As Long As Rights Are Trampled, There Will Be Forced Migration

HELP ENLIGHTEN YOUR FELLOWS. BE SURE TO PASS THIS ON. SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON IT.


The cold-blooded murder of activist Berta Careers can be laid at Clinton's (and Obama's) doorstep. These two phonies misused the power of the US to topple a legitimate government and usher in an era of lawlessness and brutal repression in Honduras.


Jorge García is no “bad hombre.” Before being deported to Mexico in mid-January, he was a hard-working, tax-paying landscaper in Michigan. He’s also a husband and father — although now an absent one.

Many deportees — most, like García, good people — return to countries they no longer know, some of them unable to speak the language. Others are thrust into life-threatening situations. Families and communities fracture; some deportees die.

In 2008, Laura was an undocumented Mexican mother of three living in Texas. Actually, she did have one U.S. “paper” — a protection order issued against her violent ex-husband, who’d subsequently been deported. He said he’d kill her if she returned to Mexico.

The following year, Laura was detained after a traffic stop. She told the police officer, and later a Border Patrol agent, her very reasonable fears. But reportedly she was pressured into signing a “voluntary return.” Her ex kept his word, within days of her deportation back to Mexico.

It’s an ongoing debate: What do U.S. citizens owe undocumented immigrants, if anything? Do DACA “Dreamers” deserve special consideration? Should TPS recipients lose their “temporary protected statuses” if the conditions in their home countries are still dangerous? What if sending them home would rupture families or disrupt the U.S. economy?

What have immigrants brought to our country — what strengths and gifts, and what liabilities?

We want to add this critical question: How has U.S. foreign policy affected their countries? Refugees walk hot desert miles, ride atop trains, and entrust themselves to smugglers for a chance at a safer, less desperate life. Has our country helped create the extreme conditions these migrants are fleeing?

We believe the U.S. training of Latin American militaries has contributed mightily to this exodus, with the School of the Americas (SOA) being a prime example. The SOA was established in 1946 to train Latin American military personnel. By 2000, it had instructed more than 60,000 soldiers in combat, counterinsurgency, psychological operations, and more.

Although the SOA claimed its training upheld democratic values, human rights reports told a different story. In 2001 — following a public, editorial, and congressional outcry — the SOA was “closed” and rebranded as the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC).

Then and Now

[dropcap]W[/dropcap]ithout question, democracy and human rights are still under siege in many Latin American countries. Rural communities, often Indigenous, are jeopardized when their lands look promising to outsiders for business ventures — in logging, mining, hydropower, tourism, or agribusiness.

Consider, for example, Honduras — the Central American nation that just reinaugurated conservative President Juan Orlando Hernández, the declared winner of a fiercely disputed November 26 election. The OAS’s call for an electoral re-do was rejected, and thousands of protesters filled the streets of Tegucigalpa during the January 27thceremony.

The election drama takes place against a backdrop of violence against human rights defenders.

Indigenous feminist and environmentalist Berta Cáceres cofounded the Civic Council of Popular and Indigenous Organizations of Honduras (COPINH) in 1993. In recent years, COPINH has opposed the building of the Agua Zarca hydroelectric dam, which was begun in violation of the Lenca people’s rights and threatens their water and livelihood. They’ve fought the dam in court and blockaded access roads.

Cáceres succeeded in drawing international scrutiny to the controversial project; it stumbled in 2013 when a builder and a funder withdrew. In 2015, she won the Goldman Environmental Prize for bravely “protecting vulnerable people and ecosystems.” She’d received many death threats.

Gunmen killed Cáceres in her home the following year.

Berta was not alone in her courage. According to Global Witness’s January 2017 report: “123 land and environmental activists have been murdered in Honduras since the 2009 coup.” LGBTQ persons and journalists and human rights defenders suffer repression, too.

Notably, SOA graduates Gen. Romeo Vásquez Velásquez and Gen. Luis Javier Prince Suazo figured prominently in removing President Manuel Zelaya in 2009. Coup-makers accused Zelaya of trying to change the constitution, but he’d already angered the elite by raising the minimum wage, advocating land reform, and offering myriad forms of assistance to the poor.

His reforms were going in the right direction for most Hondurans. According to researchers Jake Johnston and Stephan Lefebvre at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, during Zelaya’s brief tenure, “Poverty and extreme poverty rates decreased by 7.7 and 20.9 percent respectively.” After his ouster, those rates rebounded.

In early September 2010, the post-coup government granted 41 dam concessions — many of them in territories belonging to Indigenous people, without the prior, “good faith” consultation that is their right. Agua Zarca is one.

The grim reality: Governments and their militaries, often trained and subsidized by the United States, have skewed the distribution of wealth and power in many Latin American nations.

According to figures at the Security Assistance Monitor, Honduras received over $100 million in U.S. “security aid” from 2009 to 2017. Then, two days after the flawed Honduran presidential election in November — defying fact and reason — the U.S. State Department certified that the Honduran government supports human rights, making it eligible for more aid.

The Committee of Families of the Detained and Disappeared of Honduras (COFADEH) reports that at least 30 people have been killed since the November election — most of them opponents of President Hernández, and most killed by the military police.

But Honduras’s democratic opposition is not going away. COPINH has called “for a deepening of national mobilization against fraud and dictatorship. The more they repress, the more we struggle and organize.”

Hondurans in the U.S.

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reported in 2016 that “more families and unaccompanied children are fleeing poverty and violence in Central America” and trying to reach the United States. This isn’t surprising, given the profit- and military-driven upheavals mentioned above.

Natural upheavals have forced migration, too, including Hurricane Mitch in the autumn of 1998 and earthquakes in El Salvador in 2001. Hundreds of thousands of Central Americans sought refuge in the United States after those events, qualifying for Temporary Protected Status.

Now, under the Trump administration, DHS has set January 5, 2019 and September 9, 2019 deadlines for Nicaraguans and Salvadorans, respectively, who must transition out of their TPS by then.

Meanwhile, officials are still deliberating the fate of Honduran TPS holders, claiming they lack “definitive information regarding conditions on the ground compared to pre-Hurricane Mitch.” Hondurans could find their TPS ending on July 5, 2018, or possibly extended.

An observation regarding those elusive “conditions on the ground”: The ability of the majority of Hondurans to recover from Mitch, even 20 years later, is inseparable from the economic justice issues we’ve touched upon. And those, in turn, depend upon recovering real democracy in Honduras.

Into the Future

So what’s next?

SOA Watch encourages actions in solidarity with the people of Honduras. Activists have rallied around a bill called the Berta Cáceres Human Rights in Honduras Act, which seeksto withhold U.S. funds from Honduran police and military in the name of human rights.”

Other policies that might help include a “clean” DREAM Act — one that will not make life more dangerous and difficult for immigrants who aren’t Dreamers.

Our country has played an often disastrous, deadly role in Latin America. We can just begin to make amends to our southern neighbors by showing refugees respect, hospitality, and security.

Ultimately, reducing the flow of refugees requires a just foreign policy, one that values people — and what Cáceres called “our Mother Earth” — over profits. You can be sure: As long as rights are trampled, voices are silenced, and lives are cut short — there will be forced migration.

Even at great risk. Even without parents. Even with a wall.

 

First published by Foreign Policy in Focus.


 

 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
 Roy Bourgeois founded SOA Watch, a nonviolent grassroots organization working to close the SOA/WHINSEC and end state violence in the Americas.  • Margaret Knapke is a longtime human-rights activist. 

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

black-horizontal
[premium_newsticker id=”154171″]

Parting shot—a word from the editors
The Best Definition of Donald Trump We Have Found

In his zeal to prove to his antagonists in the War Party that he is as bloodthirsty as their champion, Hillary Clinton, and more manly than Barack Obama, Trump seems to have gone “play-crazy” -- acting like an unpredictable maniac in order to terrorize the Russians into forcing some kind of dramatic concessions from their Syrian allies, or risk Armageddon.However, the “play-crazy” gambit can only work when the leader is, in real life, a disciplined and intelligent actor, who knows precisely what actual boundaries must not be crossed. That ain’t Donald Trump -- a pitifully shallow and ill-disciplined man, emotionally handicapped by obscene privilege and cognitively crippled by white American chauvinism. By pushing Trump into a corner and demanding that he display his most bellicose self, or be ceaselessly mocked as a “puppet” and minion of Russia, a lesser power, the War Party and its media and clandestine services have created a perfect storm of mayhem that may consume us all. Glen Ford, Editor in Chief, Black Agenda Report 

window.newShareCountsAuto="smart";




Why ‘Russian Meddling’ is a Trojan Horse

HELP ENLIGHTEN YOUR FELLOWS. BE SURE TO PASS THIS ON. SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON IT.


 

Prior to the 2016 presidential election, if one were to ask what single act could seal a new Cold War with Russia, align liberals and progressives with the operational core of the American military-industrial-surveillance complex, expose the preponderance of left-activism as an offshoot of Democratic Party operations and consign most of what remained to personal invective against an empirically dangerous leader, consensus would likely have it that doing so wouldn’t be easy.

The decision to blame Russian meddling for Hillary Clinton’s electoral loss was made in the immediate aftermath of the election by her senior campaign staff. Within days the received wisdom amongst Clinton supporters was that the election had been stolen and that Donald Trump was set to enter the White House as a pawn of the Russian political leadership. Left out was the history of U.S. – Russian relations; that the largest voting bloc in the 2016 election was eligible voters who didn’t vote and that domestic business interests substantially control the American electoral process.


Graph: The Democrats’ choice to blame external forces, e.g. Russian meddling, for their electoral loss in 2016 ignores evidence of that none-of-the-above is the people’s choice. The largest voting bloc in the 2016 election was eligible voters who chose not to vote. In contrast to the received wisdom in political consultant circles, choosing not to vote is a political act. The U.S. has the lowest voter turnout in the ‘developed’ world for a reason. Source: electproject.org.


More than a year later, no credible evidence has been put forward to establish that any votes were changed due to ‘external’ meddling. As the Intercept has reported, since the election progressive candidates seeking public office have been systematically subverted by establishment Democrats in favor of those with connections to big-money donors. And the Democratic Party leadership in congress just voted to give Mr. Trump expanded spying powers with fewer restraints. Congressional Democrats are certainly behaving as if they believe Mr. Trump was duly elected. And more to the point, they are supporting his program.

The choice of Russia would seem bizarre if not for the history. Residual propaganda from the first Cold War— itself largely a business enterprise that provided ideological cover for American imperial incursions, had it that substantive grievances against the American government, in the form of protests, were universally the product of ‘external’ enemies intent on sowing discord to promote their own interests. This slander was used against the Civil Rights movement, organized labor, anti-war protesters and the counterculture of the 1960s.


The most cynically brilliant outcome of the ‘blame Russia’ campaign has been to neuter left activism by focusing the attack on Donald Trump rather than the interests he represents. As evidence, the proportion of Goldman Sachs alumni in Mr. Trump’s administration approximates that in Mr. Obama’s and what was expected for Mrs. Clinton’s.

Therefore, the choice by the Clintonites to invoke a new Cold War by bringing Russia into the American electoral mix is not without a past. Students of history may recall that in the early 1990s Mikhail Gorbachev was given assurances by senior members of George H.W. Bush’s administration that NATO would not be expanded to Russia’s border in exchange for Russia’s help re-integrating East and West Germany. It was Bill Clinton who unilaterally abrogated these assurances and moved nuclear-armed NATO to Russia’s border.

In 2013 the Obama administration ‘brokered’ (Mr. Obama’s term) a coup in the former Soviet state of Ukraine that ousted the democratically elected President to install persons favorable to the interests of Western oligarchs. At the time Hillary Clinton had just vacated her post as Mr. Obama’s Secretary of State to prepare for her 2016 run for president, but her lieutenants, including Victoria Nuland, were active in coordinating the coup and deciding who the new ‘leadership’ of Ukraine would be.

An analogy would be if Russia moved troops and weaponry to the Mexican border with the U.S. after giving assurances that it wouldn’t do so and then engineered a coup (in Mexico) to install a government friendly to the interests of the Russian political leadership. One needn’t be sympathetic to Russian interests to understand that these are provocations. Given U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons stockpiles, the provocations seem more reckless than ‘tough.’ Then consider Mr. Obama’s, later Trump’s, move to ‘upgrade’ the U.S. nuclear arsenal toward ‘tactical’ use.

This is to suggest that it certainly makes sense that the Russian political leadership would want to keep American militarists, a/k/a the Clintons and their neocon ‘crazies,’ out of White House. But as of now, the evidence is that the Russians changed no votes in the 2016 election. As far as inciting dissent— the charge that protests were organized by Russian ‘interests,’ not only does this reek of prior misdirection by the FBI and CIA, but there is no evidence that any such protests had an impact on the outcome of the 2016 election.

Given Mr. Trump’s belligerent (unhinged) rhetoric toward North Korea, if enhancing geopolitical stability was the Russians’ goal, Mr. Trump must be a disappointment. Unfortunately for Mr. Trump’s critics (among whom I count myself), there is a lot of ‘theory’ from American think tanks that supports crazy as a strategy. And it was after Mr. Trump’s provocative posture toward North Korea became widely known that senior Democrats voted to give him additional NSA powers with fewer restrictions.

The most cynically brilliant outcome of the ‘blame Russia’ campaign has been to neuter left activism by focusing the attack on Donald Trump rather than the interests he represents. As evidence, the proportion of Goldman Sachs alumni in Mr. Trump’s administration approximates that in Mr. Obama’s and what was expected for Mrs. Clinton’s. If the problem is Donald Trump, then the solution is ‘not Trump.’ However, if the problem is that the rich substantially control American political outcomes, how would electing ‘not Trump’ bring about resolution?

As it is, within days of the 2016 election Mr. Trump, his supporters plus the political opponents of Mrs. Clinton were recast as stooges of the Kremlin. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney had required loyalty oaths from their stalwarts. But even a loyalty oath wouldn’t prove that one isn’t a stooge of the Kremlin. And the larger problem with the theory (of Russian meddling) is that the U.S. electoral system was already thoroughly corrupted by economic power.

As students of the scientific method know, you can’t ‘prove’ a negative. Condoleezza Rice used this knowledge in 2003 to sell the George W. Bush administration’s calamitous war against Iraq through the charge that the proof that Saddam Hussein had an ongoing WMD program is that he hadn’t handed over his WMDs. As history has it, Mr. Hussein couldn’t hand over his WMDs because he didn’t have any to hand over. How then would critics of Mrs. Clinton ‘prove’ they weren’t / aren’t acting on behalf of foreign interests?

The answer lies with Democratic Party loyalists. Much as Bush – Cheney supporters were impervious to logical and evidentiary challenges to the rationales given for the war against Iraq, Clintonites believe what they believe because they believe it. For those with an interest and some knowledge of empirical research, read the myriad articles touting ‘proof’ of Russian meddling and find a single instance where such proof is provided. Or with an eye toward not being the half of Republicans who still believe that Saddam Hussein had WMDs, bring the proof forward if it exists.

Here is the disclaimer taken from the National Intelligence Estimate (link here).

The National Intelligence Estimate, initially claimed to be based on input from 17 intelligence agencies, later reduced to selected representatives from three of the agencies (NSA, CIA and FBI), provides no proof for claims of Russian meddling and states quite openly that it is conjecture. Amongst these agencies, one (NSA) is known for illegally spying on Americans and lying about it to congress, the second (CIA) provided fraudulent ‘evidence’ to drag the U.S. into a calamitous war against Iraq where it ran illegal torture camps and the third (FBI) has such a checkered history that is was called ‘Gestapo’ by former U.S. president Harry Truman.

Here is James Clapper, the former Director of National Intelligence, lying to congress about NSA spying. Here is Trevor Timm in the Columbia (University) Journalism Review explaining the many ways former head of the NSA and CIA Michael Hayden has lied to congress and the American people. Here is a brief history of COINTELPRO and FBI attempts to disrupt and discredit the Civil Rights movement. At the time that FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover was accusing Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. of being a communist (link above), the term approximated being an agent of Russia.

(Here is a compendium of links related to claims made in this piece: Promise by U.S. that NATO wouldn’t expand to surround Russia. Bill Clinton expands NATO to Eastern Bloc to surround Russia. Barack Obama admits U.S. role in Ukraine coup. James Clapper committingperjury. Victoria Nuland discusses overthrowing the democratically elected government of Ukraine and installing U.S. puppets. Backstoryof CIA and Robert Sheer that supports argument Propornot is government operation with ties to Ukrainian fascists.)

There is circumstantial evidence that the first list of ‘Russian-linked’ websites published by the ‘credible’ media, that of Propornot published in the Washington Post (in their ‘Business’ section) to which a disclaimer was subsequently added, was the work of Ukrainians with links to the CIA. The Propornot website (link above) is worth visiting to get a sense of how implausible the whole enterprise is. On it former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Ronald Reagan, Paul Craig Roberts, is listed prominently as a puppet of the Kremlin. And deep-research political website Washington’s Blog made the honor roll as well.

More recently, the New York Times cited the German Marshall Fund as an authority on Russian meddling. The German Marshall fund (U.S.) is headed by Karen Donfried, a former Obama Administration official and operative for the National Intelligence Council. The National Intelligence Council supports the Director of National Intelligence. Here (again) is James Clapper, the former Director of National Intelligence, lying to congress about NSA spying. Derek Chollet, Executive Vice President of the fund, is the former Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Obama administration and a senior member of Hillary Clinton’s Policy Planning Staff.

The question for the Left is why liberals and progressives would align themselves with Hayden, Clapper, the FBI, CIA and NSA, and suspect organizations like Propornot and the German Marshall Fund when most have spent their entire existences trying to undermine and shut down the Left? The (near-term) cynical brilliance of the Democrats’ strategy is through revival of the Cold War frame of national interests that was always a cover for imperial business schemes. As the Intercept articles (links above) have well- uncovered, this is all just business for the Democrats anyway. Can you say class warfare?

Assuming for a moment that not everyone is playing the Democrats’ one-dimensional checkers, if the Russian political leadership really intended to ‘undermine the U.S.-led liberal democratic order,’ as the NIE puts it, it is doing Mrs. Clinton a disservice to suggest that she wasn’t up to the job. From the Clintons’ 1994 Crime Bill to deregulating Wall Street to support for George W. Bush’s calamitous war against Iraq to the U.S. / NATO destruction of Libya, Mrs. Clinton has ‘undermine(d) the U.S.-led liberal democratic order’ just fine.

Likely not considered when the Russian meddling hypothesis was originally put forward is what happens next? The initial charge that America’s ‘sacred democratic tradition’ was soiled when the Russian political leadership hacked the election has run up against the apparent fact that no votes have been found to have been changed. The charge that AstroTurf protests organized by the Russians led to dissent smells a lot like the last half-century of FBI / CIA lies against / about the Left. And the charge that narcissistic plutocrat Trump has been ‘compromised’ misses that he was already compromised by the circumstances of his birth and upbringing. This is the problem.

The Democrats, in their wisdom, have given a gift to the U.S. intelligence ‘community’ that provides political cover for closing down inconvenient commentary and disrupting inconvenient political organizations. A political Left with a brain would be busy thinking through strategy for when the internet becomes completely unusable for organizing and communication. The unifying factor in the initial ‘fake news’ purge was criticism of Hillary Clinton. Print media, a once viable alternative, has been all but destroyed by the move to the internet. This capability needs to be rebuilt.

Bourgeois incredulity that Donald Trump still has supporters could be seen by an inquisitive Left through a lens of class struggle. Yes, his effective supporters are rich, just as the national Democrats’ are— the term for this is plutocracy. But back in the realm of human beings, rising deaths of despair tie in theory and fact to the wholesale abandonment of the American people by the political class. An inquisitive Left would be talking to these people, not at them. The Russian meddling story is a sideshow with a political purpose. But class struggle remains the relevant story.


ABOUT THE AUTHOR
  Rob Urie is an artist and political economist. His book Zen Economics is published by CounterPunch Books. 

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS

black-horizontal
[premium_newsticker id=”154171″]

Parting shot—a word from the editors
The Best Definition of Donald Trump We Have Found

In his zeal to prove to his antagonists in the War Party that he is as bloodthirsty as their champion, Hillary Clinton, and more manly than Barack Obama, Trump seems to have gone “play-crazy” — acting like an unpredictable maniac in order to terrorize the Russians into forcing some kind of dramatic concessions from their Syrian allies, or risk Armageddon.However, the “play-crazy” gambit can only work when the leader is, in real life, a disciplined and intelligent actor, who knows precisely what actual boundaries must not be crossed. That ain’t Donald Trump — a pitifully shallow and ill-disciplined man, emotionally handicapped by obscene privilege and cognitively crippled by white American chauvinism. By pushing Trump into a corner and demanding that he display his most bellicose self, or be ceaselessly mocked as a “puppet” and minion of Russia, a lesser power, the War Party and its media and clandestine services have created a perfect storm of mayhem that may consume us all. Glen Ford, Editor in Chief, Black Agenda Report

window.newShareCountsAuto="smart";




 Propaganda! Pardon Me, Is Mine Really Bigger Than Yours?


horiz-long grey

HELP ENLIGHTEN YOUR FELLOWS. BE SURE TO PASS THIS ON. SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON IT.

"...those journos sitting in plastic cubicles, are simply doing their well-paid job of presenting the ideas of their masters in a standard, elegant and grammatically correct prose."

Andre in one of his countless stops around the world, this one in Asia. He is a genuine roving correspondent for the people.

They say Propaganda! In the West, both the mainstream media and even some of the so-called progressive outlets are shouting: “Those Russians and Chinese and the others like them, they are at it again! Their vicious propaganda is infiltrating our democratic, freedom-loving countries, spreading confusion and chaos!”

Yes, ban or at least curb RT, contain TeleSur, and if at all possible, throw Press TV to the dogs. And put the writers of NEO, Sputnik, Global Times and other foreign outlets on that proverbial Western mass media ‘no fly list’.

How truly democratic. How open-minded, how ‘objective’!

It goes like this:

“We have been indoctrinating the entire Planet for centuries, mostly unopposed, but if anyone dares to bite back, we will do our best to discredit, even to muzzle them, in no time.”

The author knows full well that decontextualising news, eviscerating the shameful historical record accumulated over centuries by the brutal western imperialists, now incorporated in the US hegemon, is one of the most effective ways to inject toxic spin into anything. 

Then if you protest, if you dare say that kicking out and gagging alternative media sources stinks of the lowest grade of censorship, and of imposing some sort of monopoly on propaganda, you’d be shouted at: “What do you know about propaganda? You really want to see some hard-core propaganda, look at those colorful military parades and political speeches coming out from Pyongyang!” Naturally, these are taken out of context and presented (or framed) in a certain way, and only after that are they always readily available on the BBC and other, should we say ‘reputable’ and ‘objective’, European and North American television channels.

What you will not be told is that if you happen to live in New York or London, Paris or Sydney, Munich or Madrid, you yourself are most likely in the highest bracket of propaganda consumption in the world; that in fact, you could easily be a true propaganda junkie – hooked on it, fully dependent on it, seeking it, even regularly demanding it, at least subconsciously.

*

[dropcap]P[/dropcap]ropaganda, what is it really?

We all ‘propagate’ or ‘propagandize’ something. At least we publicize what we think and believe in our emails, we are spreading it in the pubs, or while out meeting friends and loved ones.

Some of us do it professionally. We write essays, books, give speeches, make films. We go into politics. We join revolutionary movements. We want to change the world. We speak, write about what we believe.

It is all propaganda – spreading our ideas, trying to influence others. What is done in the church or mosque, is clearly propaganda as well, although it is rarely defined as such publicly.

All of us have some opinions, some worldview. You know, at least some very basic one… Or when it comes, for instance, to the mainstream media outlets, their bosses and owners definitely have quite clear designs, opinions and goals (employees, those journos sitting in plastic cubicles, are simply doing their well-paid job of presenting the ideas of their masters in a standard, elegant and grammatically correct prose).

*

In brief: whenever we want to influence the world, we try to ‘package’ and present our thoughts beautifully, extracting the most powerful and attractive parts and passages of our ideals and principles.

There is nothing wrong with that. We communicate, we propagate our thoughts and dreams, as we are trying to improve the world. Such propaganda is, I believe, healthy.

The true problem begins when the same tactics and techniques are used for something absolutely destructive and objectively evil: like colonialism, racism, imperialism or the attempt to control and plunder entire nations and continents. And an even greater problem arises, when it happens with almost unlimited funding, and as a consequence, some of the most capable brains get involved, including those of the communication experts, educators, and even psychologists.

When such a scenario develops, it is not suddenly anymore about ‘discussion’ and ‘finding the best way forward for our humanity’. It is about total, full control of people’s brains, about the elimination of all alternatives.

That is brutal, fatal propaganda. And it is exactly the propaganda which has been domesticated in the West, and is rapidly spreading its metastases all over the world.

If unchecked and unchallenged, such developments may lead to the absolute destruction of humans’ ability to think freely, to compare and to analyze, but it may also eradicate the ability to feel, to dream and to dare.

This most likely, is the aim of Western neo-colonialism. Its ‘success’ depends on the total, dogmatic cultural and ‘intellectual’ monopoly imposed by Europe and the United States on the rest of the world. Such a monopoly can only be attained through a one-sided interpretation of current affairs as well as world history.

The main goal is the absolute and unconditional control of the Planet.

After the destruction of the Soviet Union and during the rapid pro-market reforms in China (and the Western infiltration of China’s education system) in the same period of time, the West came extremely close to achieving its goal.

The world fully abandoned to Western imperialism and market fundamentalism, began suffering from a monstrous wave of privatization, theft of natural and other resources, and consequent social collapse of entire huge nations, from Russia to Indonesia.

Then ‘something happened’. The impact on the Planet became so devastating that many parts of the world abruptly stopped following the Western dictate. Russia had risen to its feet. China, under the guidance of the Communist Party and especially under the leadership of President Xi, returned to ‘socialism with Chinese characteristics’, putting a much greater accent on the quality of human life, culture and ecology, than on financial markets. Latin America began its new wave of the struggle for independence against the US and its own European elites. Many other countries, from Iran to South Africa, Eritrea, Syria and DPRK, refused to surrender.

They got demonized by Western propaganda, demonized day and night, systematically and relentlessly.

Whoever has stood for the interests of his or her people, be they a Communist, a socialist, a patriot, or even a populist, has been incessantlysmeared, ridiculed and humiliated. President Assad or Ahmadinejad, Putin, Xi, Duterte, Zuma, Maduro, Castro, it mattered nothing how popular they were at home; it matters nothing! Simple as that: Whoever stands tall and fights for his people, faces character assassination in the Western media, which, in turn, directly or indirectly controls most of the media outlets in the world!

To get all of the patriotic and progressive leaders out of the way, openly serves the interests of the Western Empire and its business offshoots.

No one has doubts about this, anymore. It would take tremendous discipline not to see it.

Yet the opposite is being constantly repeated by the Western television stations, newspapers, magazines, and even the universities.

Ignoring facts, manufacturing conspiracy theories, denying that white is white, black is black, refusing to admit that human blood is red, that our hearts are on the left, and that above all, people are desiring their own identity, culture, justice and safety, isn’t this the highest level of propaganda, of indoctrination, of total brainwashing?

Those who are trashing ‘state-owned’ and ‘state-sponsored’ media outlets in non-Western countries, should be asking some very essential questions: “Is there any difference between those ‘private’ or ‘state’ media outlets in the West? Is there any substantial ideological rift between the CNN, BBC, The Independent, The New York Times, France/24 or DW?”

In Europe and in North America, as well as in their ‘client’ states, business interests control the government. They are actually the ones who are electing, or call it ‘selecting’ the government. Private or state-funded, the Western mass media is toeing the same line. It is part of the apparatus.

In non-Western countries, the state-supported media outlets are beginning to propagate various new lines, mostly defending and highlighting the interests of their own countries, which in a way is a revolutionary development.

So, there is finally some global competition, isn’t there, dear comrades imperialists and capitalists? But what do we see… suddenly you don’t like it? You want your global monopoly? Is that your idea of freedom and ‘free competition’? You want your propaganda to be the only one on Earth!


Andre visiting Chomsky

[dropcap]S[/dropcap]everal years ago, when I was making the film and writing a book with Noam Chomsky (“On Western Terrorism – From Hiroshima To Drone Warfare”, Pluto Press), we spoke a lot about Western propaganda.

Noam brought to my attention, that Nazi Germany was extremely impressed by the U.S. advertising industry.

Then, in a way, Western propaganda also became shaped by shameless advertising production, by brainless and outrightly deceiving commercials. The continuous downpour of pseudo-reality has been melting away all human decency and rationality, ever since.

I have written about this issue a lot, too, particularly in the pages of my book “Exposing Lies of The Empire”.

Television, Hollywood, but also indoctrinating, intellectually sterilizing and the grotesque way of ‘spreading knowledge’ by the North American and increasingly also by the European universities –it all has very little to do with the reality in which the world is living, as well as with the true concerns of the people; with their hopes, fears, and desires and aspirations.

Western commercials, entertainment, educational institutions – these are all powerful tools of propaganda. They propagate, force and inject into human sub-consciousness extremely primitive, false but powerful messages: “No matter what, our present arrangement of the world is correct and just. Our economic and social system is the most natural in the world. Our political system is not perfect, but it is the best nevertheless.”

*

Andre driving in Afghanistan.

Noam Chomsky seemed to be fascinated with my past, and for some good reasons: I myself was totally indoctrinated, endlessly brainwashed by Western propaganda, when I was a child, and then a very young man.

I was born in the beautiful city of Leningrad, Soviet Union. My mother is a Russian-Chinese architect, father a Czech scientist. I grew up in Pilsen, in then Czechoslovakia. Pilsen was only 60 kilometers away from Bavaria. To be a ‘dissident’ there, at the age of 15 or so, was absolutely obligatory, otherwise one would have been considered an absolute loser, even a freak. That was naturally hammered into our brains by the BBC, Radio Free Europe, Voice of America, West German television channels like ARD and ZDF. We were all listening to Radio Luxemburg, to Bavaria 3, we read ‘samizdat’ literature.

Pilsen is a little town of 180,000 people, known for its heavy industry and beer, but when I was a child, it had a permanent opera house, countless libraries including a science one, several small avant-garde theatres (which, yes, all tried to put on stage something that could be read ‘between the lines’), great bookstores, 6 cinemas, including an excellent cine-club where we basically saw all the great existential and experimental films from Europe, Japan, U.S. and Latin America.

Communist Czechoslovakia was to some extent gray, but extremely well educated, cultural and actually, really fun.

The coward Sylvester Stallone one of Hollywood's great phonies as Rambo. The author was influenced by his lies but lived to tell—even sly, filthy propaganda of the worst sort can be overcome.

When I first visited Italy, I was shocked by its slums around Naples, by the sad lot of African immigrants. But I was conditioned to see the world as it was presented by Western propaganda. I protested against the ‘occupation of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union’, because that is what the World Service of the BBC prepared me to do. Despite being educated on great literature, poetry and music, I saw Rambo as a freedom fighter, and Maggie Thatcher as a liberator of the ‘free world’.

I still somehow believed in the ideals of the Soviet Union, in the internationalism. But my brain was fried – it was a goulash that consisted of pseudo images coming like an avalanche from the West, and of solid and the not too colorful reality of socialist Czechoslovakia.

My two Czech uncles were true internationalists, and they built sugar mills, steel mills, pharmaceutical factories and other great things, in Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, and China. They did it with honest zeal and the love for humanity. I considered them to be two losers, idiots, ‘fanatics’. In reality, they were great people, and I was simply sick, brainwashed and blind then!

Then, as now, Western propaganda spat at everything pure, altruistic, and honest. Western media is scared of true heroes, of people who are helping others to gain independence, of strong, truly free men and women.

I emigrated. I wrote total shit, my first book of poetry, I got involved in the Solidarity movement in neighboring Poland, hit the bottle while chain smoking some 50 cigarettes a day, and emigrated. Or more precisely, I was kicked out, or whatever… You know, a Soviet kid in Czechoslovakia, writing dissident stuff… It was embarrassing, so they just suggested I go to the West, where I loved it so much.

I went. To make my story short, after I got my political asylum in the US, I was at Columbia University Film School in New York City, when the U.S. performed its first strike against Libya.

That week was crucial. Film Faculty students quickly clarified to me, what was going on, in regard to Libya. Then, in the pub, they asked me about those ‘bread lines’ in Czechoslovakia. I humbly explained about all the sorts of delicious fresh-baked breads available in Pilsen, but they couldn’t believe me. They kept asking about censorship… I was much better read than they were, and apart from Hollywood productions, I had seen more great films, but that, again, was shocking to my new friends.

From the windows of East Campus, we watched the endless fires burning in Harlem. It was pre-Clinton Harlem, real tough stuff.

All around me, in New York, I saw misery, despair, discontent, but also total obedience and resignation. But there was no ‘going back’.

I began visiting Harlem, by car service, as no yellow cab would take me there. I discovered a little wonderful jazz club, the Baby Grand. I would drink there and listen to jazz, and at night I’d cry holding onto the owner, a big African-American mama. I still remember one night; puke all over the floor, and spilt beer. “I was so stupid!” I howled! “I was such a fool!” She caressed my hair and repeated: “Hush… It could be much worse. My people have had it much, much worse… Be strong, young man!” I was 19… Or 20, I forgot. In Harlem, they clearly explained to me, what America is.

Later I was married into a multi-millionaire’s family in Texas, and I saw what was going on ‘inside’. The oil, the hatred of ‘big government’. As a simultaneous interpreter (I was moonlighting doing that work, supporting my writing), I was present during some of the most horrible negotiations between the Western ‘private sector’ and what was then left of the Soviet Union, and then Russia. What the West did to my country, to the Soviet Union and then to Yeltsin’s Russia, was theft, just shameless looting. In those days, I was making over 1,000 dollars per day, ++. I quickly understood what capitalism was, and imperialism. I wanted to die. I almost killed myself. I ran. I ran away from all that. I ran to Peru, to write about then the most brutal civil war on Earth. I hit the road. I shed all my identity. I became an internationalist. And I never stopped being one.

And I never returned to Europe or to the United States in order to live there. I only come to show my films, to launch my books, or to give one or two insulting speeches, as I did two years ago at the Italian Parliament in Rome.

It took some time to understand. I did. After living and working in more than 160 countries, after listening to tens of thousands of real stories, after almost losing my life on at least ten occasions, I understood.

I understand perfectly well, and I despise profoundly, what Western propaganda has done to the world. And I fight it, with all my might, day and night, for those millions, for billions of boys and girls, who are now, like me so many years ago, getting thoroughly indoctrinated, lobotomized and brainwashed by brutal professionals in London, Paris, New York and Los Angeles.

*

[dropcap]I[/dropcap] say and write what I want to say, what I want to write.

I also say and write what thousands of people whom I have met, in Asia, Oceania, Africa, Latin America and the Middle East, want me to convey. They cannot do it themselves, they are too lost, too debilitated, too confused. They tell me the stories, not even hoping that anything can ever change or improve. They believe that their misfortune is permanent and fatal.

Then, I write my ‘propaganda’ pieces! I take sides. I speak of the horrors created by the Western neo-colonialist regime. Am I ‘subjective’? You bet! And I am telling you openly that I am.

I am an Internationalist, a Cuban-style internationalist. I am not hiding what I am. It is all honestly spelled out in my essays, in my profiles, in my books.

I ‘propagandize’ what I think, in what I believe. In fact, I’d much rather be called a ‘propagandist’ than a journalist, which is, lately, synonymous with ‘the oldest profession’.

People who are like me, are free, and they write, speak, make films, precisely as they want.

If we join the Russians, Chinese, Cubans, Venezuelans – we do it because that is what we want, because we think that what they are doing right now is generally right. It is not a job, it is a struggle, a battle, a true life!

Tough, not easy, but life, which I’d never trade for anything else.

Communist Czechoslovakia was to some extent gray, but extremely well educated, cultural and actually, really fun.

They pretend that they are ‘objective’, while no ‘objectivity’ can really exist in this time and age, particularly not in the West. They are hiding their true shameful trade behind their impeccable Oxford accents. They are still getting great mileage from being white.

They simply lie, openly and shamelessly, solely by refusing to openly admit who is paying them, what is expected of them, and what would happen to their careers in case they’d dare to tell or write the truth.

*

[dropcap]M[/dropcap]y propaganda is my own. Or it is designed (by myself) to help my comrades, and the countries and governments that I admire and support.

Am I fully objective? Please read this carefully: “NO! Definitely not. And I am not aiming at any false objectivity! I select the places where I go, I select the stories that I want to cover. That is how I ‘maneuver’ politically. But once there, once at the frontline, I tell the truth, and I produce images that simply cannot lie!”

My opponents from the Western mass media, from their governments, multi-nationals and advertising companies, are lying day and night. And they never admit what game they are playing.

That is why their propaganda is ‘bigger’ than mine.

I freely write what I think is correct, and my readers are reading my stuff freely (or sometimes even despite great obstacles).

My adversaries from the West, are using the lowest state and business apparatus, even fear, to penetrate people with their lies. They have psychologists, demagogues, business gurus at their disposal: to help with spreading their fabrications all over the world.

Technically, they are so good at what they are doing, that even the poorest of the poor, even those who have already been robbed of everything, are readily buying into their ‘worldview’. Just go to Kenya or to Indonesia, go to the slums there, and you will see.

For many of the victims, the greatest honor is still to become as indoctrinated (and well-spoken) as those who have already robbed the world of almost everything.

This, my dear Comrades, is an outcome of perfectly successful and evil propaganda!

I’m terribly sorry, but I’m sticking to my own. My propaganda may be perhaps transparent, Imperfect and raw, but it is sincere.

And I’m not afraid, at night, to look in the mirror!


About the Author
 Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. Three of his latest books are revolutionary novel “Aurora” and two bestselling works of political non-fiction: “Exposing Lies Of The Empire” and “Fighting Against Western Imperialism”. View his other books here. Andre is making films for teleSUR and Al-Mayadeen. Watch Rwanda Gambit, his groundbreaking documentary about Rwanda and DRCongo. After having lived in Latin America, Africa and Oceania, Vltchek presently resides in East Asia and the Middle East, and continues to work around the world. He can be reached through his website and his Twitter.  


horiz-long grey

uza2-zombienation


black-horizontal




Trump, Pence Rain on Koreas’ Olympic Unity Parade

HELP ENLIGHTEN YOUR FELLOWS. BE SURE TO PASS THIS ON. SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON IT.

In a show of unity, athletes from North and South Korea marched at the Winter Olympics' Opening Ceremony under the same flag. But the Trump administration is doing its best to thwart hopes for peace on the peninsula, says Christine Ahn of Women Cross DMZ


Transcript

[dropcap]A[/dropcap]ll this earned cheers from the crowd, except for one person, Vice President Mike Pence, who failed to applaud and stayed in his seat. Before arriving in South Korea, Pence announced the U.S. will impose what he called "the toughest sanctions yet" on North Korea.

Mike Pence: We will not allow North Korean propaganda to hijack the message and imagery of the Olympic Games. We will not allow North Korea to hide behind the Olympic banner the reality that they enslave their people and threaten the wider region. Let the world know this: We will continue to intensify our maximum pressure campaign until North Korea takes concrete steps toward complete, verifiable, and irreversible denuclearization. To that end, I'm announcing today that the United States of America will soon unveil the toughest and most aggressive round of economic sanctions on North Korea ever.

AARON MATÉ: That's Mike Pence speaking earlier this week. So will the U.S. stand in the way of the Korean unity on display at the Olympic Games? Joining me is Christine Ahn, founder of Women Cross DMZ. Christine, welcome. Let's start with this display of unity today. Your thoughts on North and South Korea marching as one at the opening ceremony?

CHRISTINE AHN: Hi, Aaron. It's incredibly heartening, and unimaginable just a month ago that the two Koreas would sit down together to agree to de-escalate tensions, agree to send athletes from North Korea to the Olympics in South Korea, and of course, march together under a one-Korea flag. I mean, it's been done before in past Olympics. I believe there have been four times in which the two Koreas marched together. This is the first time it's being done on Korean soil, and as you can imagine, the feeling of Koreans all around the world of seeing the two Koreas march together, it's incredibly heartening, and it also shows the urgent situation that is facing the Korean Peninsula. They would be the most impacted, obviously. North Koreans, if there was a U.S. preemptive strike, would be devastated, but it would obviously lead to the devastation of South Korea, so they have a true incentive to use this Olympic moment to foster some kind of reconciliation and promote dialog.

And so that is an extraordinary thing, and as you noted in your opening, the only person that was essentially throwing shade on all this was Mike Pence. I think it's a real indicator of the U.S. and how much of an outlier it is in this moment, when the world is applauding the two Koreas and their engagement and their inter-Korean peace process, and the U.S. is the one that is basically trying to derail it.


The big humourless turd sent by the empire to the Olympics was there to throw shade on the thawing out of relations between the two Koreas, a matter of maximum importance for humanity at large, but obviously not for the managers of the criminal empire which Pence represents.


AARON MATÉ: And at these ceremonies, Pence was sitting just in front of Kim Jo Yong, who, as I mentioned, is a sister of North Korean leader Kim Jung-Un, who is visiting. She shook hands with South Korean President Moon Jae-in. There also is a dinner tonight where a North Korean diplomat was going to attend, and Pence has avoided meeting with that diplomat, but the symbolism there of the sister of the North Korean leader shaking hands with the South Korean President.

CHRISTINE AHN: Yes, Kim Yo Jong is the first member of the Kim family to step foot on South Korean soil, so it is really significant, and it's not like she's just some figurehead in North Korea because she's part of the Kim family. She actually leads the light industry in terms of North Korea's economy, so she's a pretty significant figure. I think that it was a really important step for Kim Jong-Un to agree to send his sister to South Korea. It helps in some ways normalize the North Korean people, and I think that, hopefully, it is a sign of greater rapprochement between the two Koreas. I also understand that a invitation to Moon Jae-in is forthcoming from Pyongyang and that he will be, hopefully, going to North Korea later this year.

AARON MATÉ: I apologize, I missaid her name. It's Kim Yo Jong, as you point out. Thank you for correcting me. This announcement from Pence just a few days before coming to the ceremony of the toughest sanctions yet on North Korea, can you talk about, well, what already is the reality of the sanctions on North Korea and what you think that signifies that Pence is vowing to escalate them?

CHRISTINE AHN: Well, it's basically a policy of strangulation. We know that U.S. has sanctions against North Korea. They have had them in place since the Korean War, which ended in 1953, but these new rounds of sanctions are not smart sanctions. They are not directed at the North Korean regime in terms of luxury goods, or they're not directed at its nuclear missile program. And so the stated aim of these sanctions is to force the denuclearization of North Korea, and we know that as the U.S. threatens a preemptive strike, its bloody nose strategy, that is going to force North Korea to hold onto their nuclear weapons even ...



But what it is, is that it is having deleterious effects on the people, on the civilian population, on the most vulnerable, on the women and children in North Korea. I was just at this meeting here at the UN Church Center with civil society representatives, with medical doctors, legal scholars, political economists, that were talking about the various ways in which the sanctions are impacting North Korean people. You know, it is a dire situation. I mean, one child per day in North Korea will die because of the effect of these sanctions, and UNICEF just issued a report last month that said that 60,000 North Korean children could starve as a result of these sanctions.

So it is not the alternative to war. It is a slow war that is being waged against the people in North Korea, and we have a responsibility as a global community to push back on it. It is unethical, it is immoral, and South Korea wants to begin the process of sending humanitarian aid. My understanding was, at the meeting in Vancouver when Foreign Minister Kang Kyung-wha from South Korea said that South Korea wanted to resume humanitarian aid and fulfill this commitment that Moon Jae-in made at the General Assembly last September to send $8 million in humanitarian aid to North Korea, that was basically opposed by the United States, by the UK, by Japan.

I think these countries need to be called out for its draconian policies. If they want the wishful death of North Korean children, then this policy of maximum pressure is the way forward, but I don't think that they want that kind of blood on their hands, and so it's our responsibility as the global community to let them know how dangerous these sanctions are, and that they are, in fact, leading to the death of innocent people.

AARON MATÉ: Christine, you mentioned this so-called bloody nose strategy, apparently formulated by National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, calling for so-called limited strikes on North Korea. Now, interestingly, one person who has come out against that is Victor Cha, who was rumored to be the Trump administration's pick to be the new U.S. Ambassador to South Korea until he came out and opposed the bloody nose strategy. And now, apparently, his nomination is off the table. What's interesting there is he no dove. I mean, he's known as a hawk. So I'm wondering what you think the likely withdrawal of his nomination means about the Trump administration's thinking right now.

CHRISTINE AHN: I think it is a very dangerous sign of where this administration is heading. We have known, they have told us quite frankly, that the military option is on the table, but given that he could not be confirmed, because he could not endorse that bloody nose strategy, he could not endorse a preemptive strike, I think tells us a lot about the enormous amount of work that we must do to say, "No new Korean War. No war on North Korea," that it would be just devastating for all the countries in the region.

And you know, we've known from Iraq, from Afghanistan, from Vietnam, that there is no such thing as a precision strike. And given the fact that we know that North Korea has a nuclear arsenal of at least 20 nuclear weapons, this is not going to go lightly. I think that there is this grave misperception that North Korea is a threat to the world. What we know is that the former Admiral of the U.S. Pacific Command has said, in his Senate testimony just the other week, North Korea's not a threat. We have given way too much credit to the North Korean government in terms of being a threat to the world.

And so I think that that is the message. I live in Hawaii, and it has been known that the Pacific Command says there's a .01% chance that North Korea would conduct a first strike. Our job as U.S. citizen population and those concerned about a new war on the Korean Peninsula, must really urge our members of Congress to ensure that the Trump administration does not wage an unconstitutional first strike on North Korea. That's the way to prevent a war, and obviously right now, with the incredible peace process that is underway, that has been afforded by the Olympic truce, we have to call for the continuation of this truce.

South Korea requested that the U.S. halt its military exercises that were supposed to take place during the Olympics, and the U.S. agreed, so I think that we need to call for the U.S. to continue the Olympic truce. There is a moment where things have calmed down. There hasn't been a nuclear or a missile test from North Korea. The U.S. was supposed to test an ICBM the other day, and they decided not to. So I think that we need to continue our calls for dialog, continue our calls to extend the Olympic truce.

AARON MATÉ: Christine, very briefly, I mean this is a point that I think can't be stressed enough, you've made it tirelessly, that North Korea has even offered, or floated the proposal for a freeze in its nuclear program if the U.S. froze permanently those military exercises on its border that you also just mentioned. So briefly there, the prospects for a longer-term solution if the U.S. would consider taking up that proposal from North Korea?

CHRISTINE AHN: Right. I mean, in 2015, North Korea suggested that they would freeze their nuclear and missile program and the testing, in exchange for the U.S. and South Korea halting their military exercises. By all indications, I believe South Korea would like to do that, but they are facing enormous pressure from the U.S., and the other point that I think it's important to make, that was stressed at this meeting of civil society representatives working on North Korea, is that North Korea has said that they are committed to denuclearization, as long as the other countries, especially the countries on the Security Council, are also committed to denuclearization.

I'm not saying that's a quid pro quo, and we should obviously be calling for a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula, but this is a first step, if we could get both sides to agree to the freeze-for-freeze, which has been endorsed by Russia and China and South Korea. A lot of the senior advisors in Moon Jae-in's administration has endorsed and supported it, Moon Chung-in being the most prominent one. I think this moment of hope and brightness and possibility that is a part of this Olympics moment, we have to be continuing our global calls that this is a first step The freeze-for-freeze could lead to a longer process towards denuclearization of Korea.

AARON MATÉ: Christine Ahn, International Coordinator and founder of Women Cross DMZ, thank you.

CHRISTINE AHN: Thank you, Aaron.

AARON MATÉ: And thank you for joining us on The Real News


 

 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
 Aaron Maté (sometimes written as "Mate") was born and raised in Vancouver, Canada, Aaron comes to Democracy Now! after a two-year stint as an independent journalist and as a researcher for the author and journalist Naomi Klein.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

black-horizontal
[premium_newsticker id=”154171″]

Parting shot—a word from the editors
The Best Definition of Donald Trump We Have Found

In his zeal to prove to his antagonists in the War Party that he is as bloodthirsty as their champion, Hillary Clinton, and more manly than Barack Obama, Trump seems to have gone “play-crazy” -- acting like an unpredictable maniac in order to terrorize the Russians into forcing some kind of dramatic concessions from their Syrian allies, or risk Armageddon.However, the “play-crazy” gambit can only work when the leader is, in real life, a disciplined and intelligent actor, who knows precisely what actual boundaries must not be crossed. That ain’t Donald Trump -- a pitifully shallow and ill-disciplined man, emotionally handicapped by obscene privilege and cognitively crippled by white American chauvinism. By pushing Trump into a corner and demanding that he display his most bellicose self, or be ceaselessly mocked as a “puppet” and minion of Russia, a lesser power, the War Party and its media and clandestine services have created a perfect storm of mayhem that may consume us all. Glen Ford, Editor in Chief, Black Agenda Report 

window.newShareCountsAuto="smart";




US Ambassador Confirms Billions Spent On Regime Change in Syria, Debunking ‘Obama Did Nothing’ Myth

HELP ENLIGHTEN YOUR FELLOWS. BE SURE TO PASS THIS ON. SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON IT.


  February 9, 2018 Real News Network
By Ben Norton, The Real News Network

The United States spent at least $12 billion in Syria-related military and civilian expenses in the four years from 2014 through 2017, according to the former U.S. ambassador to the country.

This $12 billion is in addition to the billions more spent to pursue regime change in Syria in the previous three years, after war broke out in 2011.

This striking figure provides a further glimpse of the exorbitant sums of money the U.S. spent trying to topple the government in Damascus. It also bluntly contradicts claims by Syrian opposition supporters that the former administration of President Barack Obama “did nothing” in Syria, or that it supposedly did not seek regime change fervently enough.

Former U.S. ambassador to Syria Robert S. Ford disclosed this information in written testimony prepared for a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on February 6.

“The cost of US military operations in Syria between FY 2014 and the end of FY 2017 was between $3 and $4 billion,” Ford said. “In addition to the cost of those military operations, the FY 2017 budget request included $430 [million] to build local security forces and the FY 2018 request was for $500 million.”

Ford also reported that the U.S. spent $7.7 billion in humanitarian aid efforts in Syria in those same four years. This figure cannot be excluded from the overall cost of the U.S. regime change mission, however, because U.S. spending on humanitarian aid in Syria has often been explicitly politicized.

The U.S. State Department, USAID, and other government agencies have refused to provide humanitarian aid to government-held areas in Syria and have instead expressly used the funding to bankroll the political, civil, and health infrastructure of rebel-held territory, including areas that are governed by Syria’s al-Qaeda affiliate, Jabhat al-Nusra. The Guardian exposed how similar aid initiatives by the British government financed the activities of al-Nusra and other extremist Salafi-jihadist militias.

Ford acknowledged in his testimony that U.S. humanitarian aid to Syria was heavily politicized, explaining:

“The U.S. also has deployed a small civilian team into Syria charged with initial reconstruction and building new local governance or improving on existing local governance. If it sounds like nation-building, it is but on a smaller scale. USAID and other civilian agencies have provided $875 million in non-lethal and stabilization aid to opposition-controlled areas in Syria since FY 2012. Last year alone the US provided about $200 million.”

This politicized humanitarian funding has been part of a concerted effort to undermine the Syrian government’s control over Syrian territory by creating independent political administrations, civil society organizations, health institutions, and infrastructure that are outside of its control, effectively establishing de facto autonomous governments that survive on U.S. funding.

In fact, Ford went so far in the House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing as to condemn United Nations humanitarian aid programs, claiming they are “basically subsidizing Assad” by supporting civilians in government-held territory (which comprises the vast majority of the country).

“If you add all these numbers up, US military and civilian costs in Syria over the past four years are at least $12 billion,” Ford said in his written congressional testimony. “That’s a lot of money. And it’s not clear when those outlays will stop.”

Billions Spent on CIA Syria Operations

Joshua Landis, a leading academic expert on Syria, speculated that the $12 billion figure may not include spending by the Central Intelligence Agency.

The New York Times noted that the CIA program in Syria was “one of the most expensive efforts to arm and train rebels since the agency’s program arming the mujahedeen in Afghanistan during the 1980s,” which gave birth to al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

The CIA likely spent billions of dollars pursuing regime change in Syria, although exact estimates vary.

In June 2015, The Washington Post reported that CIA covert operations in Syria had “a budget approaching $1 billion a year.” The report continued: “At $1 billion, Syria-related operations account for about $1 of every $15 in the CIA’s overall budget, judging by spending levels revealed in documents The Washington Post obtained from former U.S. intelligence contractor Edward Snowden.”

U.S. officials told the Post these CIA efforts were “part of a broader, multibillion-dollar effort involving Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey to bolster” the Syrian opposition.

A January 2016 report by The New York Times likewise revealed that Saudi Arabia helped finance U.S. operations in Syria, and “estimates have put the total cost of the arming and training effort at several billion dollars.” Significant funding also came from Qatar, Jordan, and Turkey.

By August 2017, however, the Times had significantly downplayed the price of the operations at “more than $1 billion over the life of the program” — even while acknowledging that it was “one of the costliest covert action programs in the history of the C.I.A.”

The ‘Obama Did Nothing in Syria’ Myth

[dropcap]R[/dropcap]obert Ford’s disclosure constitutes the latest admission by a government official that the cost of U.S. operations in the Syrian war have exceeded 11 digits, extending into the tens of billions.

It also stands in stark contrast to the claims of pro-opposition advocates and pundits, who have breathlessly insisted that the administration of President Barack Obama was not serious about overthrowing the government of Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad.

Media watchdog Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) has repeatedly documented the claims that “Obama did nothing” in Syria, a lie that has persistently been spread by some of the world’s most high-profile journalists.

The editorial boards of leading newspapers and senior politicians in the U.S. and Europe have contributed to this popular myth. Obama’s liberal and conservative critics alike have excoriated him for supposedly “shrugging” and “sitting idly by.”

The lie that the U.S. “did not intervene in Syria” has been repeated by figures from Senator John McCain to New York Times reporters and beyond.

Congressional Syria Regime Change Hearing

Robert S. Ford is a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, an influential Washington, D.C.-based think tank that is funded largely by the governments of the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia.

MEI largely acts as a vehicle for Emirati influence in the U.S. Leaked emails show the think tank has been used to give an appearance of independence to UAE-backed foreign trips with U.S. diplomats.

The testimony in which former ambassador Robert Ford revealed this information was prepared for the House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing “Syria: Which Way Forward?”, which also featured some of Ford’s extremely hawkish colleagues at MEI.

MEI senior fellow Charles Lister, who has for years lobbied for the United States to violently overthrow the Syrian government, while whitewashing the Salafi-jihadist rebels in Syria, also prepared written testimony in which he lamented the failure of the regime change program and proposed new ways to bring down Assad.

Cuba-born Jewish-American Ileana Ros Lehtinen is naturally a rabid neocon thirsting for more innocent blood in Syria.  (Screengrab)

Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen a hardline neoconservative who serves as chair of the House Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa, opened the hearing stating that “many people were encouraged by Secretary Tillerson’s recent speech” in which he called for a “Syria under post-Assad leadership.”

In this speech in January, Tillerson confirmed that U.S. troops will remain in Syria indefinitely, even after ISIS is defeated. He also reaffirmed the Trump administration’s commitment to regime change, and called on the international community to economically undermine Damascus by refusing to fund reconstruction efforts.

Ford and Lister joined Ros-Lehtinen in praising Tillerson for outlining these goals, but lamented that specific actions were not proposed by the administration to bring them to fruition.

How exactly the U.S. is going to bring about regime change in Damascus at this point remains unclear. In his prepared testimony, Ford conceded that the “Syrian and Iranian governments, and Russia, all want us out of Syria.”

 


 

 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
 Benjamin "Ben" Norton is an American journalist, writer, and musician. Norton's work focuses primarily on United States foreign policy, the Middle East, and US politics. Norton is currently a reporter at AlterNet

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

ALL CAPTIONS, IMAGES AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS, NOT THE AUTHORS.

black-horizontal
[premium_newsticker id=”154171″]

Parting shot—a word from the editors
The Best Definition of Donald Trump We Have Found

In his zeal to prove to his antagonists in the War Party that he is as bloodthirsty as their champion, Hillary Clinton, and more manly than Barack Obama, Trump seems to have gone “play-crazy” -- acting like an unpredictable maniac in order to terrorize the Russians into forcing some kind of dramatic concessions from their Syrian allies, or risk Armageddon.However, the “play-crazy” gambit can only work when the leader is, in real life, a disciplined and intelligent actor, who knows precisely what actual boundaries must not be crossed. That ain’t Donald Trump -- a pitifully shallow and ill-disciplined man, emotionally handicapped by obscene privilege and cognitively crippled by white American chauvinism. By pushing Trump into a corner and demanding that he display his most bellicose self, or be ceaselessly mocked as a “puppet” and minion of Russia, a lesser power, the War Party and its media and clandestine services have created a perfect storm of mayhem that may consume us all. Glen Ford, Editor in Chief, Black Agenda Report 

window.newShareCountsAuto="smart";