai fatto. E naturalmente la gente di Crimea ha votato per unirsi alla Russia dopo che il Dipartimento di Stato degli Stati Uniti aveva agevolato un violento colpo di stato in Ucraina che ha installato un governo costituito in buona parte da nazisti. La CBS non può spingersi a commentare se c’è o non c’è qualche prova della “presunta interferenza militare”, allora la chiama “presunta” e spera che non troppe persone sappiano che cosa significa quella parola.

La Russia, che ci crediate o no, sta esprimendo un certo fastidio. Come racconta Jonathan Marshall: “Portavoce di Mosca hanno avvertito che la Romania potrebbe diventare ‘rovine fumanti’ se continua a ospitare il nuovo sito antimissile; hanno minacciato la Danimarca, la Norvegia e la Polonia che anche loro potrebbero essere attaccate; e hanno annunciato lo sviluppo di una nuova generazione di missili balistici intercontinentali progettati per penetrare lo scudo missilistico degli Stati Uniti”.

Aerei russi si sono avvicinati a navi e aerei degli Stati Uniti nelle ultime settimane, ma i rapporti degli Stati Uniti in genere non hanno specificato il fatto che tali navi e tali aerei erano abbastanza vicini ai confini della Russia. Questo sfiora l’inizio di una guerra tra le maggiori potenze nucleari del mondo e rappresenta una minaccia di gran lunga maggiore di quanto generalmente immaginato, perché la maggior parte dei cittadini statunitensi non ha nessun interesse ad avviare la Terza Guerra Mondiale e quindi non ci pensa, ma il governo degli Stati Uniti e la NATO vogliono il sangue. Il nuovo comandante (italiano – NDT) della Nato dice che vuole essere pronto immediatamente a combattere la Russia.

Donald Trump ha buttato là la soluzione di buon senso di abolire la NATO, ma ha subito fatto marcia indietro e si è contraddetto, come su tanti altri argomenti. Hillary Clinton ha pienamente sostenuto l’espansione della NATO fin dall’inizio, quando era First Lady. Bernie Sanders accetta in genere tutto ciò che l’esercito sta facendo, in modo da non agitare le acque, cosa che ancora potrebbe fare di lui il migliore dei tre in materia di politica estera, così come lui è con tutta evidenza in politica interna.

Molto può accadere in 8 mesi. Molto può accadere prima che venga eletto il nuovo presidente. E con tutti gli occhi puntati sulle elezioni, è più che mai probabile che accada. E quello che può accadere farebbe sembrare gestibili i cambiamenti climatici, al confronto.

[1] NDT: E’ simile alla storia di Pierino e il lupo, ma Chicken-Little dice la verità sin dall’inizio, solo non viene creduto.

David Swanson è un autore, attivista, giornalista e conduttore radiofonico. E ‘direttore di WorldBeyondWar.org e coordinatore della campagna RootsAction.org. Fra i suoi libri citiamo ‘War Is a Lie’ (La guerra è una menzogna). Tiene un blog su DavidSwanson.org e su WarIsACrime.org. Conduce Talk Nation Radio (Radio Parla Nazione). E’ Candidato 2015 e 2016 al premio Nobel per la Pace.

 


 

United States wants war with Russia

Obama meets with Prime Minister Vladimir Putin (Image by Whitehouse media)

After provoking Russia for decades, the United States government has apparently concluded that the Russians are all saints and decided to escalate the provocations with confidence that nothing will go wrong, or go nuclear. Either that or the U.S. government truly wants World War III.

By David Swanson, American Herald Tribune

I wouldn’t treat a diseased rat the way the United States treats Russia. The Russian government has exercised such incredible restraint that the United States has apparently decided it can get away with being even nastier, a move that is now openly described by Washington insiders as being driven by weapons profiteering:

“‘This is the “Chicken-Little, sky-is-falling” set in the Army,’ the senior Pentagon officer said. ‘These guys want us to believe the Russians are 10 feet tall. There’s a simpler explanation: The Army is looking for a purpose, and a bigger chunk of the budget. And the best way to get that is to paint the Russians as being able to land in our rear and on both of our flanks at the same time. What a crock.’”

In fact, the United States spends well over 8 times what Russia does on militarism, not counting “Homeland Security” or Energy or State or Veterans, etc. The world still contains enough nuclear weapons to destroy human life if just a small fraction of them are used, and 93 percent of them belong to Russia and the United States.

Why aren’t the nukes gone, when Gorbachev was willing to give them up?

Because Reagan was unwilling to give up a stupid, non-functioning, and fraudulent technological defense against a threat that would not have existed if he had. That technology is back in the movie theaters and back in the news: Star Wars.

The Cold War continued. The Soviet Union broke up. Germany reunified. And the Cold War still continued at the Pentagon. The Warsaw Pact went away. NATO expanded. When Germany reunited, the United States promised Russia that NATO would never expand eastward. NATO then added the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Slovenia, Albania, and Croatia to its membership. Since the U.S.-facilitated coup in Ukraine, and against the desires of the Ukrainian people, NATO has been pushing for a partnership with Ukraine, as well as with Georgia.

Imagine if Russia had promised not to expand the Warsaw Pact and then added to its membership Greenland, Canada, Bermuda, the Bahamas, Cuba, and Mexico. If Russia claimed to have done all that to protect itself from Iran, how many U.S. pundits would treat that as a serious, non-laughable claim? And if Russia made a deal with Iran under which more stringent inspections than ever endured by any nation would verify that Iran had no threatening weapons, and if Russia bragged about this deal, but if Russia went right on expanding the Warsaw Pact, would the United States take that as the harmless gesture of friendship that NATO depicts its actions as?

NATO has also been “looking for a purpose” and rushing off to wage wars in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Libya. The United States and some of its NATO allies are waging wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, Syria, Somalia, and Yemen. In a number of those places, drone wars and proxy wars have been turned into U.S. ground wars, perfectly primed for major expansion. Yet, the United States speaks of its actions as “defensive,” describes Russia as aggressive, and falsely accuses Russia of invading Ukraine, a mythical act that Hillary Clinton determined made Vladimir Putin the equivalent of “Hitler.”

Now the United States has sent ships to the Black Sea, sent tanks to Georgia, planned a huge military “exercise” in Poland, opened a “missile defense” site in Romania, which Russia calls a “direct threat” (and a violation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty), and begun building another “missile defense” site in Poland. There’s a video online of NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg at the opening of the new site in Romania, describing it as a “team effort” involving Romania, Poland, Spain, Turkey, Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, and the UK. Stoltenberg’s stilted speech claims repeatedly that “Missile defense is for defense. It is defensive.” Stoltenberg claims the “missile defense” missiles are too close to Russia to intercept Russian missiles, which misses the point that Russia views the U.S. missiles as offensive, not “defensive.”

Even CBS News finds it impossible to take NATO’s nonsense completely seriously:

“U.S. officials say the Romanian missile shield, which cost $800 million, is intended to fend off missile threats from Iran and is not aimed at Russia. But NATO decided in January 2015 to set up command-and-control centers in Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Bulgaria by the end of 2016 — at least partly in response to challenges from Russia and Islamic extremists and to reassure eastern partners.”

What challenges? Essentially the 10-foot giants landing in the U.S. rear and on both flanks simultaneously — in other words: money to be made.

Read this further bit from CBS News carefully:

“President Obama and other NATO heads of state and government met in September and ordered an overhaul of the alliance’s capabilities and defense posture, called the Readiness Action Plan, or RAP, to take into account Russia’s annexation of the Crimean Peninsula and purported military interference in eastern Ukraine.”

The key word there is “purported.” It’s been years now since the weekly announcements that Russia had invaded Ukraine, something it obviously never did. And of course the people of Crimea voted to join Russia after the U.S. state department facilitated a violent coup in Ukraine that installed a government significantly made up of Nazis. CBS can’t bring itself to comment on whether or not there is any evidence of the “purported military interference,” so it just calls it “purported” and hopes that not too many people know what that word means.

Russia, believe it or not, is expressing some annoyance. As Jonathan Marshall recounts: “Moscow spokesmen have warned that Romania could become a ‘smoking ruins’ if it continues to host the new anti-missile site; threatened Denmark, Norway and Poland that they too could become targets of attack; and announced development of a new generation of intercontinental ballistic missiles designed to penetrate the U.S. missile shield.”

Russian planes have come near U.S. ships and planes in recent weeks, although U.S. reports have generally failed to focus on the fact that those ships and planes were quite near Russia’s borders. These near misses at starting a war between the world’s major nuclear militaries present a far greater threat than is generally imagined, because most U.S. citizens have zero interest in starting World War III and so don’t think about it, but the U.S. government and NATO want blood. NATO’s new commander says he wants to be ready to fight Russia immediately.

Donald Trump blurted out the common sense solution of abolishing NATO but quickly backed off and reversed himself, as on so many other topics. Hillary Clinton has wholeheartedly supported NATO’s expansion from the beginning, when she was First Lady. Bernie Sanders generally accepts whatever the military is doing, so as not to rock the boat, which still might leave him the best of the three on foreign policy, as he so obviously is on domestic.

But a great deal can happen in 8 months. A lot can happen before anyone new is elected. And with all eyes focused on the election, it’s more likely than ever to do so. And what could happen makes climate change seem manageable by comparison.

David Swanson is an author, activist, journalist, and radio host. He is director ofWorldBeyondWar.org and campaign coordinator for RootsAction.org. Swanson’s books include War Is A Lie. He blogs at DavidSwanson.org and WarIsACrime.org. He hosts Talk Nation Radio. He is a 2015 and 2016 Nobel Peace Prize Nominee.

thanks to: Pressenza

Here’s the Most Dangerous Thing About US Missile Defense in Eastern Europe

Italian military analyst Manlio Dinucci explains what he believes is the biggest danger emanating from the US deployment of its missile defense network in Romania and Poland.

NATO officials’ explanations aside, everyone, including the Russian president, seems to understand perfectly well that the US’s shiny new Aegis Ashore missile defense system in Deveselu, Romania, and the one being built in Redzikowo, Poland are directed against Russia.

And the reason, writes Il Manifesto military analyst Manlio Dinucci, is not because the system threatens to intercept Russian ICBMs and put the nuclear balance of power in jeopardy. “The reality,” he writes, “is much worse.”

In the course of his meeting with leaders from Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Norway in Washington last week, President Obama reiterated his ‘concerns’ “about Russia’s growing aggressive military presence and posture in the Baltic-Nordic region,” and reaffirmed Washington’s commitment to collective defense in Europe.

“This commitment,” Dinucci recalls, “was demonstrated a day earlier at Romania’s Deveselu air base in the form of the inauguration of the US Aegis Ashore land-based missile defense system.”

US Army personnel cleans the red carpet ahead an inauguration ceremony of the US anti-missile station Aegis Ashore Romania (in the background) at the military base in Deveselu, Romania on May 12, 2016

© AFP 2016/ DANIEL MIHAILESCU US Army personnel cleans the red carpet ahead an inauguration ceremony of the US anti-missile station Aegis Ashore Romania (in the background) at the military base in Deveselu, Romania on May 12, 2016

“NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, who was present at the ceremony along with US Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work and Romanian Prime Minister Dacian Ciaolos, thanked the United States, because with this facility, ‘the first-of-its-kind land-based missile defense installation’, would significantly increase ‘the capability to defend European allies against the proliferation of ballistic missiles from outside the Euro-Atlantic area.'”

The secretary general “also announced the start of work in Poland on another Aegis Ashore system similar to the one that came online in Romania. The two land-based facilities are an addition to four US Navy Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense ships based at the Spanish base of Rota and deployed across the Mediterranean, the Black and Baltic seas, the powerful Aegis radar installation in Turkey and a command center in Germany.”

Speaking at the ceremony, Stoltenberg sought to emphasize that “the site in Romania as well as the one in Poland are not directed against Russia. The interceptors are too few and located too far south or too close to Russia to be able to intercept Russian ICBMs.”

“And what is the technology Stoltenberg is referring to?” Dinucci asked. “Both the ship- and land-based Aegis systems feature the Lockheed Martin Mark 41 vertical launching system, using tubes (located in the belly of the ship or in an underground bunker), launching the SM-3 interceptor missile.”

Hence, the analyst notes, “this system, called a ‘shield’, actually has an offensive function. If the US managed to achieve a reliable ABM system, they could keep Russia under the threat of a nuclear first strike, relying on the ability of their ‘shield’ to neutralize any possibility of retaliation. In reality, this is not possible at this stage, because Russia and even China are now taking a series of measures to make it impossible to intercept all their nuclear warheads in a missile attack. What then, is the US really trying to achieve with its Europe-based Aegis system?”

In fact, Dinucci notes, “this is something Lockheed Martin itself openly explains. Illustrating the technical characteristics of the Mark 41 vertical launching system…the company stresses the ability to launch ‘missiles for every mission: anti-air, anti-ship, anti-submarine, and to attack ground targets.’ Launch tubes can be adapted for any missiles, including the type ‘used for defense against ballistic missile attack, and long-range [cruise].’ It even specifies the types: ‘the SM-3 [interceptor] and the Tomahawk cruise missile’.”

“In light of this technical explanation,” the analyst writes, “the justification provided by Stoltenberg – that the instillation at Deveselu is deployed ‘too close to Russia to intercept Russian ICBMs’ is anything but reassuring. Because no one can really know about what kind of missiles are actually deployed in the vertical launchers at the Deveselu base, or on the ships which sail near Russian territorial waters.”

Moscow, Dinucci adds, cannot even be certain that the missiles aren’t nuclear-armed.

Therefore, the military analyst argues, “the inauguration of the missile defense base at Deveselu may signal the end of the Treaty on Intermediate Nuclear Forces, signed by the US and the Soviet Union and 1987, which facilitated the elimination of land-based missiles with a range of between 500-5,500 km, including the Soviet RSD-10s and the US Pershing 2s and Tomahawks based in Germany and Italy.”

A bundle of three Soviet RSD-10 missiles prepared for demolition at the Kapustin Yar launch site. The missiles were destroyed in accordance with the INF Treaty.

© Sputnik/ Vladimir Rodionov A bundle of three Soviet RSD-10 missiles prepared for demolition at the Kapustin Yar launch site. The missiles were destroyed in accordance with the INF Treaty.

“In this way,” he warns, “Europe is reverting to the climate of the Cold War, to the advantage of the US, which can use such a climate to increase their influence on their European allies. It’s no coincidence that at the meeting in Washington, Obama highlighted the ‘European consensus’ on maintaining sanctions against Russia, and praised Denmark, Finland, and Sweden and their ‘strong support’ for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, which the US wants to sign by the end of the year.”

It turns out “that the Lockheed Martin launchers also contain a TTIP missile,” Dinucci concludes.

Sorgente: Here’s the Most Dangerous Thing About US Missile Defense in Eastern Europe

‘OK, I’m dead’: Two Georgia sheriffs taser handcuffed man to death in shocking video

A new video has surfaced online showing two Georgia sheriff’s deputies, Samuel Smith and Joshua Sepanski, tasering a handcuffed man to death. The victim’s family said the two officers have faced no punishment and are still working at their department.

Sorgente: ‘OK, I’m dead’: Two Georgia sheriffs taser handcuffed man to death in shocking video — RT America

US judge hands light sentences to 4 Americans for staging bloody but failed coup d’état in Gambia

Four US citizens stood trial for sending armed men to overthrow a government and received prison terms of only up to one year. Had they attempted to have a regime change at home they would most likely have got life behind bars.

Sorgente: US judge hands light sentences to 4 Americans for staging bloody but failed coup d’état in Gambia — RT America

America’s 83 Ignoramuses Are Enabling Destruction by Israel

The 83 U.S. senators who urged the president to increase military assistance to Israel are 83 ignoramuses and their letter is a disgrace. Israel of all countries? Military assistance of all needs?

Increasing military aid won’t add one iota of security to Israel, which is armed to the teeth. It will harm Israel. Those 83 out of 100 senators base their extraordinary demand on “Israel’s dramatically rising defense challenges.”

What are they talking about? What “rising challenges”? The rise in the use of kitchen knives as a deal-breaking weapon in the Middle East? The challenge for one of the world’s strongest armies to survive against young girls brandishing scissors? Hamas’ tunnels in the sand? Hezbollah, which is bleeding in Syria? Iran, which has taken a new path?

It’s time they expanded their narrow view and reduced the enormous aid they shower on Israel’s arms industry – one of the world’s largest weapons exporters – and its army.

The United States is allowed, of course, to waste its money as it sees fit. But one may ask, senators, if it makes sense to invest more fantastic sums to arm a military power when tens of millions of Americans still have no health insurance and your senate is tightening its purse strings despite the challenges of climate change.

A world power is arming a regional power as part of a corrupt, rotten deal. Your money, senators, is largely being spent on maintaining a brutal, illegal occupation that your country claims to oppose – but finances.

The weapons you provide are for a brazen state that dares defy America more than any of its allies does. It ignores America’s advice and even humiliates its president. It gets twice the aid you give Egypt, an ally that needs the money much more. It’s three times more than you give Afghanistan, which is devastated in part because of you.

It’s almost four times more than you give Jordan, which is in a precarious state due to refugees and the Islamic State. To Vietnam, which you destroyed, you gave $121 million, and to Laos, which you ruined, $15 million. Impoverished Liberia received $156 million and awakening, liberated South Africa $490 million.

But for Israel, even $3 billion a year isn’t enough. It gets more than any other country in the world yet insists on $4 billion, not a cent less, including an unconditional commitment for a decade.

If you’ve already decided to pour such huge sums on Israel, why on its army of all things? Have you seen what its hospitals look like? And if you’re financing weapons, why not condition it on the only democracy in the region’s appropriate behavior?

What do you have over there in the world’s most important legislature? An automatic signing machine for letters supporting Israel? An ATM for the Jewish lobby’s every whim? Only 17 of 100 senators were courageous enough, or bothered to think for a moment, before they signed another scandalous venture by AIPAC and the Israeli Embassy.

More money to arm Israel will end in blood. It must end in blood. There are old weapons that must be used and new weapons that must be tried (and then sold to Azerbaijan and Ivory Coast).

This destructive, murderous force will fall again on devastated houses in Gaza, and America will finance it all once again. The money will also corrupt Israel. If this is the prize for its refusal to make peace and its flouting of international law, why shouldn’t it behave this way? Uncle Sam will pay.

The senators who signed the letter didn’t act for either their country’s good or Israel’s. It’s doubtful whether they know what they signed. It’s doubtful whether they know what the real situation is.

Maybe among them are people of conscience or people familiar with their country’s national interests. But the blood money will serve neither those interests nor morality.

Sorgente: TLAXCALA: America’s 83 Ignoramuses Are Enabling Destruction by Israel

With 4,000 US Cruise Missiles Pointed at Russia, How Will Moscow Respond?

Media and military experts have engaged in a discussion of the US military concept of a Prompt Global Strike (PGS), a system that would enable Washington to deliver precision-guided non-nuclear airstrikes anywhere in the world in less than an hour. Defense analyst Konstantin Sivkov discusses the idea, and Russia’s inevitable response.

In his analysis, published by the independent online newspaper Svobodnaya Pressa, Sivkov begins by recalling that the general media and expert appraisal of the concept is that it would be a danger to the entire world, if ever implemented.

“Generalizing the appraisals of the Prompt Global Strike program, it emerges that this is an extremely dangerous idea that would become a deadly threat for almost all nations. At the core of this idea is the assertion that precision conventional weapons can be comparable in their destructive power to nuclear weapons. Accordingly, their massed use against Washington’s foes could bring them to their knees.”

“But is this really the case?” Sivkov asks. “What is behind the concept of the Prompt Global Strike, and is it really possible to bomb an enemy into capitulation? How serious a threat is this concept with regard to its possible use against Russia?”

At its core, the doctor of military sciences recalls, the concept “involves the creation of a complete combat system, and apart from the strike component also requires subsystems including reconnaissance and surveillance, command and communications posts, as well as jamming systems.”

“The weapons used under this concept would include land- and sea-based ballistic missiles, as well as sea- and air-launched hypersonic long-range cruise missiles. In the long term, space-based platforms can also be used to launch attacks.”

Sivkov notes that ballistic missiles are currently the most likely candidate to meet the requirements laid out by the concept of the Prompt Global Strike. “They provide for the high-precision destruction of targets (with a CEP accuracy of 100-150 meters), a short delivery time (no more than 30-40 minutes), and high speed of the warhead in the target area, allowing them to destroy objects buried deep underground. Their large throw-weight (up to 3.5 tons) allows for the use of various types of warheads.”

“However, there are a number of issues that make the use of conventionally-equipped ballistic missiles problematic.”

To begin with, the analyst recalls, “the Russian missile surveillance system (and that of China, in the near future), may classify the group launch of such missiles (and the guaranteed destruction of a single object will require at least 2-3 such missiles) as a nuclear attack, leading to a retaliatory nuclear strike.”

“Secondly, the START treaties limit the total number of deployed ballistic missiles, and make no distinction between nuclear and conventionally equipped weapons. In other words, equipping ground and sea-based ballistic missiles with conventional warheads can only be done through a corresponding reduction in the number of deployed nuclear missiles.”

Therefore, another important component of the Prompt Global Strike initiative is the Boeing X-51A, a prospective missile expected to be capable of hypersonic flight at a speed of 6,500-7,500 km/h.

“However,” Sivkov notes, “tests of this system have not yet yielded the expected results. And while the X-51A program has not been closed, it can only be expected to appear in the medium term, and to be adopted into service in sufficient quantities only in the long term.”

“Therefore, the US military is not expected to receive any fundamentally new weapons systems giving the Prompt Global Strike initiative any operationally significant effect in the medium and even long term perspective.”

In this connection, the analyst says, “the US may in the medium term rely for the most part on sea- and air-launched cruise missiles, such as the Tomahawk, based on strategic, tactical and carrier aviation. The US Navy’s existing sea launched cruise missiles (SLCMs) have a range of up to 1,600 km, using 340-450 kg warheads with an accuracy of between 5-10 meters. These weapons can be launched from all modern vessels and submarines at the US’s disposal.”

12 such SLCMs can be placed on each of the 23 serving Los Angeles-class attack submarines. The same number can be launched from the Seawolf-class and Virginia-class subs (3 units and 9 units, respectively). “Under the program to convert Ohio-class submarines into carriers of Tomahawk missiles, each of the 4 subs were expected to carry 154 SLCMs. However, that program was closed.”

61 of the US’s new Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, and its 22 Ticonderoga-class cruisers are equipped with vertical launching systems, the Arleigh Burke-class featuring the 96-cell Mark 41 VLS, and the Ticonderoga a 122-cell system.

Therefore, Sivkov notes, the US surface fleet can theoretically carry a total of 4,000 surface-ship launched cruise missiles, plus another 1,000 onboard its submarines.

“However, realistically speaking, given the need to use part of the surface fleet for other purposes, and accounting for operational readiness, ships and submarines of the US Navy can actually deploy no more than 2,500-3,000 SLCMs” at any one time.

“In addition to the Navy, US long-range strategic bombers are also equipped with long-range cruise missiles. At present, the US Air Force is equipped with about 130 strategic bombers, capable of deploying a total of about 1,200 air launched cruise missiles (ALCMs). Thus, in total, all [US] carriers of cruise missiles are able to launch a total of 3,700-4,200 missiles.”

Moreover, “in addition to missiles, between 2,500-3,000 tactical and carrier-based aircraft capable of striking targets at a depth of up to 600 km from the border can also be used in a first strike.”

“This,” Sivkov notes, “is quite an impressive force, and absent an effective response, is capable of destroying (knocking out) 1,000 important sites of the opponent in the potential first strike.”

However, the analyst notes, this capability does really conform to the concept of the Prompt Global Strike, for several reasons.

“Firstly, such a strike would not, in fact, be ‘prompt’, since the preparations for such a large-scale attack would require a great deal of time – 2 months or more. At this time, the US would need to implement the strategic deployment of its air and naval forces in the area of the combat mission, to create the necessary inventories, and to conduct reconnaissance on the objects subject to attack. In other words, this would no longer be the kind of air attack proposed by the Prompt Global Strike concept, but an ordinary missile-based strike.”

“Second, if the impact of such an attack could really be devastating on small (or even medium-sized) countries, it will not fully deprive them of the opportunity to resist…Therefore, in the continuation of warfare, the US would, in one way or another, have to switch to the use of traditional means of warfare. In other words, the strike’s use makes sense only if it is part of a fairly large-scale military operation in coordination with the other branches of the armed forces, and this, again, means that it will not be ‘prompt’, nor global, but an ordinary missile strike as part of the first wave of an offensive.”

Russian experts, Sivkov says, “point to the serious threat such an attack poses to the Russian nuclear forces, the destruction of which would allow the US to move on to nuclear blackmail against our country, and the rest of the world. It is in this point that they see the main essence [and danger] of the Prompt Global Strike initiative.”

“Indeed,” the expert notes, “if Russia takes a passive position and does not adequately respond to the aggressor, the resulting blow could result in the destruction of 80-90% of our nuclear arsenal. However, taking account of actual conditions, it is clear that such a blow against Russia is extremely unlikely.”

For starters, “the US can decide on such a blow against Russia only in the case of a sharp aggravation of relations between our two countries.” This scenario, he suggests, may occur if forces come to power in one or the other country ready for open conflict. So long as the existing elites, particularly in Russia, remain capable of reaching compromise, “the US will not have any desire for such grand adventurism.”

“Secondly, such a strike would be preceded by a sufficiently long period [of buildup], long enough for retaliation to occur. In this case the success of the operation would be called into question.”

“Thirdly, the duration of such a strike would last for several hours (according to computer simulations – 4-6 hours). This means that after the first 20-30 minutes, when the Russian leadership realizes the scale of the aggression (even if the aggressor achieves complete operational surprise), a decision on a retaliatory nuclear strike can be made, while most nuclear forces are still in existence. That is, a massed US conventional strike would mean provoking a retaliatory nuclear strike.”

At the same time, Sivkov warns, “a completely different picture emerges if we are talking about strikes on certain critical facilities in order to achieve a localized goal with a relatively limited number of weapons. In this case long-term preparations would not be required. The blow can be made by combat-ready forces immediately after receiving the order.”

“Such a strike can be sudden, not only operationally or strategically, but also tactically, because the flight to the target by a limited number of cruise missiles can be performed at low or extremely low altitudes, outside the observation of land-based observation systems.”

Again however, “the speed, surprise, and ‘global’ nature of the strike (up to 60 minutes according to the Prompt Global Strike concept) can be achieved only if US naval and air force groups are present in the area. This means that when it comes to the prompt response [to any rapidly emerging threats], the US is presently capable of employing only very limited forces – a few dozen long-range cruise missiles.”

“These forces can damage or destroy 1-2 large or medium-sized facilities, or 2-3 objects of military or state administration, or 1-2 field objects, such as militant training camps, or 1-2 research centers.”

“In other words,” Sivkov notes, today and in the medium term, the concept of the Prompt Global Strike will only be capable of defeating local threats, such as the elimination of an individual political leader, the destruction of the leadership of an organization which has been labelled to be terrorist, or the deprivation of individual states’ capacity to implement programs considered a threat to US national security,” etc.

Ultimately, the analyst notes, “we can assert that in the current situation and in the medium term perspective, the concept of the Prompt Global Strike makes sense only in solving problems of an exclusively local character, against objects on the territory of states which cannot respond to the aggressor, and which have no security guarantees from a third, sufficiently powerful state.”

Sorgente: With 4,000 US Cruise Missiles Pointed at Russia, How Will Moscow Respond?

US missiles go live despite Russia warning

The United States is about to activate its missile systems across Europe, despite Russia’s warnings against a systematically increasing US-led arms deployment near its borders.

Almost after a decade of pledging to protect members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Washington will on Thursday activate a web of missile systems it has deployed across Europe over the years.

American and NATO officials are slated to declare operational the so-called shield at a remote air base in Deveselu, Romania.

“We now have the capability to protect NATO in Europe,” said Robert Bell, a NATO-based envoy of US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter.

He claimed that the shield is supposed to protect Europe from an Iranian missile threat, a claim Moscow has repeatedly rejected, saying the missiles are aimed at Russia instead.

“The Iranians are increasing their capabilities and we have to be ahead of that. The system is not aimed against Russia,” Bell told reporters, adding that the system will soon be handed over to NATO command.


The US Aegis Ashore missile complex, Romania

He echoed US State Department spokesman John Kirby who had said the system “is defensive in nature” and therefore can’t be targeted “at anybody.”

Despite American assurances, Moscow accuses Washington of trying to neutralize its nuclear arsenal and buy enough time to make a first strike on Russia in the event of war.

Russia’s response

General Sergey Karakayev, commander of the Russian Strategic Missile Forces (SMF), downplayed the system’s impact, saying that the Russian military was paying “special attention” to enhance their weapons and overcome US missile defense systems.

“Threats from the European segment of the missile defense system for the Strategic Missile Forces (SMF) are limited and don’t critically reduce the combat capabilities of the SMF,” Karakayev (pictured below) said on Tuesday.

The general added that Russian ballistic missiles can carry new warheads and deliver them through energy-optimal trajectories in multiple directions, making their path difficult to predict for missile defense systems.

During a Senate hearing in April, US Principal Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Brian McKeon, requested a budget boost for the Missile Defense Agency, saying the funding was crucial for upgrading US missile systems to counter Russian and Chinese missiles.

Russia does not look favorably upon the North Atlantic Organization Treaty (NATO)’s growing deployment of missiles and nuclear weapons near its borders, with the Russian President Vladimir Putin saying in June last year that if threatened by NATO, Moscow will respond to the threat accordingly.

Sorgente: PressTV-US missiles go live despite Russia warning

Il dibattito politico e culturale negli Usa sulla Palestina

ANALISI. Rashid Khalidi delinea i tre tratti principali che hanno caratterizzato le scelte politiche statunitensi dal conflitto del 1948: la compiacenza dei leader arabi che hanno bisogno del sostegno statunitense contro la loro stessa gente; la premura presidenziale per l’elettorato nazionale; il disinteresse per la causa palestinese

Sorgente: Il dibattito politico e culturale negli Usa sulla Palestina

Follow the Minerals: Why the US is Threatened by Venezuela’s ‘Blue Gold’

US PRESIDENT Obama generated international outcry after imposing further sanctions on Venezuela in March and claiming that Venezuela poses an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to US security. President Maduro of Venezuela fired back at Obama, saying the sanctions and executive order are an attempt to use force to control the country.

One forthright response to the US decree from Bolivian President Evo Morales demanded Obama to: “Stop turning the world into a battlefield.”

Is any threat posed by Venezuela merely an illusion created to oil the wheels of intervention?

What is real and tangible is the US’ increasing demand for the natural resources Venezuela has in superabundance.

Resource wealth can be a blessing and a curse. Not only is Venezuela the fifth largest oil exporting country in the world, with the second-largest reserves of heavy crude oil, but also add to that the country’s rich mineral reserves, plus a turbulent economy, and you have a recipe for ‘resource curse’.

Staving off the dreaded resource curse, Venezuela has paved a new road to success. Key to sustaining this progress is the country’s ability to maintain its own mineral wealth.

Venezuela sits on mineral reserves of gold, iron ore, diamonds, coal, uranium and the precious mineral coltan.

Coltan is Venezuela’s Oro Azul or ‘blue gold’. In 2009, President Hugo Chávezannounced the discovery of reserves worth $100 billion of “the blue gold of the 21st century” in the Amazon region of the country.

The price of this blue gold follows an increasing demand for a high-grade metal known as tantalum, processed from refined coltan. Demand for coltan is so intense, it fetches a higher price on the international market than even gold or diamonds.

Tantalum is the metal used in capacitors that store energy in modern electronics like smart phones and tablets. Tantalum capacitors are also essential in powering modern military weaponry because the metal resists corrosion and can withstand the extreme temperatures generated by the new military applications. Without it, weapons systems would overheat.

The US relies on tantalum to build the basic circuitry in guidance control systems in smart bombs, the on-board navigational systems in drones, anti-tank systems, robots and most weapons systems.

The metal is vital to US defense. Yet, it has no domestic source of coltan. Importing and stockpiling tantalum is its only recourse.

As the need for tantalum increases, smugglers move coltan from Venezuela to the US via Colombia and Brazil.

Paramilitary groups control the black market trade of coltan ore, raising insecurity in the region. South of Caicara del Orinoco in Bolívar state where the blue gold reserves are found, cattle ranchers are forced to flee their land.

The minerals trade fuels the conflict in the war-ravaged Congo. Violence in mining areas is proportionate to the demand for rare minerals like coltan. When tantalum shortages cause the price of coltan to soar, violence intensifies in these areas. The Congolese war has killed over six million people since 1996. Thus the term ‘conflict minerals’.

Mining destroys all life and its natural environment – killing vegetation, damaging the soil, waterways and biodiversity. The mining area at Venezuela’s border of the Amazon rainforest has the country’s highest proportion of indigenous peoples. It is home to at least 26 indigenous communities who rely on the natural environment for their ancestral ways of life.

In an attempt to fight illegal smuggling into Colombia, the Venezuelan government ordered a national crackdown on illegal miners and extended restrictions on the 2,200 kilometer border between Venezuela and Colombia.

In December, the Venezuelan government rescued a 30,000 square kilometer area in the country’s most loved national park, clearing it of illegal miners.

Critics of Chávez blame the violence on the ban he instituted in 2009. However, unregulated and illegal artisanal mining in the region goes back decades. And the growing appetite for coltan is only exacerbating the problem.

More importantly: what is driving illegal mining? Who is paying out for smuggled Venezuelan coltan ore, feeding the smelters, buying from refiners and stockpiling large quantities of tantalum?

Where the coltan goes, nobody knows. Tablets and smart phones amount to only a part of the coltan market. There is a documented demand for tantalum by the US defense industry. Could a crackdown on coltan smuggling in Venezuela pose a threat to the US?

A recent 60 minutes episode describes the ‘threat’ that China poses to US national security, not because of tantalum, but from other rare earth elements. China is the world’s single source of these elements. US defense systems depend on rare earth elements needed in manufacturing tomahawk cruise missiles, lasers and guidance systems on weapons. In other words, the US depends on China for its weaponry.

Following this logic, for Venezuela to derail coltan smugglers en route to the US via Colombia and Brazil, could jeopardize the Pentagon’s cache of tantalum from refined coltan.

If a top-rated US news programme portrays China as a threat because it possesses giant mineral reserves that the US needs for its defense industry, then what does this say about the blue gold wars raging across the Eastern Congo and northern Amazon?

Conflict-free advocacy overlooks the links between minerals and the weapons manufacturing industry, focusing narrowly on smart phones, laptops and tablets. It is doubtful defense companies will be seeking out conflict-free mines and transparent, traceable supply chains.

A conflict-free weapon is still an oxymoron.

Advances in military technology and the obsession with armed drones will not curb the craving for tantalum. All the more reason to follow the minerals.

Paramilitary armies traffic illegally mined coltan ore over supply lines to smelters and refiners that sell tantalum to the world’s warmongers, who then build more weaponry to further wage illegal wars.

Obama was half right. There is a real threat. And it’s turning the world into a battlefield. As US sanctions in the past have tended to foreshadow military intervention, Morales’ words ring true.

Sorgente: Follow the Minerals: Why the US is Threatened by Venezuela’s ‘Blue Gold’ | venezuelanalysis.com

Greenpeace svela: Ttip, la dittatura di multinazionali e oligarchie

nottip

 

Il trattato di libero scambio transatlantico, il Ttip, è destinato “a fallire” se gli Stati Uniti non faranno delle concessioni. L’avvertimento era arrivato nei giorni scorsi dal ministro tedesco dell’economia Sigmar Gabriel proprio nel giorno in cui il presidente degli Stati Uniti Barack Obama si trovava in Germania anche per perorare una firma rapida del progetto, da molti dato in dirittura d’arrivo ma in realtà in ritardo abissale rispetto ai tempi previsti inizialmente. “Gli americani non vogliono aprire i loro appelli di offerte pubbliche alle imprese europee. Questo è l’esatto contrario di un accordo di libero scambio, secondo me” aveva detto Gabriel in un’intervista al quotidiano economico Handelsblatt, aggiungendo poi che “Se gli americani resteranno su questa posizione, noi non avremo bisogno di un trattato di libero scambio e il Ttip sarà destinato a fallire”.

Il ministro tedesco ha avuto il merito di evidenziare la considerevole distanza tra due poli economici e politici in competizione tra di loro che cercano di accordarsi su alcune misure di interesse comune senza però riuscirci. Se è vero che il Ttip faciliterebbe assai le multinazionali nei confronti degli stati e dei regolamenti interni ad ogni paese, eliminando antipatici freni ai loro voraci appetiti, oltre che nei confronti dei poli geopolitici concorrenti, è altrettanto vero che ognuno dei due contraenti spera di ottenere il massimo possibile dei vantaggi a scapito dell’altro. Il che non rende affatto facile il raggiungimento di un accordo.


Accordo che sembra ancora più complicato e lontano dopo che nelle scorse ore la sezione olandese di Greenpeace ha pubblicato una lunga serie di documenti finora segreti che riguardano proprio i negoziati in corso tra Ue e Stati Uniti. I “Ttip papers”, come sono stati soprannominati, un totale di 248 pagine che stanno già scatenando un putiferio, sono stati inviati ad un gruppo ristretto di media europei (tra cui il Guardian, Le Monde, El Pais, la Sueddeutsche Zeitung, Askanews) prima della loro pubblicazione integrale sul sito web dell’organizzazione ambientalista olandese.


I documenti – che risalgono al marzo scorso e non sono aggiornati, dunque, con i risultati dell’ultimo “round” negoziale di New York, risalente alla settimana scorsa – coprono più di due terzi del totale dei testi del Ttip, e svelano per la prima volta, sulla maggior parte dei settori in discussione, una posizione negoziale degli Usa che definire intransigente e aggressiva è usare un eufemismo. Leggendo i documenti in questione, secondo Greenpeace, vengono confermate le preoccupazioni espresse dalle organizzazioni sociali, politiche, sindacali e ambientaliste sul “Partenariato transatlantico sulla liberalizzazione del commercio e la protezione degli investimenti” che appare soprattutto orientato ad abbassare, quando non direttamente a smantellare, gli standard attuali e futuri di protezione dell’ambiente e della salute applicati all’interno dell’Unione Europea, e a concedere alle lobby industriali e commerciali il diritto di orientare – più di quanto non facciano già – le decisioni comunitarie in numerosi settori chiave.


Un’istituzione sovranazionale già autoritaria e iperliberista come l’Unione Europea subirebbe un’ulteriore involuzione a vantaggio degli interessi degli oligopoli. Il Ttip rappresenta “una porta aperta per le lobby delle ‘corporation’” secondo Greenpeace, che accusa gli Stati Uniti di un “deliberato tentativo di cambiare il processo decisionale democratico dell’Ue” (ammesso che quest’ultimo esista…).


Dai “Ttip papers” appare evidente che gli statunitensi sono particolarmente aggressivi e determinati nel loro tentativo di costringere l’Ue a rinunciare al “principio di precauzione” come base per la gestione del rischio nell’approccio normativo riguardo alle politiche di protezione dell’ambiente e della salute, e in particolare per la regolamentazione delle sostanze chimiche, dei pesticidi, degli Organismi geneticamente modificati (che vengono citati nei documenti con il termine “moderne tecnologie in agricoltura” e mai con la loro sigla Ogm, per evitare evidentemente di spaventare qualcuno). In nessuno dei paragrafi del testo finora concordato su pressione statunitense appaiono “riferimenti alla regola generale di eccezione inclusa nel Gatt” dell’Organizzazione Mondiale del Commercio che permette ai paesi di regolare il commercio “per proteggere la vita o la salute degli esseri umani, della fauna e della flora” o “per conservare le risorse naturali”. Inoltre non appare nessun accenno, secondo Greenpeace, alle misure raccomandate per evitare l’innalzamento della temperatura globale e il cambio climatico.


Ma l’organizzazione ecologista accusa direttamente anche l’establishment europeo rispetto alla volontà di rendere le organizzazioni continentali degli imprenditori degli attori decisivi nel varo delle politiche dell’Unione Europea in merito a numerose questioni, rispetto alle quali gli interessi della grande impresa diventerebbero ostativi anche dal punto di vista formale.


Non è un caso che finora i negoziatori abbiano mantenuto uno stretto riserbo a proposito dei contenuti delle misure previste dal Ttip, impedendo di fatto una informazione continua e trasparente che permettesse alle organizzazioni sociali e politiche continentali di prendere una posizione adeguata rispetto a quello che si preannuncia, se andasse in porto, come un netto peggioramento all’interno di una Unione Europea sempre più antidemocratica e antipopolare al servizio degli interessi delle oligarchie.


Un motivo in più, sabato prossimo a Roma, per scendere in piazza non solo contro il negoziato sul Ttip tra Stati Uniti ed Europa, ma per denunciare il carattere antipopolare e imperialista delle istituzioni europee e dell’Unione Europea in quanto tale. Se è vero che Bruxelles sta tentando di rintuzzare gli appetiti delle multinazionali statunitensi – e ciò spiega il ritardo nella firma del trattato – è altrettanto vero che ciò avviene esclusivamente in nome della difesa dei privilegi e degli interessi delle oligarchie europee.


Una competizione, quella tra le classi dominanti statunitensi ed europee, alla quale le classi popolari del continente, ed in particolare quelle dei paesi trasformati dal meccanismo di unificazione europea in colonie interne, non possono che opporre un progetto di rottura e di trasformazione.

thanks to: Contropiano

Se non è guerra fredda questa…

 

 

guerra_nato_russia_2a

Gli Usa starebbero preparando una provocazione contro la Russia da mettere in atto durante le prossime manovre Nato in Polonia. Questo il senso di una notizia pubblicata dal britannico The Independent, secondo cui il nuovo comandante in capo delle delle forze Nato in Europa, il generale yankee Curtis Scaparrotti vorrebbe “ripagare con la stessa moneta l’incidente delle settimane scorse con il cacciatorpediniere Donald Cook” che, incrociando in prossimità delle coste russe nel mar Baltico, con un elicottero polacco sul ponte di volo, era stato sorvolato a 30 metri d’altezza da un Su-24, peraltro privo di armamento, fotocopiando la scena di due anni prima, nelle acque del mar Nero, con lo stesso caccia lanciamissili Donald Cook.

Qualche giorno più tardi, gli USA si erano dichiarati “indignati” perché un loro aereo-spia RC-135 era stato affiancato “pericolosamente” da un SU-27 russo che gli aveva impartito, per ammissione della CNN, “lezioni di alto pilotaggio”, eseguendo un perfetto tonneau. Nell’occasione, il presidente della Commissione esteri della Duma, Aleksej Puškov aveva ironicamente notato come “mentre l’aereo-spia USA, tranquillamente e in maniera non aggressiva, ci stava spiando sul mar Baltico, il caccia SU-27 gli ha effettuato vicino una serie di “pericolose manovre”. Gli USA sono indignati”. “La Nato potrebbe dimostrare”, scrive ancora The Independent, “quanto siano serie le proprie intenzioni, durante le manovre estive in Polonia, cui prenderanno parte 25mila soldati, la qual cosa non farebbe che gettare olio sul fuoco delle paranoie russe”. Il giornale ripropone l’esempio delle manovre Nato del 1983 “Able Archer”, che costituirono “uno dei momenti più pericolosi nella storia della guerra fredda, allorquando il Cremlino pose le truppe in stato di massima allerta, nel timore che le manovre Nato potessero costituire il pretesto per un attacco nucleare su larga scala all’Unione Sovietica”.

In attesa dell’estate, intanto, scrive l’agenzia Novorosinform, il Congresso USA ha varato “l’occupazione dell’Europa, con l’aumento delle truppe USA e la sponsorizzazione dell’Ucraina”. In vista dell’approvazione del bilancio 2017 per il Pentagono, l’amministrazione Obama chiede lo stanziamento di 3,4 miliardi di $ (su 582,7 miliardi di $ totali del bilancio della difesa) da destinare al “rafforzamento della sicurezza europea, alla luce delle sempre più aggressive azioni russe”. E’ previsto il dislocamento permanente – non più a rotazione – di una terza brigata corazzata da destinare in vari paesi dell’Europa orientale, oltre allo stanziamento di 150 milioni di $ per l’Ucraina, a favore della quale lo stesso Scaparrotti avrebbe chiesto la fornitura di armi letali, principalmente razzi controcarro FGM-148 “Javelin”. E’ un fatto, che dal 1991, secondo dati del Ministero della difesa russo, la presenza di uomini e mezzi di terra Nato in Europa orientale, in particolare Paesi baltici, Polonia, Bulgaria e Romania, sia aumentata di 13 volte e 8 volte quella di mezzi aerei.

A questo proposito, Pravda.ru scrive che gli USA hanno inviato dalla Gran Bretagna in Romania altri due caccia multifunzione F-22 “Raptor” e un aereo cisterna KS-135, per il “rafforzamento del fianco orientale della Nato”, nell’ambito delle manovre “Atlantic Resolve”. L’estate scorsa il parlamento di Bucarest aveva approvato il dislocamento del sistema di difesa antimissilistica Nato sul proprio territorio e, in autunno, vascelli della VI flotta USA avevano preso parte a esercitazioni congiunte con naviglio rumeno nel mar Nero, per la scoperta e l’eliminazione di “minacce subacquee”, durante le quali il cacciatorpediniere USA Ross si era spinto fino alle acque territoriali russe al largo della Crimea. Il Ross era entrato ancora una volta nel mar Nero nel dicembre scorso, scortato dal cosiddetto “primo gruppo navale di allerta permanente” della Nato, le tre fregate lanciamissili Francisco de Almeida portoghese, Blas de Lezo spagnola e Winnipeg canadese.

Ma, secondo la rivista militare statunitense National Interest, nonostante i miliardi di dollari spesi da Washington in armamento nucleare e difesa antimissilistica, le corrispondenti armi russe superano di gran lunga quelle USA. Questo, pur nel quadro dello “Start III” per la limitazione delle armi offensive strategiche, che prevede la riduzione a 1.550 delle testate nucleari, a 700 i missili balistici intercontinentali dispiegati e i bombardieri strategici. Secondo il Dipartimento di stato, le parti sarebbero vicine al raggiungimento delle quote previste: 741 mezzi per il lancio di 1.481 testate da parte USA e, rispettivamente, 521 e 1.735 da parte russa.

I missili balistici intercontinentali USA con base a terra sono del tipo LGM-30G, ognuno dei quali monta una testata (ne può portare fino a tre) da 300 kilotoni; realizzati nel 1978 e più volte ammodernati, dovrebbero restare in servizio fino al 2030. Gli USA pianificherebbero di investire negli armamenti nucleari circa 350 miliardi di dollari entro il 2024. Mosca dispone di un largo spettro di missili intercontinentali RS-24, dislocati sia in silos, sia su mezzi mobili; si prevede che per il 2020 possa sostituire il famoso “Topol” (equivalente del LGM-30G USA) con nuovi modelli, in grado di eludere i sistemi antimissile nemici. Dispone anche del R-36M2, in grado di portare fino a 10 testate da 750 kilotoni l’una, che per il 2020 dovrebbe essere sostituito dal RS-28, in grado di viaggiare alla velocità di 7 km al secondo. Di un RS-26, con una gittata di oltre 6.000 km, si parla come arma per ora segreta.

Il raffronto complessivo dei dispositivi militari (dati del 2014; flotte escluse) statunitense e russo mostra come, a fronte di una popolazione rispettivamente di 320 milioni e 146 milioni, gli USA dispongano di 2.270mila uomini (riserve incluse) contro 4.250mila russi; 8.900 carri armati di modelli diversi, contro 20.800; 30.817 trasporti blindati, contro 36.000; 1.900 unità di artiglierie semoventi, contro 6.500; 1.270 sistemi razzi, contro 4.500; 900 obici trainati contro 7.000. Tra i mezzi aerei, gli USA disponevano nel 2014 di 2.000 elicotteri (da trasporto, attacco e tattici) contro 1.500 russi; 700 sistemi missilistici a corto raggio, contro 1.200 e 1.150 a media e lunga gittata, contro 2.800 russi; 1.945 caccia d’attacco o intercettori, contro 1.042; 154 bombardieri strategici, contro 94 russi. Complessivamente: al dicembre 2014 gli USA disponevano di 49.742 unità di mezzi terrestri e aerei, contro 81.436 russi.

Rispetto alle forze Nato in Europa, l’americana “War on the Rocks” scrive che, secondo i modelli della Rand Corporation, la Russia sarebbe superiore di alcune volte. In base alle simulazioni, ipotizzando un attacco russo ai Paesi baltici, Mosca in 10 giorni potrebbe dispiegare dai 30 ai 50mila soldati. Nei confronti delle forze Nato dislocate nella regione, che Mosca potrebbe distruggere in tre giorni, la superiorità russa è di 7:1 in carri armati, 5:1 per elicotteri e blindati, 4:1 in artiglieria da campo e 16:1 per quella a lunga gittata; 24:1 per sistemi antimissilistici a corto raggio e 17:1 per quelli a lunga distanza. I ricercatori della Rand Corporation notano anche come, oltre che per numero, i mezzi militari russi superino per qualità quelli della Nato; e anche per quanto riguarda le forze aeree, considerate la carta vincente della Nato, l’arsenale di razzi terra-aria russi è tale da renderle un facile obiettivo.

Simulazioni a parte, il Ministero della difesa lituano avrebbe “visto” la settimana scorsa una “autentica battaglia aerea” tra velivoli russi e Nato nei cieli sopra il mar Baltico. Secondo Vilnius, per ben tre volte caccia Nato si sarebbero levati in volo per intercettare apparecchi russi. Una prima volta, il 18 aprile scorso, pur “non avendo identificato gli aerei russi in volo da Kaliningrad, potrebbe essersi trattato di un Su-27 e due Su-24. Il 21 aprile, potrebbero esser stati due caccia-bombardieri Su-24” e infine “sarebbe” stato avvistato un bombardiere a largo raggio Tu-22. Tra un “potrebbe” e un “sarebbe”, a Mosca si dicono nient’affatto meravigliati degli “avvistamenti”: quasi non passa giorno, che sommergibili vengano “scoperti” lungo le coste baltiche, o paracadutisti russi vengano “visti” atterrare sulle spiagge lituane, per non parlare dei continui “intercettamenti” di aerei militari di Mosca. In breve, i lucreziani simulacri che, “quasi membrane staccate dalla superficie dei corpi, volteggian per l’aria qua e là”.

thanks to: Contropiano

Tra pasta e acqua, erbicida glifosato finisce a tavola

– ROMA – Il discusso pesticida glifosato, che la Iarc (Agenzia dell’Organizzazione mondiale della Sanità) ha classificato come probabile cancerogeno e l’Efsa, authority europea per la sicurezza alimentare, invece assolve, finisce anche sulle tavole degli italiani. Analisi condotte da due laboratori, su iniziativa del mensile dei consumatori ‘Il Test-Salvagente’, hanno infatti rilevato in alcuni casi residui di glifosato, pur se inferiori ai limiti di legge, in corn flakes, fette biscottate, farine e paste. Il ‘Test-Salvagente’ ha svolto analisi anche su campioni di acque e in questo caso i risultati sono stati più allarmanti, perché su 26 campioni provenienti da diverse città italiane, in due casi l’Ampa, un derivato del glifosato dagli effetti tossici, è risultato superiore ai limiti di legge. Aidepi, Associazione delle industrie del dolce e della pasta italiane, replica affermando che la pasta e i prodotti da forno italiani sono sicuri. Difatti la presenza di minime tracce di glifosato riscontrata dalle analisi de ‘Il Test-Salvagente’ non rappresenta alcun rischio per la salute. Con le quantità rilevate – osserva Aidepi – non sarebbe possibile superare i limiti di sicurezza stabiliti dalle autorità sanitarie neppure mangiando 200 kg di cibo al giorno”. Sul fronte dei controlli sull’acqua – ha denunciato il mensile dei consumatori – c’è negligenza da parte delle regioni, difatti nessuna analizza la presenza di glifosato e del suo metabolita Ampa nelle acque potabili. A puntare l’indice contro le regioni, anche Vincenzo Vizioli, presidente dell’Aiab-Associazione italiana per l’agricoltura biologica e promotore del coordinamento ‘Stop Glifosato’, che comprende 38 soggetti non solo del mondo bio, ma consumatori, ambientalisti e associazionismo agricolo. “Abbiamo chiesto alle regioni di togliere il glifosato dai disciplinari di produzione a cui vengono assicurati finanziamenti europei attraverso i piani di sviluppo rurale, ma finora abbiamo trovato un muro di gomma”.
“Il buon senso vorrebbe che in primis la Ue, nella sua decisione del mese prossimo sul rinnovo dell’autorizzazione alla vendita del glifosato, si basasse sul principio di cautela che figura peraltro nel suo statuto – sottolinea Carlo Maurizio Modonesi, docente dell’Università di Parma e membro del Gruppo Pesticidi dei Medici per l’Ambiente -, perché ancora non sappiamo i veri rischi delle continue esposizioni a tracce di residui di pesticidi”.

Sorgente: Tra pasta e acqua, erbicida glifosato finisce a tavola – Cibo & Salute – ANSA.it

Top US Firms Hiding Trillions of Dollars in Offshore Funds

Leading poverty charity Oxfam revealed on Thursday that the top 50 biggest companies in the United States have hidden trillions of dollars in offshore funds amounting to more than the GDP of Spain, Mexico and Australia.

In a report, titled “Broken at the Top,” Oxfam found that the companies profited by almost $4 trillion globally between 2008 and 2014 and received a “staggering” $11 trillion in US government support over the same period.

Sorgente: Top US Firms Hiding Trillions of Dollars in Offshore Funds

Panama Papers: “la Cia usava servizi dello studio Fonseca per operazioni coperte come l’Irangate”

Lo rivela la Sueddeutsche Zeitung: agenti avrebbero fondato società di comodo per agire senza darenell’occhio. Ue, multinazionali dovranno pubblicare tasse pagate (ANSA)

Non solo paradisi fiscali per evasori, ma anche oasi al riparo da occhi indiscreti per le azioni coperte dei servizi segreti. A partire da quelle della Cia. La Sueddeutsche Zeitung apre un nuovo fronte dei Panama Papers, popolato da società di comodo, create per movimentare denaro necessario a finanziare operazioni sul filo della legalità, e spesso anche oltre. Come nel caso dell’Irangate, lo scandalo che nel 1985-1986 coinvolse vari alti funzionari e militari dell’allora amministrazione di Ronald Reagan, accusati di traffico illegale di armi con l’Iran e finanziamenti occulti all’opposizione dei Contras al governo sandinista del Nicaragua

Sorgente: Panama Papers: “la Cia usava servizi dello studio Fonseca per operazioni coperte come l’Irangate” – Mondo – ANSA.it

Huge US Government Arms Delivery to Al-Qaeda Revealed by Official Website

A transport solicitation found on a federal website reveals the US government keeps shipping weapons to Al-Qaeda and other belligerent groups in Syria.

According to the British military information agency Jane’s, two transport solicitations were found on a US government website FedBizGov.org (Federal Business Opportunities), that looked for shipping companies to transport explosive material from Constanta, Romania, to port of Aqaba in Jordania on behalf of the US Navy’s Military Sealift Command.

Sorgente: Huge US Government Arms Delivery to Al-Qaeda Revealed by Official Website

Pentagon is ‘Actually Training Islamist Militants’ in Syria

The Pentagon has admitted that it’s currently training Syrian rebels. The US Army Colonel Steve Warren told journalists on Friday that ‘dozens of people are now being trained’, without disclosing any additional details.

Sorgente: Pentagon is ‘Actually Training Islamist Militants’ in Syria

Forget ‘Russian Aggression’! Why Pentagon Wants More Troops in Europe

When it comes to the US response to the non-existent Russian threat to NATO’s eastern flank, Washington’s actions do not match its rhetoric, German politician Dr. Alexander Neu told Sputnik, commenting on the Pentagon’s plans to increase US military presence in Europe in 2017.

Sorgente: Forget ‘Russian Aggression’! Why Pentagon Wants More Troops in Europe

US Navy Begins Annual Military Exercise With South Korean Naval Forces

Three US Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers operated with approximately 10 Republic of Korea Navy ships for seven days off the coast of the ROK peninsula, according to the US Navy press release.

Sorgente: US Navy Begins Annual Military Exercise With South Korean Naval Forces

The US-led Coalition Bombed the University of Mosul for Being an Islamic State Headquarters

The functioning university was bombed as part of a massive daytime barrage against the Islamic State-occupied city of Mosul in Iraq over the weekend. The Pentagon said it is reviewing reports of civilian deaths.

Sorgente: The US-led Coalition Bombed the University of Mosul for Being an Islamic State Headquarters | VICE News

Clinton Email: Assad Must Be Toppled to Protect Israel

Buried within Hillary Clinton’s private server is an email which proves that the former US Secretary of State wanted Syrian President Bashar al-Assad out of power for the sake of Israel, assuring her partners that Russia would not get involved.

Sorgente: Clinton Email: Assad Must Be Toppled to Protect Israel

100 years ago today, Ota Benga ended his horrible life after caged as ‘pygmy’ at Bronx Zoo

Benga shot himself after years of humiliation and heartbreak. ©

Benga shot himself after years of humiliation and heartbreak. © / Wikipedia

20 Mar, 2016

100 years ago, on March 20, 1916, Ota Benga took a gun and fired a bullet into his own heart, ending the short and tragic life of the “missing link” from Africa

His treatment at the hands of so-called gentlemen from New York’s Bronx Zoo and the 1904 World’s Fair in St. Louis, Missouri came in the height of the eugenics movement, forty years after the end of (legal) slavery in America.

Today, Benga is remembered for his sacrifice in documentaries and on social media networks like Twitter, a martyr for the cause to end racism.

The 32-year old Mbuti man from along the Kasai River in what is now the Democratic Republic of Congo stood just four feet, eleven inches tall and had teeth filed to sharp points, which was reportedly a tradition for his tribe.

His early life in the forests of Belgian Congo were violent and his wife and two children were killed by the Force Publique.

Samuel Phillips Verner, an American businessman in Africa tasked with acquiring pygmies for a “cultural evolution” display at the World’s Fair’s Louisiana Purchase Exposition, encountered Benga in 1904.

How Verner came to “acquire” Benga is unclear, with the “pioneering” Presbyterian missionary claiming to have “saved” him from a cannibalistic tribe who had kidnapped him.

Using Benga as a recruitment tool who could downplay the rightfully-distrustful attitude about white men, Verner managed to find more natives and brought them all to the US to be part of the exposition’s human displays.

The controversial exhibit showed real humans from a number of “exotic” ethnicities dressed in their native gear on a staged reproduction of their homes.

He returned to Africa after the fair and married for the second time, but came back to the US when his new wife died of a snakebite.

Verner got him a place to live inside at the American Museum of Natural History in New York where he was “free to roam” until he threw a chair at Florence Guggenheim and was relocated to the Bronx Zoo.

On a dark day in 1906, 40 years after the abolishment of slavery, Benga was billed as the “missing link”, on display in the Bronx Zoo cage alongside a monkey.

Crowds flocked to see the sight which entertained and disgusted in equal measure.

The secretary of the zoo at the time was eugenicist Madison Grant, whose writings on the “dangers” of “inferior” races outbreeding and mixed breeding with Caucasians earned him a letter of thanks from Adolf Hitler.

Despite the zoo claiming Benga was “employed”, he was never paid for his work in which he assisted employees in their duties.

Noting his popularity with visitors and his affection for the monkey enclosure, Benga was encouraged step by step to take up residency with the monkeys.

Soon his hammock was in an empty cage and a target was set up for his bow and arrow, ensuring he rarely needed to leave. He was now one of the zoo’s most popular exhibits.

The New York Times wrote, “he is probably enjoying himself as well as he could anywhere in his country, and it is absurd to make moan over the imagined humiliation and degradation he is suffering.”

There was also disgust expressed at Benga’s display, with a reader of The New York Globe writing: “I lived in the south several years, and consequently am not overfond of the negro, but believe him human. I think it a shame that the authorities of this great city should allow such a sight as that witnessed at the Bronx Park — a negro boy on exhibition in a monkey cage.”

Days later, the exhibit came to an end when members of the Colored Baptist Ministers Conference protested what they called “degrading”.

“We think we are worthy of being considered human beings, with souls,” the committee wrote.

Benga was removed from the enclosure, but was now famous for the wrong reasons.

Still “resident” at the zoo, now “free to roam” again, crowds followed the man, jeering and shouting at him.

He then moved to Lynchburg, Virginia, where his teeth were capped and his name changed to Otto Bingo, his American nickname.

He attended school for a short time until he felt his English was sufficient and took up work at a tobacco factory.

Soon he pined for his home in Africa, but a return was not likely due to the outbreak of World War I preventing passenger ship travel.

On March 20, 1916, he removed the caps from his teeth, built a ceremonial fire, and with a stolen gun, shot himself in what was likely a broken heart.

Benga was buried in an unmarked grave in Lynchburg, but his legacy lives on to remind us of man’s potential brutality to man.

thanks to: RT

Yemen: Embargo Arms to Saudi Arabia

(Sanaa) – The United States, United Kingdom, France, and others should suspend all weapon sales to Saudi Arabia until it not only curtails its unlawful airstrikes in Yemen but also credibly investigates alleged violations.

Since March 26, 2015, a coalition of nine Arab countries has conducted military operations against the Houthi armed group and carried out numerous indiscriminate and disproportionate airstrikes. The airstrikes have continued despite a March 20 announcement of a new ceasefire. The coalition has consistently failed to investigate alleged unlawful attacks as the laws of war require. Saudi Arabia has been the leader of the coalition, with targeting decisions made in the Saudi Defense Ministry in Riyadh.

“For the past year, governments that arm Saudi Arabia have rejected or downplayed compelling evidence that the coalition’s airstrikes have killed hundreds of civilians in Yemen,” said Philippe Bolopion, deputy global advocacy director. “By continuing to sell weapons to a known violator that has done little to curtail its abuses, the US, UK, and France risk being complicit in unlawful civilian deaths.”
Nongovernmental organizations and the United Nations have investigated and reported on numerous unlawful coalition airstrikes. Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and other international and Yemeni groups have issued a joint statement calling for the cessation of sales and transfers of all weapons and military-related equipment to parties to the conflict in Yemen where “there is a substantial risk of these arms being used… to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law or international human rights law.” Human Rights Watch has documented 36 unlawful airstrikes – some of which may amount to war crimes – that have killed at least 550 civilians, as well as 15 attacks involving internationally banned cluster munitions. The UN Panel of Experts on Yemen, established under UN Security Council Resolution 2140 (2013), in a report made public on January 26, 2016, “documented 119 coalition sorties relating to violations” of the laws of war.
Saudi Arabia has not responded to Human Rights Watch letters detailing apparent violations by the coalition and seeking clarification on the intended target of attack. Saudi Arabia has successfully lobbied the UN Human Rights Council to prevent it from creating an independent, international investigative mechanism.
In September 2014, the Houthis, a Zaidi Shia group from northern Yemen also known as Ansar Allah, took control of Yemen’s capital, Sanaa. In January 2015, they effectively ousted President Abdu Rabu Mansour Hadi and his cabinet. The Houthis, along with forces loyal to former president Ali Abdullah Saleh, then swept south, threatening to take the port city of Aden. On March 26, the Saudi-led coalition, consisting of Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, and Sudan, began an aerial bombing campaign against Houthi and allied forces.
At least 3,200 civilians have been killed and 5,700 wounded since coalition military operations began, 60 percent of them in coalition airstrikes, according to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. The naval blockade the coalition imposed on Yemen has contributed to an immense humanitarian crisis that has left 80 percent of the population of the impoverished country in need of humanitarian protection and assistance.

The UN Panel of Experts found that, “the coalition’s targeting of civilians through air strikes, either by bombing residential neighborhoods or by treating the entire cities of Sa‘dah and Maran in northern Yemen as military targets, is a grave violation of the principles of distinction, proportionality and precaution. In certain cases, the Panel found such violations to have been conducted in a widespread and systematic manner.” Deliberate, indiscriminate, and disproportionate attacks against civilians are serious violations of the laws of war, to which all warring parties are bound.

The UN panel said that the attacks it documented included attacks on “camps for internally displaced persons and refugees; civilian gatherings, including weddings; civilian vehicles, including buses; civilian residential areas; medical facilities; schools; mosques; markets, factories and food storage warehouses; and other essential civilian infrastructure, such as the airport in Sana’a, the port in Hudaydah and domestic transit routes.”

Residents sifting through the rubble of homes destroyed in an airstrike three days prior in Yareem town. The strike killed at least 16 civilians.

The 36 unlawful airstrikes Human Rights Watch documented include attacks on schools, hospitals, and homes, with no evidence they were being used for military purposes. Human Rights Watch has collected the names of over 550 civilians killed in these 36 attacks. Amnesty International has documented an additional 26 strikes that appear to have violated the laws of war. Mwatana, one of Yemen’s leading human rights organizations, issued a report in December that documented an additional 29 unlawful airstrikes across Yemen, from March to October 2015.

In addition, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have documented civilian casualties from internationally banned cluster munitions used in or near cities and villages. Cluster munitions have been used in multiple locations in at least five of Yemen’s 21 governorates: Amran, Hajja, Hodaida, Saada, and Sanaa. The coalition has used at least six types of cluster munitions, three delivered by air-dropped bombs and three by ground-launched rockets. Human Rights Watch has said there should be an immediate halt to all use of cluster munitions and that coalition members should join the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

Despite the numerous credible reports of serious laws-of-war violations, the Saudi-led coalition has taken no evident actions either to minimize harm to civilians in its air operations or to investigate past incidents and hold those responsible to account. So long as no such steps are taken, governments should not supply weapons to the leading coalition member.

The UK foreign affairs minister, Phillip Hammond, and other senior UK officials have repeatedly said that coalition forces have not committed any violations of the laws of war. On February 2, 2016, an important cross-party committee of UK members of parliament sent a letter to the international development secretary, Justine Greening, calling for immediate suspension of UK arms sales to Saudi Arabia and an international independent inquiry into the coalition’s military campaign in Yemen.

On February 25, the European parliament passed a resolution calling on the European Union’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini “to launch an initiative aimed at imposing an EU arms embargo against Saudi Arabia.” On February 17, the Dutch parliament voted to impose the embargo and ban all arms exports to Saudi Arabia.

On January 31, the coalition announced the creation of a committee to promote the coalition’s compliance with the laws of war. However, the military spokesman for the coalition specified that the objective of the committee was not to carry out investigations into alleged violations.

Human Rights Watch has also documented serious laws of war violations by Houthi and allied forces, including indiscriminate shelling of cities, enforced disappearances, and the use of internationally banned antipersonnel landmines. Human Rights Watch supports a ban on the sale or provision of weapons to the Houthis that are likely to be used unlawfully, notably unguided “Grad-type” rockets and anti-personnel landmines.

“How many more airstrikes need to wreak havoc on civilians before countries supplying aircraft and bombs to the coalition pull the plug?” Bolopion said.

UK, US Arms Support for Saudi-led Coalition
Under international law, the US is a party to the armed conflict in Yemen. Lt. Gen. Charles Brown, commander of the US Air Force Central Command, said that the US military has deployed dedicated personnel to the Saudi joint planning and operations cell to help “coordinate activities.” US participation in specific military operations, such as providing advice on targeting decisions and aerial refueling during bombing raids, may make US forces jointly responsible for laws-of-war violations by coalition forces. As a party to the conflict, the US is itself obligated to investigate allegedly unlawful attacks in which it took part.

The UK government has said that though it has personnel in Saudi Arabia, they are not involved in carrying out strikes, or directing or conducting operations in Yemen, or selecting targets. UK Prime Minister David Cameron has stated that UK personnel are deployed to “provide advice, help and training” to the Saudi military on the laws of war.

Largest Foreign Military Sales to Saudi Arabia
In July 2015, the US Defense Department approved a number of weapons sales to Saudi Arabia, including a US$5.4 billion deal for 600 Patriot Missiles and a $500 million deal for more than a million rounds of ammunition, hand grenades, and other items, for the Saudi army. According to the US Congressional review, between May and September, the US sold $7.8 billion worth of weapons to the Saudis.

In October, the US government approved the sale to Saudi Arabia of up to four Lockheed Littoral Combat Ships for $11.25 billion. In November, the US signed an arms deal with Saudi Arabia worth $1.29 billion for more than 10,000 advanced air-to-surface munitions including laser-guided bombs, “bunker buster” bombs, and MK84 general purpose bombs; the Saudis have used all three in Yemen.

According to the London-based Campaign Against Arms Trade, the UK government approved GB£2.8 billion in military sales to Saudi Arabia between January and September 2015. The weapons include 500-pound Paveway IV bombs. The UK is negotiating a £1 billion weapons deal with the UAE.

A June 2015 Spanish government report stated that Spain had authorized eight licenses for arms exports to Saudi Arabia worth $28.9 million in the first half of the year. In February 2016, Spanish media reported that the government-owned shipbuilding company Navantia was about to sign a contract worth $3.3 billion with Saudi Arabia for the construction of five Avante 2200 type frigates for the Saudi navy.

In July 2015, Saudi Arabia reportedly signed agreements worth $12 billion with France, which included $500 million for 23 Airbus H145 helicopters. The kingdom is also expected to order 30 military patrol boats by 2016 under the agreement. Reuters reported that Saudi Arabia has also recently entered into exclusive negotiations with the French company Thales Group to buy spy satellite and telecommunications equipment worth “billions of euros.”

Coalition Violations
Human Rights Watch has documented 36 airstrikes between March 2015 and January 2016, that appear to have been unlawfully indiscriminate or disproportionate, which include a March 30, 2015 airstrike on a camp for internally displaced people that killed at least 29 civilians and a March 31, 2015 airstrike on a dairy factory outside the port city of Hodaida that killed at least 31 civilians. In Saada, a Houthi stronghold in the north, Human Rights Watch examined more than a dozen airstrikes that occurred between April and May that destroyed or damaged civilian homes, five markets, a school, and a gas station, though there was no evidence these sites were being used for military purposes. These strikes killed 59 people, mostly civilians, including at least 35 children.

On May 12, the coalition struck a civilian prison in the western town of Abs, killing 25 people. On July 24, the coalition dropped nine bombs on and around two residential compounds of the Mokha Steam Power Plant, which housed plant workers and their family members, killing at least 65 civilians. On August 30, an airstrike hit Al-Sham Water Bottling Factory in the outskirts of Abs, killing 14 workers, including three boys, who were nearing the end of their night shift.

The coalition has carried out strikes on marketplaces, leading to high civilian death tolls. On May 12, a strike on the marketplace of the eastern village of Zabid killed at least 60 civilians. On July 4, an airstrike on the marketplace of the northern village of Muthalith Ahim killed at least 65. On July 6, bombs hit two markets in the governorate of Amran, north of Sanaa, killing at least 29 civilians.

On October 26, the coalition bombed a Doctors Without Borders (MSF) hospital in the northern town of Haydan in Saada governorate six times, wounding two patients. Since then, coalition airstrikes have hit MSF facilities twice. An airstrike hit a mobile clinic on December 2, in Taizz, wounding eight, including two staff members, and killing another civilian nearby. On January 21, an airstrike hit an MSF ambulance, killing its driver and six others, and wounded dozens in Saada.

On January 10, a projectile hit an MSF-supported hospital in Saada, killing six people and wounding at least seven, most of them medical staff and patients. MSF said it could not confirm the origin of the attack, but its staff had seen planes flying over the facility at the time of the attack. MSF said on January 25, that it had yet to receive any official explanation for any of these incidents.

On May 8, 2015, Brig. Gen. Ahmad al-Assiri, the military spokesman for the coalition, declared the entire cities of Saada and Marran, another Houthi stronghold, to be military targets. In an interview with Reuters on February 1, al-Assiri spoke about Saudi civilian casualties from Houthi and pro-Saleh forces’ firing across the border. He said, “Now our rules of engagement are: you are close to the border, you are killed.” Treating an entire area as the object of military attack violates the laws-of-war prohibition on attacks that treat distinct military objectives in a city, town or area as a single military objective. Doing so unlawfully denies civilians protection from attack.

Human Rights Watch also documented the coalition’s use of at least six types of cluster munitions in at least 15 attacks in five of Yemen’s 21 governorates between March 2015 and January 2016. Cluster munitions are indiscriminate weapons and pose long-term dangers to civilians. They are prohibited by the 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions, adopted by 118 countries, though not Saudi Arabia or Yemen.

Failure to Investigate Alleged Violations
Countries that are party to a conflict have an obligation under international law to investigate credible allegations of war crimes and hold those responsible to account. Human Rights Watch has seen no indication that the Saudi Arabia-led coalition has conducted any meaningful investigations into alleged laws-of-war violations.

On August 19, 2015, Human Rights Watch and 22 other human rights and humanitarian organizations called on the UN Human Rights Council to create an independent international commission of inquiry at its September session to investigate alleged laws-of-war violations by all parties to the conflict. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights similarly called on UN member states to encourage the establishment of an “international independent and impartial” investigative mechanism.

Instead, on September 7, President Abdu Rabu Mansour Hadi of Yemen established a national commission to investigate violations of human rights and the laws of war. During the ensuing UN Human Rights Council session in Geneva, Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries effectively blocked an effort led by the Netherlands to create an international investigative mechanism. The national commission has taken no tangible steps to conduct investigations, nor has it revealed any working methods or plans, three people close to the commission told Human Rights Watch.

Five days after the release of UN Panel of Experts report on Yemen, on January 31, 2016, the coalition announced a new committee to assess the coalition’s rules of engagement in the war and produce recommendations for the coalition to better respect the laws of war. “The goal of the committee is not to investigate allegations,” Al-Assiri said. “Its primary goal is to confirm the precision of the procedures followed on the level of the coalition command.” As such, this proposed body does not meet the requirements for an impartial investigative mechanism that can address accountability for unlawful attacks or compensate victims of coalition violations, Human Rights Watch said.

Al-Assiri said that the Saudi military has been conducting internal investigations into attacks in which a violation might have ensued, and pointed to a single airstrike that had led to a violation: the October 26, 2015 bombing of an MSF hospital in northern Yemen. He said the strike had been the result of “human error,” but did not outline any steps taken to hold the responsible military personnel to account, or compensate the two civilians wounded in the strike.

thanks to: Human Rights Watch

US Responsible for War Crimes in Yemen – Human Rights Watch

The United States should stop selling arms to Saudi Arabia, or they could be held accountable for war crimes committed in Yemen, Human Rights Watch said.

A Saudi-led coalition has been carrying out a military campaign in neighboring Yemen since March 2015, after large swaths of the country fell under the control of the Houthis — a religious-political extremist group hostile to the Saudis.

The Gulf kingdom, together with Egypt, Morocco, Jordan and other Middle Eastern and North African countries, initially launched a series of airstrikes on the Houthi-held areas, as well as imposing an air and naval blockade of the country.

From the beginning, the US provided the coalition with intelligence, airborne fuel tankers and bombs. It is thought that apart from supporting its longtime ally Saudi Arabia, the Obama administration’s move was a bargaining chip aimed at appeasing the Saudis over the US-Iran nuclear deal.

Sorgente: US Responsible for War Crimes in Yemen – Human Rights Watch

Will This Trigger World War III? US Army Stockpiles Munitions Near China

US Army announces plans to place munitions stockpiles in Vietnam, Cambodia, and other area countries in a bid to contain the regional expansion of Chinese influence.

On Wednesday, the US Army announced that it plans to stockpile munitions and military supplies in Vietnam, Cambodia, and several other undisclosed nations including, experts believe, the Philippines, as the US adopts an increasingly aggressive military posture toward China.

Sorgente: Will This Trigger World War III? US Army Stockpiles Munitions Near China

Family of US Drone Victim Ignored After Obama’s Pledge for ‘Full Review’

While the US government claimed responsibility for the deaths of an Italian man killed in a drone strike in Pakistan, it has been one year since the admission and the family has yet to see results.

In January 2015, Warren Weinstein and Giovanni Lo Porto were being held hostage by al-Qaeda when the CIA launched a drone strike against the compound. Both men were killed.

In April of that year, the Obama administration made a rare admission of guilt, saying that surveillance failed to show the presence of the two hostages, and promised a “full review.”

Nearly one year since that promise, Lo Porto’s family says they have had no contact with the US government.

This week, the family filed briefs in court to question the legality of US drone operations beyond declared armed conflicts.

“The statements from the White House were such a clear acknowledgement of the incident and commitment to do something about it,” Andrea Succucci, a leading human rights lawyer in Rome, told the Intercept.

“We want to know the truth, to know what happened, if someone is responsible, and if something could have been done in order to avoid it.”

The briefs include a request for US judicial cooperation and copies of the internal documentation about the incident. While Saccucci is relying on President Obama’s admission of guilt as key evidence, he admits that the likelihood of success is slim.

Saccucci could bring a claim against Italy in the European Court of Human Rights or a civil claim against the US in an Italian court.

Win or lose, the Lo Porto family seeks closure.

“If you lose a son, and you get an explanation, your heart can be at peace. But someone whose son is killed, and everyone washes their hands of it, and no one knows anything?” Daniele Lo Porto, the youngest of four brothers, told the Intercept.

Working for the Red Cross in Pakistan at the time of his capture, Lo Porto’s friends remember him as a kind person in search of a sense of validity in his world.

“It was in his nature to help people,” a friend, Claudia Hille, told the Intercept. “And I think he also wanted to get away from Italy. The international aid community is really open-minded, it’s like a special bubble, and I think he really liked that.”

After hearing Obama’s announcement last April, Daniele said he was outraged.

“My reaction? Anger,” he said.

“Obama said the intelligence service was watching, and yet no one knew anything? How could the Americans not see that there were two other people, the hostages? With the technology they have, can’t they see inside the houses?”

While attorneys work to hold the US government accountable, Daniele doesn’t have much hope.

“America could give us a palace full of money, and it wouldn’t matter. There can be no justice from America.”

Sorgente: Family of US Drone Victim Ignored After Obama’s Pledge for ‘Full Review’

Hard Power: Pentagon ‘Encircling the World’ With Missile Defense Systems

The US is continuing to spread its missile defense systems all over the world using dubious reasons as a pretext, former Director-General of the UN Office at Geneva Sergei Ordzhonikidze asserted.

“Until recently we were told that [Washington’s] anti-missile defense system in Europe was aimed at protecting [the US and its allies] from Iran’s missile program. Now China is told the same thing,” the diplomat said during a lecture at the Museum of Contemporary Russian History.

The remarks come at a time when Washington and Seoul have launched formal talks over the possible deployment of America’s advanced missile defense system, known as Terminal High Altitude Air Defense (THAAD), to South Korea in the light of Pyongyang’s recent rhetoric, threats, as well as nuclear and missile tests.

Sorgente: Hard Power: Pentagon ‘Encircling the World’ With Missile Defense Systems