By Paul Craig Roberts 

Ecuadorean Foreign Minister Patiño: “Snowden served humanity by revealing that Washington was violating the rights of every citizen in the world…He merely betrayed some elites that are in power in a certain country, whereas Washington betrayed the entire world.”

It is hard to understand the fuss that Washington and its media whores are making over Edward Snowden. We have known for a long time that the National Security Agency (NSA) has been spying for years without warrants on the communications of Americans and people throughout the world. Photographs of the massive NSA building in Utah built for the purpose of storing the intercepted communications of the world have been published many times.

It is not clear to an ordinary person what Snowden has revealed that William Binney and other whistleblowers have not already revealed. Perhaps the difference is that Snowden has provided documents that prove it, thereby negating Washington’s ability to deny the facts with its usual lies.

Whatever the reason for Washington’s blather, it certainly is not doing the US government any good. Far more interesting than Snowden’s revelations is the decision by governments of other countries to protect a truth-teller from the Stasi in Washington.

Hong Kong kept Snowden’s whereabouts secret so that an amerikan black-op strike or a drone could not be sent to murder him. Hong Kong told Washington that its extradition papers for Snowden were not in order and permitted Snowden to leave for Moscow.

The Chinese government did not interfere with Snowden’s departure.

The Russian government says it has no objection to Snowden having a connecting flight in Moscow.

Ecuador’s Foreign Minister Ricardo Patiño responded to Washington’s threats with a statement that the Ecuadorian government puts human rights above Washington’s interests. Foreign Minister Patiño said that Snowden served humanity by revealing that the Washington Stasi was violating the rights of “every citizen in the world.” Snowden merely betrayed “some elites that are in power in a certain country,” whereas Washington betrayed the entire world.

With Hong Kong, China, Russia, Ecuador, and Cuba refusing to obey the Stasi’s orders, Washington is flailing around making a total fool of itself and its media prostitutes.

Secretary of State John Kerry has been issuing warnings hand over fist. He has threatened Russia, China, Ecuador, and every country that aids and abets Snowden’s escape from the Washington Stasi. Those who don’t do Washington’s bidding, Kerry declared, will suffer adverse impacts on their relationship with the US.

What a stupid thing for Kerry to say. Here is a guy who once was for peace but who has been turned by NSA spying on his personal affairs into an asset for the NSA. Try to realize the extraordinary arrogance and hubris in Kerry’s threat that China, Russia, and other countries will suffer bad relations with the US. Kerry is saying that amerika doesn’t have to care whether “the indispensable people” have bad relations with other countries, but those countries have to be concerned if they have bad relations with the “indispensable country.” What an arrogant posture for the US government to present to the world.

Here we have a US Secretary of State lost in delusion along with the rest of Washington. A country that is bankrupt, a country that has allowed its corporations to destroy its economy by moving the best jobs offshore, a country whose future is in the hands of the printing press, a country that after eleven years of combat has been unable to defeat a few thousand lightly armed Taliban is now threatening Russia and China. God save us from the utter fools who comprise our government.

The world is enjoying Washington’s humiliation at the hands of Hong Kong. A mere city state gave Washington the bird. In its official statement, Hong Kong shifted the focus from Snowden to his message and asked the US government to explain its illegal hacking of Hong Kong’s information systems.

China’s state newspaper, The People’s Daily, wrote: “The United States has gone from a model of human rights to an eavesdropper on personal privacy, the manipulator of the centralized power over the international internet, and the mad invader of other countries’ networks. . . The world will remember Edward Snowden. It was his fearlessness that tore off Washington’s sanctimonious mask.”

China’s Global Times, a subsidiary of The People’s Daily, accused Washington of attacking “a young idealist who has exposed the sinister scandals of the US government.” Instead of apologizing “Washington is showing off its muscle by attempting to control the whole situation.”

China’s official Xinhua news agency reported that Snowden’s revelations had placed “Washington in a really awkward situation. They demonstrate that the United States, which has long been trying to play innocent as a victim of cyber attacks, has turned out to be the biggest villain in our age.”

The Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov made it clear that Russia’s sympathy is with Snowden, not with the amerikan Stasi state. Human rights ombudsman Vladimir Lukin said that it was unrealistic to expect the Russian government to violate law to seize a transit passenger who had not entered Russia and was not on Russian soil. RT’s Gayane Chichakyan reported that Washington is doing everything it can to shift attention away from Snowden’s revelations that “show that the US has lied and has been doing the same as they accuse China of doing.”

Ecuador says the traitor is Washington, not Snowden.

The stuck pig squeals from the NSA director–”Edward Snowden has caused irreversible damage to US”–are matched by the obliging squeals from members of the House and Senate, themselves victims of the NSA spying, as was the Director of the CIA who was forced to resign because of a love affair. The NSA is in position to blackmail everyone in the House and Senate, in the White House itself, in all the corporations, the universities, the media, every organization at home and abroad, who has anything to hide. You can tell who is being blackmailed by the intensity of the squeals, such as those of Dianne Feinstein (D, CA) and Mike Rogers (R, MI). With any luck, a patriot will leak what the NSA has on Feinstein and Rogers, neither of whom could possibly scrape any lower before the NSA.

The gangster government in Washington that has everything to hide is now in NSA’s hands and will follow orders. The pretense that amerika is a democracy responsible to the people has been exposed. The US is run by and for the NSA. Congress and the White House are NSA puppets.

Let’s quit calling the NSA the National Security Agency. Clearly, NSA is a threat to the security of every person in the entire world. Let’s call the NSA what it really is–the National Stasi Agency, the largest collection of Gestapo in human history. You can take for granted that every media whore, every government prostitute, every ignorant flag-waver who declares Snowden to be a traitor is either brainwashed or blackmailed. They are the protectors of NSA tyranny. They are our enemies.

The world has been growing increasingly sick of Washington for a long time. The bullying, the constant stream of lies, the gratuitous wars and destruction have destroyed the image hyped by Washington of the US as a “light unto the world.” The world sees the US as a plague upon the world.

Following Snowden’s revelations, Germany’s most important magazine, Der Spiegal, had the headline: “Obama’s Soft Totalitarianism: Europe Must Protect Itself From America.” The first sentence of the article asks: “Is Barack Obama a friend? Revelations about his government’s vast spying program call that into doubt. The European Union must protect the Continent from America’s reach for omnipotence.”

Der Spiegal continues: “We are being watched. All the time and everywhere. And it is the Americans who are doing the watching. On Tuesday, the head of the largest and most all-encompassing surveillance system ever invented is coming for a visit. If Barack Obama is our friend then we really don’t need to be terribly worried about our enemies.”

There is little doubt that German Interior Minister Hans Peter Friedrich has lost his secrets to NSA spies. Friedrich rushed to NSA’s defense, declaring: ”that’s not how you treat friends.” As Der Spiegal made clear, the minister was not referring “to the fact that our trans-Atlantic friends were spying on us. Rather, he meant the criticism of that spying. Friedrich’s reaction is only paradoxical on the surface and can be explained by looking at geopolitical realities. The US is, for the time being, the only global power–and as such it is the only truly sovereign state in existence. All others are dependent–either as enemies or allies. And because most prefer to be allies, politicians–Germany’s included–prefer to grin and bear it.”

It is extraordinary that the most important publication in Germany has acknowledged that the German government is Washington’s puppet state.

Der Spiegel says: “German citizens should be able to expect that their government will protect them from spying by foreign governments. But the German interior minister says instead: ‘We are grateful for the excellent cooperation with US secret services.’ Friedrich didn’t even try to cover up his own incompetence on the surveillance issue. ‘Everything we know about it, we have learned from the media,’ he said. The head of the country’s domestic intelligence agency, Hans-Georg Maassen, was not any more enlightened. ‘I didn’t know anything about it,’ he said. And Justice Minister Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger was also apparently in the dark. ‘These reports are extremely unsettling,’ she said. With all due respect: These are the people who are supposed to be protecting our rights? If it wasn’t so frightening, it would be absurd.”

For those moronic amerikans who say, “I’m not doing anything wrong, I don’t care if they spy,” Der Spiegal writes that a “monitored human being is not a free one.” We have reached the point where we “free americans” have to learn from our German puppets that we are not free.

Here, read it for yourself: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/europe-must-stand-up-to-american-cyber-snooping-a-906250.html

Present day Germany is a new country, flushed of its past by war and defeat. Russia is also a new country that has emerged from the ashes of an unrealistic ideology. Hope always resides with those countries that have most experienced evil in government. If Germany were to throw off its amerikan overlord and depart NATO, amerikan power in Europe would collapse. If Germany and Russia were to unite in defense of truth and human rights, Europe and the world would have a new beginning.

A new beginning is desperately needed. Chris Floyd explains precisely what is going on, which is something you will never hear from the presstitutes. Read it while you still can:http://www.globalresearch.ca/follow-the-money-the-secret-heart-of-the-secret-state-the-deeper-implications-of-the-snowden-revelations/5340132

There would be hope if Americans could throw off their brainwashing, follow the lead of Debra Sweet and others, and stand up for Edward Snowden and against the Stasi State.http://www.opednews.com/populum/printer_friendly.php?content=a&id=167695

About Dr. Paul Craig RobertsPaul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. His latest book, The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West is now available.

On Sunday June 23rd NBC’s Meet the Press’s David Gregory interviewed Glenn Greenwald, an exchange followed by the usual “balancing” act of presenting critics and accusers of Ed Snowden (and Greenwald himself). The latter, as is also usual, easily outnumbered Greenwald’s sole voice of truth and reason, but that’s par for the course on corporate media “news programs.”

The panel of establishment politicos and high national security officials included Mike Rogers (R), who chairs a Congressional security committee and Dick Durbin (D-IL), Tom Coburn (R-OK), and Loretta Sanchez (D-CA/Homeland Security Committee), billed by some as a serious critic of the NSA program. As the footage shows, this proved to be grossly misplaced trust and a delusion. As befits a card-carrying Democrat, she promptly caved in, reaffirming her “patriotism” by pronouncing Ed Snowden a criminal.

We all understand that technically Snowden broke the law, and that any Congress critter that should profess sympathy for Snowden would be torn apart by the rest of the hyenas, BUT… the law, Sanchez should have said, reflects only the official game rules of the class forces in power. And that although the law may be “moral” at times, in many cases isn’t.  Thus an impeccable state of law may be wholly immoral and criminal. That was the case with Nazi Germany, a state which prided itself upon the logical perfection of its laws but which implemented unadulterated evil on a monstrous scale, with the support of the majority of its population. Something similar may be said for the American South (and the entire US, for that matter) during the ante bellum, as slavery was accepted and endorsed throughout the nation, and many states prosecuted those who offered aid and comfort to runaway slaves (“stolen property”).

Incidentally, at one point the chastised Gregory (Greenwald has a mordant tongue), seeking to disturb Greenwald’s aplomb, threw him a curve that came pretty close to baiting: WHY SHOULDN’T YOU BE CHARGED FOR AIDING EDWARD SNOWDON?

The transcript follows on P2.—Patrice Greanville

MEET THE PRESS (NBC)

June 23: Durbin, Coburn, Rogers, Sanchez, Gibbs, Murphy, Reed, Fiorina and Todd

MR. DAVID GREGORY: This Sunday, we are covering the breaking news this morning. NSA leaker Edward Snowden on the run now as the government files formal charges against him.

Plus, our own congressional summit on the hottest issues of the president’s second term.

The immigration fight is coming to a head with high stakes and big leadership tests for both the president and the GOP. The stock market stumbles. How much volatility is ahead in the economy? And what should Washington do?

And, the debate over spying. Is the country still behind the NSA surveillance programs or does the president need to make a public case to keep it going? With us, four key Capitol Hill voices. Assistant Democratic leader in the Senate Dick Durbin of Illinois; the top Republican on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, key conservative voice on immigration, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma; Democratic Congresswoman from California, Loretta Sanchez; and the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Republican Congressman Mike Rogers of Michigan.

Then, our political roundtable on Obama’s rough patch. Critical reviews of his trip to the G8 and his efforts on Syria, falling approval ratings. Is his second term slipping away?

ANNOUNCER: From NBC News in Washington, the world’s longest running television program, this is MEET THE PRESS with David Gregory.

GREGORY: Good Sunday morning. A busy one. We’ve got breaking news here that we are following this morning. NSA leaker Edward Snowden is on the move. He has left Hong Kong. He boarded a commercial flight to Moscow a few hours ago, final destination unknown, but he is expected to land in Moscow in just a few minutes. The Hong Kong government issued a defiant statement claiming the U.S. extradition request did not fully comply with Hong Kong law. And WikiLeaks posted a statement just moments ago saying Snowden is, quote, “Bound for a Democratic nation via a safe route for the purposes of asylum and is being escorted by diplomats and legal advisers from WikiLeaks.” That organization, as you know, responsible for other high-profile leaks of classified information. All of this as the U.S. has charged Snowden with espionage and the theft of government property and has made clear that they intend for him to face justice here in the United States. Many questions remain. We want to talk to the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Mike Rogers, who is with us exclusively this morning, in just a moment. But first, I want to bring in the man who actually broke the NSA surveillance story for The Guardian newspaper columnist Glenn Greenwald. He has got additional information this morning. Glenn is in Brazil this morning. And I should point out there is a very big delay between us on the satellite, so I want to be mindful of that. And Glenn, so as I begin this morning, tell us where Snowden is? Where he is ultimately headed?

MR. GLENN GREENWALD (Columnist, The Guardian): Well, I think the– the where he is question is one that you just answered which is he is on a commercial flight to Moscow. Where he is ultimately headed is unknown. In every conversation that I have had with him over the last three weeks, he has stressed that the key contacts for every decision that he is making is as McClatchy reported this morning the Obama administration has been engaged in an unprecedented war against whistleblowers, people who bring transparency to what they are doing, and he believes that it’s vital that he stay out of the clutches of the U.S. government because of the record of the Obama administration on people who– who disclose wrongdoing that the political officials are doing in the dark and he apparently is headed to a Democratic country that will grant him asylum from this persecution.

GREGORY: So, he does not intend to return to the United States. He intends to fight extradition. What else does he intend to do? You have been in contact with him. Is there additional information he is prepared to leak to bolster his and your claim that he is actually a whistleblower and not a criminal responsible for espionage?

MR. GREENWALD: Sure. I think the– the key definition of a whistleblower is somebody who brings to light what political officials do in the dark that is either deceitful or illegal. And in this case, there is a New York Times article just this morning that describes that one of the revelations that he– he– he enabled that we reported is that the director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, went before the U.S. Congress and lied outright when asked whether or not the NSA is collecting any form of data on millions of Americans. His response– Director Clapper’s response was, “No, sir.” As The New York Times said today, even Clapper has had to say that that statement was absolutely false. And the very first conversation I ever had with Mister Snowden, he showed me the folder in which he had placed the documents and labeled it, “NSA Lying to Congress,” that proved as we reported that the NSA is bulk collecting the phone records of millions of Americans indiscriminately, exactly what Clapper denied to the Congress was being done. As for illegality, The New York Times also said today that the bulk spying program exceeds the Patriot Act and there’s a FISA court opinion that says that the U.S. government, that the NSA engaged in unconstitutional and illegal spying on American citizens. That court opinion is secret, but he showed me documents discussing internally in the NSA what that court ruling is, and that should absolutely be public.

GREGORY: With regard to that specific FISA opinion, isn’t the case, based on people that I’ve talked to, that the FISA opinion based on the government’s request is that they said, well, you can get this but you can’t get that. That would actually go beyond the scope of what you’re allowed to do, which means that the request was changed or denied, which is the whole point the government makes, which is that there is actual judicial review here and not abuse. Isn’t this the kind of review and opinion that you would want to keep these programs in line?

MR. GREENWALD: I don’t know what government officials are– are whispering to you, David, but I know that the documents that I have in my possession and that I have read from the NSA tell a much different story which is that there was an 80-page opinion from the FISA court that said that what the NSA is doing in spying on American citizens is a violation of both the Fourth Amendment and the bounds of the statute. And it specifically said that they are collecting bulk transmissions, multiple conversations from millions of Americans, not just people that are believed to be involved in terrorist organizations or working for a foreign agent, and that this is illegal. And the NSA then planned to try and accommodate that ruling. But I think the real issue, as journalists and as citizens is, why should we have to guess, how can we have a democracy in which a secret court rules that what the government is doing in spying on us is a violation of the constitution and the law and yet we sit here and don’t know what that ruling is because it’s all been concealed and all been secret. I think we need to have transparency and disclosure, and that’s why Mister Snowden stepped forward so that we could have that.

GREGORY: There are reports that he’s ultimately headed to Venezuela. Is that your understanding?

MR. GREENWALD: I don’t– I’m not going to talk about where he’s headed or what his plans are. I think it’s up in the air. I’m not actually sure where he’s headed and he’s my source for these stories. I’m not going to talk about where I think he’s going.

GREGORY: Well, that would meet the criteria for what he’s outlining– what you’ve outlined this morning in terms of where he’d like to be.

MR. GREENWALD: Right. Well, Venezuela has a democratically elected government, though it has lots of problems in its political system. And I think the real question is why should an American citizen who joined the U.S. military, worked for the CIA, worked for the NSA– why does he feel that he has to flee the United States simply because he stepped forward in a very careful way, goes to newspapers, reveals wrongdoing and lying on the part of U.S. government officials, why does he feel that he has to flee. And McClatchy article this morning answers that question. It says the Obama administration has been unprecedentedly aggressive and vindictive in how it punishes and treats whistleblowers as enemies of the state. And I think that’s really the question we need to be asking is why are whistleblowers being treated in this fashion?

GREGORY: You’re– you– you are a polemicist here, you have a point of view, you are a columnist, you’re also a lawyer. You do not dispute that Edward Snowden has broken the law, do you?

MR. GREENWALD: No. I think he’s very clear about the fact that he did it because his conscience compelled him to do so, just like Daniel Ellsberg did 50 years ago when he released the Pentagon papers and also admits that he broke the law. I think the question, though, is how can he be charged with espionage? He didn’t work for a foreign government. He could have sold this information for millions of dollars and enriched himself. He didn’t do any of that either. He stepped forward and– as we want people to do in a democracy, as a government official, learned of wrongdoing and exposed it so we could have a democratic debate about the spying system, do we really want to put people like that in prison for life when all they’re doing is telling us as citizens what our political officials are doing in the dark.

GREGORY: Final question before– for you, but I’d like you to hang around. I just want to get Pete Williams in here as well. To the extent that you have aided and abetted Snowden, even in his current movements, why shouldn’t you, Mister Greenwald, be charged with a crime?

MR. GREENWALD: I think it’s pretty extraordinary that anybody who would call themselves a journalist would publicly muse about whether or not other journalists should be charged with felonies. The assumption in your question, David, is completely without evidence, the idea that I’ve aided and abetted him in anyway. The scandal that arose in Washington before our stories began was about the fact that the Obama administration is trying to criminalize investigative journalism by going through the– the e-mails and phone records of AP reporters, accusing a Fox News journalist of the theory that you just embraced, being a co-conspirator with felony– in felonies for working with sources. If you want to embrace that theory, it means that every investigative journalist in the United States who works with their sources, who receives classified information is a criminal, and it’s precisely those theories and precisely that climate that has become so menacing in the United States. That’s why the New Yorker’s Jane Mayer said investigative reporting has come to a standstill, her word, as a result of the theories that you just referenced.

GREGORY: Well, the question of who’s a journalist may be up to a debate with regard to what you’re doing and of course anybody who’s watching this understands I was asking a question. That question has been raised by lawmakers, as well. I’m not embracing anything. But, obviously, I take your point. Mister Greenwald, just stay put if you would for just a moment. I want to bring in Pete Williams. I appreciate you dealing with the delay as well. Pete, can you just bring up to speed on where the Justice Department is on this? What is that they are prepared to do now that Snowden has done? What he’s done?

MR. PETE WILLIAMS (NBC News Justice Correspondent): Well, the request for extradition will follow wherever he ends up. What I’m told is, first of all, we know that the charges were filed actually under seal a week ago in the Eastern District of Virginia right across the river from Washington, and the Chinese– the Hong Kong government was informed of that, and the U.S. sought the next step, which is an arrest warrant. And then after he was arrested, the extradition process would start. Administration officials say that the Hong Kong officials came back to the U.S. just this past Friday night with additional questions that the U.S. was in the process of responding when the Hong Kong authorities notified the U.S. that they decided to let him go. Now, in their statement, the Hong Kong government says that the charges the U.S. filed, quote, “Did not fully comply with the legal requirements under Hong Kong law.” I think it’s fair to say that there’s– the U.S. is upset about this because it’s the administration’s claim that the filing of the charges was a back-and-forth with the Hong Kong authorities. They wanted to make sure that they would conform to the treaty, the extradition treaty the U.S. has, and that they’d received assurances that it would, so this is a– this is quite a surprise, I think it’s fair to say, the administration. But David, I think from now on this is a diplomatic issue not a legal one, because it’s quite obvious he intends to seek asylum and that’s where this process goes next.

GREGORY: What are the lengths to which the administration may be prepared to go? I’m not asking you to– to speculate, but what are going to be some of the menu of choices that they’re going to have to be discussing?

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, the only ones I know are the diplomatic and illegal ones. Whether there– whether there are more exotic ones, to sort of grab him and bring him back, I wouldn’t know and of course they wouldn’t say. That would obviously be very controversial although I’m sure there are many members of Congress who would agree and others who would think that it was the wrong thing to do. But as far as I know, this is strictly a legal and diplomatic one obviously– I mean, I suppose if– if that was going to the course, the U.S. had the chance to do that when he was in the– in Hong Kong and chose not to.

GREGORY: All right, Pete, thank you so much. One last question for Glenn Greenwald. Glenn, I just would like you if you would to respond to your critics who as you know have made a case against you, against Snowden saying, look, this is not a case of a courageous whistleblower who worked through the system even available to whistle-blowers to report if– if something that you may think is abuse. These– this is a partisan who is single-handedly deciding to expose programs that there is both support for and in doing so illegally that this is more of an agenda and that there’s frankly a lot of concern that one person would take it upon himself to– to undermine a program that a lot of people believe is actually helpful to national security.

Araik Stepanyan, Pravda.ru
MATERIAL INDICATED BY OUR CORRESPONDENT GAITHER STEWART

Is this a chain reaction or mass epidemic? Either way, the fact remains – the political upheavals in the Muslim world that began in Tunisia swept across North Africa and Syria, and now a wave of instability has reached Turkey. A member of the Presidium of the Academy of Geopolitical Issues Araik Stepanyan analyzed this complex, ambiguous situation in the country.

“We will identify the external and internal factors that have caused, for the lack of a better word, social unrest in Turkey.

Internal factors have deep roots. The main reason is the collapse of the Ottoman Empire after the First World War and the Turkish Republic established by the “father of the Turks” Kemal Ataturk. He decided to raise the status of the ethnic Turks that was low in the Ottoman Empire, turning them into an overriding ethnic group and create a political nation – the Turks.

In 1926, a law was passed stating that all residents of Turkey were ethnic Turks, and different names – the Kurds, Armenians, Laz, Circassian, and so on – were insulting to the Turkish national identity and must not be used. Everybody was recorded as Turks. And, although many years have passed, the first problem in Turkey is a problem of national identity.

There is a huge mass of people, more than half of today’s Turkish population, who do not consider themselves Turks. They see themselves as citizens of Turkey, but ethnically they do not identify themselves with the Turks, and do not want to. But because they live in the country where they have to be Turks to have a chance for a career, they are considered Turks. In 2000-2002, Western funds conducted a secret survey of the Turkish population and obtained evidence that only 37 percent of all Turkey residents saw themselves as ethnic Turks. The national issue has aggravated, and rallies and slogans are convincing evidence.

The second internal factor that undermines today’s Turkey is a debate about the type of the government – secular or theocratic. The elite of modern Turkey have serious disagreements about this. The heirs of the Ottoman Empire believe that the highest level of prosperity in Turkey was in the days of the Ottoman Empire, where all citizens were equal, except for Christians, and ethnicity was not emphasized. That means, people were Osman regardless of the ethnicity – the Turks, Circassian, or Kurds.

The secular government afraid of Islamic influence is holding to the legacy of Kemal Ataturk. This is the army general staff who until recently served as the guarantor of the Constitution by the secular power. But Erdogan came to power and abolished that item of the Constitution. Incidentally, this is a revolutionary step, and can be compared with the constitution of the Soviet Union whose sixth article stated that the Communist Party was the governing body of the Soviet state. Once it was removed, the state has collapsed. Eliminating his “sixth paragraph,” Erdogan dealt a crushing blow to the General Staff and the army. Naturally, the army is very unhappy and wants to overthrow Erdogan, although it is not directly involved in the rallies.

Third internal factor is the Kurdish issue. The Kurds are seeking autonomy in Eastern Anatolia (the largest region of Turkey), their number is approximately 20 million. Despite the talks started by Erdogan (negotiations with Barzani, president of the Kurdish autonomy in northern Iraq, and Ocalan, the PKK leader) armed clashes between Kurdish rebels and the official Turkish army continue, with daily casualties on both sides. Thus, this is the third most important factor.

The fourth factor is the Armenian issue. Armenians living in the south-eastern and eastern Anatolia, the original Armenian territories of Western Armenia, have, so to speak, their hidden aspirations. They are hidden because they have bitter experience of being eliminated and thrown out. The Turkish elite, the intelligentsia, too, in turn, realizes that it is impossible not to recognize the Armenian Genocide. About three thousand Turkish intellectuals on Turkish websites apologized to the Armenians for the Genocide and eviction. Then there was football diplomacy with signing the agreement on opening the border between Turkey and Armenia. The Armenians are now fighting with diplomatic methods.  

Turkish demographic policy denies all other nationalities. Turkey strongly advocates that 82 percent of the population is Turks. But for obvious reasons this is not the case. There is a vast array of Greek Muslims who do not even speak the Turkish language and as many Bulgarian Muslims.

There are Armenians who speak Kurdish, Armenians who speak Turkish and Armenians who speak the Armenian dialect. But the state considers them all Turks. This is not the case, but a reason to oppose the government in one form or another.

The fifth factor is internal – it’s Alawites, a religious movement with millions of people who adhere to the same religious beliefs as Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian Alawi. When I see banners proclaiming “Erdogan, you are a thief!” I understand that these are Alawites. In the course of combat activities in Syria, Aleppo in particular, gunmen took out everything – from machines to museum exhibits, and exported them to Turkey, with the connivance of the authorities, and sold or appropriated them.

But Gezi Park or Taksim Square where rallies are held now is a special topic that overlaps, incidentally, with the Armenian issue.

First, in 1500 sultan Suleiman presented this territory to his Armenian assistant who uncovered a conspiracy. In 1560, an Armenian cemetery was laid there. The cemetery existed until late 19^th century and was eliminated after a well-known cholera epidemic, but the ownership was left to the Armenian community. After the genocide in 1915, when the Armenians were expelled, the owner clearly changed. Barracks were built there, then a park. When the authorities planned to build a shopping center, the community exploded. All ethnic minorities, anti-globalization activists, gays, lesbians, football fans, the “green” joined against the destruction of the park. Clearly, everyone had different views and goals, but the only reason was rejection of the current government that none of these social groups liked. Yes, individually they are in the minority, but this is the case where the sum of minorities produces the majority, incidentally, in contrast to Russia.

There is also an external factor. The U.S. lost interest in Turkey after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Turks tried to start building a new Turkic empire, the so-called Great Turan based on pan-Turkism, but the Turkic-speaking states, newly formed in the Soviet Union, gave the initiative a cold shoulder despite the extent of the economic expansion of Turkey in these regions is impressive.

The U.S. does not really support these imperial ideas. Especially when Turkey did not provide its territory for ground operations during the recent war in Iraq, did not let the American ships into the Black Sea during the Russian-Georgian conflict in 2008, incidentally, rightly so, in accordance with the international status of the Black Sea and the Bosporus and the Dardanelles.

The White House is beginning to move away from its ally. Moreover, according to the plan of a military expert Ralph Peters of the National Military Academy of the United States, in accordance with the concept of the Greater Middle East, Turkey is disintegrated. A large Kurdistan is created, and Mount Ararat goes to Armenia. Most important task, of course, is to take control of the Bosporus and the Dardanelles, close access for Russia to the Mediterranean Sea, and so on. The U.S. has a clear plan and is implementing it. The European Union, of course, agrees with this plan.

America will not save Erdogan despite the fact that he supported the Muslim extremists against Assad. Only Assad is winning, and Turkey has lost its authority with the nearby neighbors. It is likely to face open hostility, because no one has forgotten the Ottoman Empire or the imperial motives of the Turkish foreign policy. Turkish leaders have painted themselves into a geopolitical trap. There are still chances of getting out of it, but, judging by Erdogan’s recent statements, they are becoming slimmer every day.

All of these factors combined lead Turkey to a collapse. It will not happen overnight, but the trend is moving in this direction. All mass movements just show the causes, both external and internal. Therefore, even if the military who wants to overthrow Erdogan comes to power, and the constitution and the role of the General Staff is restored, it will be impossible to stop the process of globalization and crush the rebellion of ethnic groups.

Araik Stepanyan is a political analyst with Pravda.Ru and other Russian publications.

by Stephen Lendman

The criminality of our leaders forces us to root for anyone who can put a stop to their corruption-driven insanity. Russia may turn out to be the last hope for humanity.

On June 17, G8 leaders began two days of talks in Northern Ireland. Seven nations want escalated war on Syria. Putin’s alone. He’s an outlier for peaceful conflict resolution.  Obama’s hands are bloodrenched. He bears full responsibility for ravaging Syria. It’s been ongoing since early 2011. It was planned many years earlier. 

On Monday, Obama lied saying:

“We’re not taking sides in a religious war. Really, what we’re trying to do is take sides against extremists of all sorts and in favor of people who are in favor of moderation, tolerance, representative government, and over the long-term, stability and prosperity for the people of Syria.”

“We share an interest in reducing the violence, securing chemical weapons and ensuring that they are neither used nor are they subject to proliferation.”

[pullquote] “Washington’s crazed, demented drive for world hegemony is bringing unsuspecting Americans up against two countries with hydrogen bombs whose combined population is five times the US population. In such a conflict everyone dies.” [/pullquote]

“We want to try to resolve the issue through political means if possible, so we will instruct our teams to continue to work on the potential of a Geneva follow-up.”

Since conflict began, America’s been arming, training, funding and directing death squad fighters in Syria. They’re imported from dozens of regional and other countries. According to Mossad-connected DEBKA file (DF):

“NATO and a number of European governments, most significantly the UK, have started airlifting heavy weapons to the Syrian rebels poised in Aleppo to fend off a major Syrian army offensive.”

On June 17, “first shipments” arrived. They were airlifted to Turkey and Jordan. They include “anti-air and tank missiles as well as recoilless 120 mm cannons mounted on jeeps.”

They’re heading for insurgents in southern Syria and Aleppo. More weapons arrived Tuesday.

According to DF,  “27 aircraft landings were counted in the last few days.” Expect more to follow.

Obama’s in Northern Ireland talking peace. He does so duplicitously. He prioritizes war. He bears full responsibility for raging conflict. He’s doing it in multiple theaters. He’s escalating it in Syria. America’s on a precipitous slippery slope. Obama’s heading it for full-blown tyranny. He leads a nation in decline. It began long before his presidency. He’s escalating what others began. He’s menacing humanity in the process.

According to Immanuel Wallerstein, Syria’s a “no win for the West.”

“Whatever the United States and western European states do (will) have dire negative consequences for them. This is a perfect lose-lose situation for the dominant forces in the world.”

“The war is already spreading and could get totally out of control. It is not at all impossible that the interveners win out, and the whole of the Middle East finds itself in one gigantic, uncontrollable, endless war.”

“The key phrase is ‘out of control.’ ” America and complicit partners can’t succeed. Escalated conflict is a lose-lose for the West and regional nations. Gideon Rachman is Financial Times chief foreign affairs commentator. On June 17, he headlined “The west’s dominance of the Middle East is ending,” saying:

“Those calling for deeper US involvement in the Syrian conflict are living in the past.” America’s military is still the world’s mightiest. Its influence is ebbing. It ravages and destroys countries easily. It’s inept at nation-building. Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya explain best. Puppet regimes are hated. Daily violence persists. US dominance is resisted. People want their sovereignty respected. “The era of direct colonialism in the Middle East ended decades ago,” said Rachman.

[pullquote] The late Chalmers Johnson perhaps explained best. “We have met the enemy and he is us,” he said. He quoted Pogo saying so. America’s policies have been arrogant and misguided for decades. It’s too late for scattered reforms. Hegemonic overreach is too deep-seated. America’s plagued by the same dynamic that doomed past empires. It’s unwilling to change. It’s headed for isolation, bankruptcy and tyranny. [/pullquote]

“The era of informal empire is now coming to a close.”

The late Chalmers Johnson perhaps explained best. “We have met the enemy and he is us,” he said. He quoted Pogo saying so. America’s policies have been arrogant and misguided for decades. It’s too late for scattered reforms. Hegemonic overreach is too deep-seated. America’s plagued by the same dynamic that doomed past empires. It’s unwilling to change. It’s headed for isolation, bankruptcy and tyranny.

It’s permanently at war despite no enemies. It’s secretive, lawless, duplicitous and unaccountable. It’s totally out-of-control. It’s republic hangs by a thread. It makes more enemies than friends.

Paul Craig Roberts calls Washington “insane.” Its ‘double-speak is now obvious to the world.’  Obama threatens possible WW III. Doing so “means the end of life on earth.” Russia and China know if Syria falls, Iran’s next. If puppet leaders replace the Islamic Republic’s independent government, Moscow and Beijing are Washington’s next targets.

Roberts believes both countries are preparing for an eventual showdown. The prospect should terrify everyone.

“Washington’s crazed, demented drive for world hegemony is bringing unsuspecting Americans up against two countries with hydrogen bombs whose combined population is five times the US population. In such a conflict everyone dies.”

Obama’s heading America for more war. He’s doing so unconscionably. He’s doing it based on lies. He blames Assad for US-sponsored crimes. He’s done it since conflict began.  Putin’s alone among G8 leaders. He wants him stopped. He and Obama met privately for two hours. They’re deeply divided on Syria. London’s Telegraph highlighted their differences.

On June 17, it headlined “G8: Barak Obama and Vladimir Putin grim-faced on Syria disagreements,” saying:

Their views are polar opposite. “In a photo-op after talks there was no sign of the chumminess that characterised meetings between Obama and Medvedev, who once went for lunch at a burger joint outside Washington.”

Relations are increasingly frosty. Brave face pretense can’t conceal it. Obama demands Assad must go. Putin insists Syrians alone must decide who’ll lead them.  He wants escalated conflict stopped. Obama prioritizes it. Libya 2.0 looms.

On June 18, the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) headlined “President al-Assad gives interview to the German Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung newspaper.”

Syria’s “dealing with a form of guerrilla warfare,” he said. Government forces are prevailing. They’re doing so decisively.

“We are confident that we can successfully fight terrorism in Syria, but the bigger issue is the ensuing damage and its cost.”

“The crisis has already had a heavy toll but our biggest challenges will come once the crisis is over.”

“(F)oreign interference” bears full responsibility for ongoing conflict.

“Nobody can know what the Middle East will look like should there be an attempt to re-draw the map of the region.”

“However, most likely that map will be one of multiple wars, which would transcend the Middle East spanning the Atlantic to the Pacific, which nobody can stop.”

It’s happening now, he said. Ahead he expects much worse. We’re “witness(ing) the domino effect of widespread extremism, chaos and fragmentation.”

America, Britain and France want regional “puppets and dummies to do their bidding and serve their interests without question.”

“We have consistently rejected this. We will always be independent and free.”

Escalating conflict will backfire. Heavier weapons sent terrorists assure blowback. “Europe’s back garden will become a hub for terrorism and chaos, which leads to deprivation and poverty.”

“Europe will pay the price and forfeit an important market. (T)errorism will not stop here. It will spread to your countries.”

“It will export itself through illegal immigration or through the same terrorists who returned to their original countries after being indoctrinated and trained more potently.”

Allegations of Syrian chemical weapons use are “ludicrous,” Assad said. Where’s the proof, he stressed?

“Had they obtained a single strand of evidence that we had used chemical weapons, do you not think they would have made a song and dance about it to the whole world?”

“Then where is the chain of custody that led them to a such result?”

“The terrorist groups used chemical weapons in Aleppo. Subsequently we sent an official letter to the United Nations requesting a formal investigation into the incident.”

“Britain and France blocked this investigation because it would have proven the chemical attacks were carried out by terrorist groups and hence provided conclusive evidence that they (Britain and France) were lying.”

“We invited them to investigate the incident, but instead they wanted the inspectors to have unconditional access to locations across Syria, parallel to what inspectors did in Iraq and delved into other unrelated issues.”

“We are a sovereign state. We have an army and all matters considered classified will never be accessible neither to the UN, nor Britain, nor France.”

“They will only be allowed access to investigate the incident that occurred in Aleppo.”

Chemical weapons allegations reflect “an extension of the continuous American and Western fabrication of the actual situation in Syria.”

“Its sole aim is to justify their policies to their public opinion and use the claim as a pretext for more military intervention and bloodshed in Syria.”

Assad wants conflict resolved diplomatically. He’s eager for legitimate dialogue to do so. He won’t negotiate with terrorists. No one should! Doing so assures greater conflict, not less. He calls legitimate opposition parties ones against terrorism. Their aims are political, not belligerent. He rejects foreign interference.

He wants Syria’s sovereignty respected. He wants Syrians alone to choose who’ll lead them. International law supports him. In 2014, his term ends. “When the country is in a crisis, the president is expected to shoulder the burden of responsibility and resolve the situation, not abandon his duties and leave.

He calls doing so “treason.” Syria’s “biggest challenge is extremism,” he says. He’s committed to defeating it. Polls show Syrians overwhelmingly support him.  They do so for good reason. The alternative is Western domination. It assures protracted violence and instability. It’ll replicate conditions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Palestine.

Syrians want peace and stability. Achieving them requires routing death squad invaders. It means thwarting imperial Washington.  It menaces humanity wherever it shows up. Imagine if Syria was its Waterloo. If that’s not worth fighting for, what is?

Note: Summit leaders ended two days of talks. Their final communique stressed holding peace talks as soon as possible. No mention of Assad was made. Putin won’t endorse his stepping down. Deputy Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov explained. He did so separately, saying:

“This would be not just unacceptable for the Russian side, but we are convinced that it would be utterly wrong, harmful, and would completely upset the political balance.”

The final communique text  can be read in full.

A Final Comment

Dam Press’ June 17 Arabic language article was translated into English. It’s important reading.  Ahead of meeting G8 leaders, Putin visited David Cameron in London. He delivered a message. It’s meant for America, Britain, France, and other anti-Assad belligerents. It’s unambiguous. Russian S-300 missiles in Syria will target Washington’s Patriot installations if used against Assad.

More advanced S-400s may be delivered. They’re by far the most advanced air defense system. They exceed anything America or other Western countries have. They’re extremely effective. So are S-300s.

Moscow will also supply Assad with state-of-the-art 24-Barrell rocket launchers. They’re considered the most advanced artillery weapon of its kind. They are able to destroy threatening targets on Syria’s borders.

He may send other sophisticated weapons. He opposes arming insurgents. He deplores sending them heavier weapons. He’s against Obama’s planned escalation. He’s drawn his own red line. He won’t tolerate crossing it.  Russia’s a powerful adversary. Its nuclear arsenal matches America’s. Its weapons are very sophisticated. It has regional interests vital to protect.

It’s concerned about Washington’s longstanding intentions. If Syria, Iran, and other independent countries become US vassal states, targeting Russia and China follow.

Assad wants Syria’s sovereignty respected. Iran’s President-Elect Hassan Rohani demands the same. Both leaders have every right to do so. They prioritize independence and freedom. So do Moscow and Beijing. It remains to be seen what follows.

Take No. 2—

High Level Opposition to Escalating Syria’s Conflict

by Stephen Lendman

Dozens of responsible world leaders oppose Washington’s war on Syria. They do so for good reason. They want peaceful conflict resolution. They’re against greater escalation. Few say so publicly.

On May 15, the UN General Assembly adopted an anti-Assad resolution. It’s non-binding. It was Arab League-led. Washington co-sponsored it. It followed four others since 2011.

It passed 107 – 12. Over 70 nations refused support. They endorse peace, not war. They oppose greater foreign intervention. Russia called the measure “counterproductive and irresponsible.”

Assad expressed views many other leaders share. Few air them publicly. He warned about longterm regional destabilization, saying:

“If the unrest in Syria leads to the partitioning of the country, or if the terrorist forces take control….the situation will inevitably spill over into neighboring countries and create a domino effect throughout the Middle East and beyond.”

Most Americans oppose greater intervention. Most polls consistently say so. Pew Research shows overwhelming Arab street unease. At issue is Syrian violence spreading cross-borders.

High-level Pentagon officials express concerns. Greater Syrian intervention’s much more daunting than Libya. Last March, Joint Chiefs Chairman General Martin Dempsey said “We can do anything” if asked.

At the same time, he repeatedly opposed greater US involvement. He’s against escalated conflict. Endgame consequences worry him most. Before acting, “we have to be prepared for what comes next,” he warns.

Attacking Syria won’t be easy, he added. Russian-supplied air defenses are formidable. They’re located close to major population centers.

Syrian opposition is splintered. Many insurgents are known terrorists. Hezbollah supports Syria. So does Iran. Russia may intervene supportively.

“Whether the military effect would produce the kind of outcome I think that not only members of Congress but all of us would desire – which is an end to the violence, some kind of political reconciliation among the parties, and a stable Syria – that’s the reason I’ve been cautious about the application of the military instrument of power…. It’s not clear to me that it would produce that outcome,” he said.

On June 17, Al Manar headlined “Russia: We Won’t Allow Imposing a no-Fly Zone in Syria,” saying:

Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Ocahevch said:

“We will not permit such scenarios, and these maneuvers on a fly-zone and humanitarian passages in Syria are caused by the lack of respect for the International Law.”

“We have seen how they imposed no-fly zones in Libya, so we will not allow repeating the same scenarios in Syria.”

“The Syrian crisis cannot be settled by double stances – refusing the military track on one hand and arming the militants on the other.”

A same day Al Manar article headlined “Putin: Russia Arming Legitimate Gov’t in Syria, West Arming Organ-Eaters,” saying:

“You will not deny that one does not really need to support the people who not only kill their enemies, but open up their bodies, eat their intestines in front of the public and cameras.”

“Are these the people you want to support? Is it them who you want to supply with weapons? Then this probably has little relation to humanitarian values that have been preached in Europe for hundreds of years.”

He unequivocal on Russian policy. He wants conflict ended. He wants it diplomatically resolved. He wants Syrians alone to decide who’ll govern them. Let them defeat foreign “extremists,” he stresses.

On June 17, Lebanon’s Daily Star quoted Assad saying:

“If the Europeans deliver weapons, the backyard of Europe will become terrorist and Europe will pay the price for it.”

At issue is exporting “terrorism” to Europe. “Terrorists will gain experience in combat and return with extremist ideologies,” he warned.

On June 16, London’s Telegraph headlined “Boris Johnson: Don’t arm the Syria maniacs,” saying:

London’s mayor warned David Cameron. Don’t use Syria for “political point-scoring or muscle-flexing.” Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg echoed similar sentiments.

So did former army head Lord Dannatt and Archbishop of York John Sentamu. Johnson urged “total ceasefire. This is the moment (to) end.the madness.”

Cameron faces growing internal opposition. Associates warn he faces a no-confidence defeat.

Clegg insists Britain won’t arm insurgents. “We’ve taken no decision to provide lethal assistance, so we clearly don’t think it is the right thing to do now, otherwise we would have decided to do it,” he said.

Tory MP Julian Lewis spoke for others saying arming insurgents would be “suicidal.” Cameron will “struggle” to get parliamentary approval.

Shadow foreign minister Douglas Alexander said MPs from all parties express unease.

“For months Labour has called on the government to answer basic questions about their approach, such as how the prime minister would ensure that weapons supplied did not fall into the wrong hands, and how this step would help to de-escalate the conflict rather than prolong it.”

Unnamed US defense officials warn that creating safe or protected areas inside Syria involve enormous complexities.  Thousands of US ground forces may be needed to enforce them. Deploying them involves invasion and occupation. A protracted quagmire may follow.

No-fly zone imposition is just as daunting. Justifiable Syrian responses will follow.

On June 14, Foreign Policy’s Gordon Lubold headlined “Why the Pentagon really, really doesn’t want to get involved in Syria,” saying:

“Top Pentagon brass have been ambivalent in the extreme about getting involved in the Syrian crisis since it began more than two years ago.”

“And now, even as the Obama administration signals its intention to provide direct military aid to opponents of the Syrian regime, there remains deep skepticism across the military that it will work.”

Escalating conflict entails enormous risks. Success is unlikely. “(T)op brass is extremely reluctant to commit assets.”  According to an unnamed senior Pentagon commander:

“There is no way to ensure” that arming insurgents won’t make matters worse. Supplying heavier weapons, no-fly zone protection and safe areas sound good on paper.

Reality suggests otherwise. Failure’s more likely than success. Former head of US European Operation Command and Supreme Allied Commander, Europe General Philip Breedlove sees “no military value in no-fly zone imposition inside northern Syria.

Northern and Southern Watch over Iraq was operationally exhausting and expensive. Military intervention entails unintended consequences. Afghanistan and Iraq are protracted quagmires. Libya’s a cauldron of violence.

Syria could be worse. Cross-border fallout could be disastrous. Escalated conflict affects Turkey, Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, and perhaps other regional countries. On June 14, Politico headlined “DOD brass has long urged caution on Syria,” saying:

Obama’s planned greater involvement reflects what Pentagon brass warned against for months. At issue is another protracted quagmire.

“In hearings, speeches and interviews, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey have been deeply skeptical every time they’ve been asked about potential US involvement in Syria.”

Unintended consequences worry planners most. They’ve seen it all before. They’re loathe to repeat past mistakes. National security/military strategist Micah Zenko said:

“I’ve never spoken to anyone at the (military) O-5 level or above who thinks intervening in Syria is a good idea.”

Hagel warned that military intervention “could embroil the United States in a significant, lengthy, and uncertain military commitment.”

It could have “the unintended consequence of bringing the United States into a broader regional conflict or proxy war.”

“You better be damn sure, as sure as you can be, before you get into something, because once you’re into it, there isn’t any backing out, whether it’s a no-fly zone, safe zone, protect these – whatever it is.”

“Once you’re in, you can’t unwind it. You can’t just say, ‘Well, it’s not going as well as I thought it would go, so we’re going to get out.’ ”

Dempsey said supplying insurgents heavier weapons won’t make a difference. “Not in my military judgment,” he stressed. Don’t expect Syria to take escalation lightly, he added.

“I have to assume, as the military member with responsibility for these kind of activities, that the potential adversary isn’t just going to sit back and allow us to impose our will on them, that they could in fact take exception, and act outside of their borders with long-range rockets and missiles and artillery and even asymmetrical threats.”

In other words, be careful what you wish for. Best laid plans often fail. US military history reflects failure. Quagmires more than victories result.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.  His new book is titled “Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

By Alex Lantier, wsws.org

Protests against the Islamist government of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan grew over the weekend, as Erdogan called counter-demonstrations by his supporters next weekend and warned that his ability to tolerate the protests “has a limit.”

On Saturday, tens of thousands of protesters filled Taksim Square in Istanbul, a week after police withdrew from the square after a failed attempt to crush protests against Erdogan’s plans to remodel the historic area in downtown Istanbul. Fans of the Besiktas and Fenerbahce football clubs had called on their supporters to join the demonstration, one of the largest so far on Taksim Square. Protesters chanted, “Erdogan, resign!”

In the capital, Ankara, police attacked a group of approximately 5,000 protesters Saturday night around 10:30 p.m. in Kizilay Square with barrages of tear gas and water cannon. There were reports of at least two injuries yesterday, after clashes continued in Ankara through the night and into early Sunday morning.

Turkey’s national doctors’ union said the protests had left two protesters and one policeman dead, and almost 4,800 people injured across the country. This figure includes approximately 600 injured police officers.

Protesters held another major rally on Taksim Square yesterday afternoon, as protests continued in cities throughout the country. They chanted, “Erdogan, resign!” and organized songs and dances in various locations on the square.

The Taksim Square rally was called by the Taksim Solidarity Platform—a group of academics, architects, environmentalists, and members of the opposition CHP (Republican People’s Party), who have tried to lay out conditions for a deal with Erdogan to wind down the protests.

The maneuvers of the Taksim Solidarity Platform—and those of the union bureaucracies, pseudo-left groups, and nationalist parties like the CHP—point to critical issues of political perspective confronting the protest movement.

The protests have become the focal point of broader hostility to Erdogan’s policies, including attacks on democratic rights, rising social inequality, and support for the reactionary US-led war in Syria. Numerous commentators have compared the Taksim Square protests in Turkey to the 2011 Tahrir Square protests in Cairo, which launched revolutionary struggles against Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

Stark differences exist between the two struggles, however. Above all, in February 2011, the working class in Egypt intervened, launching a series of powerful mass strikes that brought down Mubarak. These were directed against Egypt’s state-controlled unions and escaped the control of its opposition parties.

The only way forward for opposition to austerity, war, and democratic rights in Turkey is a fight to similarly mobilize the working class in struggle against the Erdogan regime, independently of and against the unions and the bourgeois opposition. To the extent that the Turkish protests have not advanced such a perspective, they have remained under the political influence of reactionary forces in the union bureaucracy and the CHP. They are seeking a deal with Erdogan to avert a revolution and increase their weight in Erdogan’s maneuvers with imperialism.

Erdogan is seeking to exploit this situation to rally supporters of his Islamist Justice and Development Party (AKP) for a crackdown against the protests. Yesterday the AKP called pro-government counter-demonstrations in Ankara and Istanbul for next Saturday and next Sunday, respectively, as Erdogan went on a three-city tour to Mersin, Adana, and Ankara.

In Adana, where a policemen allegedly fell to his death from a bridge while chasing protesters, Erdogan denounced protesters for having “martyred” the policeman.

He also attacked calls for police involved in brutal repression of the protests to resign, slandering protesters as terrorists: “We won’t sacrifice our police to their wishes. We cannot leave the streets for anarchists and terrorists to roam.”

Pro- and anti-Erdogan protesters had clashed the night before, the second such clash after Erdogan supporters attacked a group of protesters in Erdogan’s home city of Rize on Thursday.

Speaking in Ankara as police attacked protesters, Erdogan said: “We remained patient, we are still patient, but there’s a limit to our patience. Those who do not respect this nation’s party in power will pay a price.”

Erdogan also made empty attacks on major banks or governments in North America and Europe, in response to fears that they might place pressure on him to compromise with the protesters, for instance by holding up lending and threatening to increase interest rates on Turkish debt.

He said, “The interest lobby should better behave itself. This lobby exploited my people for years. We have shown patience for a long time. I am not saying this only for one bank or two, but for all whoever is making this lobby. Those who have started this fight against us, you will pay the price heavily. Those who tried to let the stock exchange collapse: Tayyip Erdogan has no money there; if it collapses you will also collapse with it. The moment we discover stock exchange speculation, we will ram it down your throat.”

This is, however, bluster from a government whose foreign policy is closely aligned on Washington’s Middle East wars, above all in Syria, and which depends on international banks to fund Turkey’s current account deficit.

At the same time as Erdogan made these remarks, other Turkish officials cynically sought to dampen down conflicts with the protesters, in line with demands in the Western press.

Istanbul Governor Huseyin Avni Mutlu, under whose orders the police brutally attacked protesters last week, issued absurd messages on Twitter to protesters on Taksim Square and nearby Gezi Park: “Young people, I hear you spent a peaceful morning in Gezi Park with bird songs, the buzzing of bees, and the smell of linden trees. I would like to be with you…. Even if we cannot agree with one another, it is obligatory for us to share our problems by looking into our eyes humanely and with justice; every individual is worthy and special.”

Turkish officials also criticized the New York Times ’ decision to run a full-page ad from the Gezi Democracy Movement criticizing Erdogan in its Friday edition. In a letter responding to questions about the ad from the Turkish daily Hurriyet, the Times wrote: “We publish this type of advertising because we believe in the First Amendment, which affords us the right to publish news and editorials, but just as important, guarantees the public’s right to be heard.”

The Times ’ invocation of constitutional rights and freedoms—as it supports the Obama administration, which is escalating domestic spying and building up the apparatus of a police state—is empty and cynical. There can be no question that the Times posted this ad in line with the calculations of sections of the US foreign policy establishment, who hope to use pro-imperialist elements within the protest movement for their own purposes.

As Turkey’s EU Minister Egemen Bagis, a former lobbyist in the United States, sarcastically noted: “When I read the New York Times’ answer with a mention of the First Amendment, I had tears in my eyes, I was really touched.”

Bagis noted that when the Times was approached with plans to carry an ad denying the Armenian genocide in Turkey, it declined to do so.