OPEDS |  Eric Zuesse

The downing of MH-17, a cynical false flag, was milked to the limit by the Western disinformation agencies, with full cooperation of the corrupt Western media and its legions of clueless and useful idiots. 

[dropcap]W[/dropcap]ikipedia articles [that deal with matters affecting the ruling class of the US and its accomplices) are more propaganda than they are historical accounts. And, often, their cited sources are misleading, or even false.
.
On 15 August 2007, the BBC headlined “Wikipedia Shows CIA Page Edits,” and Jonathan Fildes reported that, “An online tool that claims to reveal the identity of organizations that edit Wikipedia pages has revealed that the CIA was involved in editing entries.” I.e.: What the CIA doesn’t like, they can (and do) eliminate or change.
.
More recently, on 25 June 2015, an anonymous reddit poster, “moose,” listed and linked directly to 18 different news reports, in such media as New York Times, Washington Post, Telegraph, Mirror, Guardian, and Newsweek, reporting about Wikipedia edits that were supplied not only by the CIA but by other U.S. Government offices, and by large corporations. That person opened with a news report which implicated Wikipedia itself, “Wikipedia honcho caught in scandal quits, defends paid edits,” in which Wikipedia’s own corruption was discussed. Most of the other news reports there concerned unpaid edits by employees at CIA, congressional and British parliamentary offices, the DCRI (French equivalent of the U.S. CIA), large corporations, self-interested individuals, and others. One article even concerned a report that, “All-Russia State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company (VGTRK) changed a Russian language version of a page listing civil aviation accidents to say that ‘The plane [flight MH17] was shot down by Ukrainian soldiers’.” Basically, Wikipedia has been revealed to be a river of ‘information’ that’s polluted by so many self-interested sources as to be no more reliable than, say: “New York Times, Washington Post, Telegraph, Mirror, Guardian, and Newsweek.”
.
And that’s not reliable at all. For example, everybody knew in 2002 and 2003 that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling WMD “Weapons of Mass Destruction,” because they had read it in such ‘news’ sources as that. Consequently, even when Wikipedia links to those sorts of articles, it can be propagating lies. After all, The New York Times and Washington Post were stenographically ‘reporting’ the lies from the White House as if those lies were truths (not challenging them at all); so, the fame of a publisher has nothing to do with the honesty (the integrity and carefulness) of its ‘news’ reporting. Stenographic ‘news’ reporting isn’t news-reporting; it is propaganda, no matter how famous and respected the ‘news’ medium happens (unfortunately) to be. Some of the most unreliable ‘news’ media have top prestige.
.
THE MALAYSIAN AIRLINER OVER UKRAINE

[dropcap]A[/dropcap]s an example: Wikipedia’s English-language article about the 17 July 2014 shoot-down of the MH17 Malaysian airliner is a shameless propaganda-piece by the U.S. Government and its agents. Its (at present) 320 footnote-sources don’t include any of the many reports (virtually all in the foreign press) that present evidence the Ukrainian government shot down this airliner. Among the important issues that aren’t even raised, are: why was the Ukrainian government given veto-power over any final report which will be issued by the official four-nation MH17 investigating team: Netherlands, Belgium, Australia, and Ukraine? Why was Ukraine even included in this team to investigate a crime in which one of the two main suspects is the Ukrainian government itself?

One of a multitude of cartoons in the West literally pointing the finger at Moscow.

Why was the presence of 30mm bullet-holes in the side-panel next to the pilot not mentioned in this lengthy Wikipedia article? (If this plane had been brought down by only a missile, such as Wikipedia assumes, there wouldn’t be any bullet-holes — much less, hundreds of them, as there are.) Why was the first analysis of that side-panel — which is the best and most reliable piece of evidence that exists about how this disaster actually happened — ignored altogether in the Wikipedia article? After all, that analysis of the side-panel has subsequently been further confirmed by other reliable evidence, all of which the article also ignores.

[dropcap]I [/dropcap]have edited some Wikipedia articles, but I won’t edit the one on MH17: it’s too thoroughly rotten with speculative and other bad sources, so that it would need to be entirely rewritten — and bogus ‘evidence’ removed from it — in order for the article to present an account that’s based upon the best evidence regarding each of its particulars. Wikipedia’s article is thoroughly based on anti-Russian propaganda; it might as well have been written by the CIA (like the case that was presented about “Saddam’s WMD” was).

Here is the Wikipedia article, so that you can see what U.S. propaganda says about the downing of MH17.

Here is my latest article about the downing of the MH17.

Here is my most comprehensive article reconstructing, on a best-evidence basis, how and why and who shot down this airliner.

The core of my case there is the same item of evidence to which Haisenko first called the public’s attention: that side-panel. I basically accept his reconstruction of how the plane came down, but I supplement it with additional evidence. Please click onto any link in the article, to see the evidence more fully analyzed, in the given linked-to source, wherever you have further questions that aren’t directly addressed in the article.

We live now in a culture where lies and myths drown out truth. In other words: we live in a dictatorship. That’s today’s USA.

My articles present far fewer items of ‘evidence’ than does the Wikipedia article, because I exclude all but the most-reliable evidence about any given detail. There is so much speculation that’s published, and so much bogus ‘evidence’; my guiding principle is therefore to rely only upon the least-speculative argument that refers to only the most-reliable, assuredly untampered-with, items of evidence. This is what one is supposed to do in a court of law; it’s the reason why judges are authorized to exclude from being presented to jurors any ‘evidence’ that fails to meet modern legal/forensic standards of authenticity and reliability. It’s the only way that an unprejudiced verdict can even become possible. It’s the prerequisite to history, as opposed to mere myth.

That’s the contrast between my articles about the MH17 disaster, and the 320 articles from which the Wikipedia article about MH17 is constructed. And it also separates my articles from Wikipedia’s article itself about the subject, “Malaysia Airlines Flight 17.”

What’s especially wrong about the Wikipedia account is that it doesn’t even refer to the 30mm bullet holes in that side panel — evidence that is inconsistent with the U.S.-Ukrainian account (Wikipedia’s account) of how this airliner was shot down. (Wikipedia’s article is instead obsessed with “a Buk missile launcher” — the theory of the case that’s pumped by America’s and Ukraine’s governments, and which is entirely inconsistent with such bullet-holes. You don’t get bullet-holes from 33,000+ feet away.) And the Wikipedia article also doesn’t refer to Peter Haisenko, the brilliant former Luftahansa pilot who first pointed out those bullet holes in the side-panel, and who noted that there wouldn’t be any, much less hundreds of, bullet-holes firing directly into the pilot’s body, if the only thing that had brought down this airliner were shrapnel from some missile fired from 33,000 feet below. You simply can’t target the pilot’s belly and pump perhaps a thousand bullets into it from 33,000 feet down. This side-panel decimates the American-Ukrainian theory of the case — and so decimates Wikipedia’s propagandistic article.

And why wasn’t the autopsy on the pilot made public? Everyone needs to know what was inside that corpse. But Wikipedia and the ‘news’ media show no interest in that crucial question, either.

German investigators are claiming that the forward part of MH17 is riddled with bullet holes, apparently 30mm, which is the main armament of the Ukrainian jets which were tailing the airliner.
(freerepublic.com)

We don’t live in a democracy. This is a dictatorship. The ‘news’ media cannot be trusted by any intelligent and open-minded person. To find the truth, one (unfortunately) needs to investigate on one’s own and take the attitude that only the most solid evidence and the least speculative argument constitutes authentic history, on anything. All else — any casual trusting of the ‘news’ media — is merely accepting lies and myths, which are designed to manipulate people (like when we invaded Iraq), instead of to inform them. There is more than ample reason to distrust the ‘news’ media. And Wikipedia is just as manipulated as the rest.

We live now in a culture where lies and myths drown out truth. In other words: we live in a dictatorship. That’s today’s USA. This is the reality, in which we live. And the Big Lie is: it’s not so. But the evidence sadly proves: it’s so; it clearly is the case.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

[printfriendly]

Remember: All captions and pullquotes are furnished by the editors, NOT the author(s). 

What is $5 a month to support one of the greatest publications on the Left?

Eric Zuesse

Pres. Putin: Obviously an “inconvenient man” at the helm of the Kremlin. 

[dropcap]R[/dropcap]ussian President Vladimir Putin presented, on July 3rd, to Russia’s Security Council, the nation’s new National Security Strategy, which encompasses not merely military, but especially economic, agencies within the Russian Federal Government.

Because his statement was ignored in Western ‘news’ media, it will here be presented in full, for individuals who are interested, among the publics in Western countries. As is usual for all of my reports, this one is simultaneously being submitted to all of the major and most of the smaller news media throughout the United States and United Kingdom (as well as some elsewhere), in order for the information to be made available as widely as possible, in ‘the free world.’ (My news reports are available at no charge.)

Anyone who might also wish to understand the reasons motivating the new Russian strategy might find relevant information here, but Mr. Putin’s address does not discuss those matters; he instead assumes that everyone on his National Security Coucil is well aware of the relevant historical background.

The following, then, is the complete Russian-provided English translation of the speech, as it has been made available on the Web since July 3rd:

http://en.special.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/49862

Security Council meeting

July 3, 2015, The Kremlin, Moscow

Vladimir Putin held an expanded meeting of the Security Council at the Kremlin. The meeting discussed a range of issues concerning protection of Russia’s security and national interests in the face of sanctions imposed by a number of countries.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: 

Good afternoon, colleagues,

Our agenda today includes a range of issues concerning protection of our national interests in the face of the restrictive measures that some countries have imposed on Russia.

We know the reasons for the pressure being put on Russia. We follow an independent domestic and foreign policy and our sovereignty is not up for sale. This does not go down well in some quarters, but this is inevitable.

It is clear today that attempts to split and divide our society, play on our problems, and seek out our vulnerable spots and weak links have not produced the results hoped for by those who imposed these restrictive measures on our country and continue to support them.

Our people, our key political forces, and our business community understand what is happening and know what to do. The timely measures we took have stabilised the economic and financial situation and the labour market and ensured the stable functioning of all strategically important economic sectors. We continue implementing our most important state programmes, including in the social sector.

Furthermore, our companies, Russia’s producers, have proven that they are capable of developing in tough conditions, finding new partners, and entering new markets at home and abroad. This can be seen in the rapid growth of our agriculture sector.

Colleagues, recent events show that we cannot hope that some of our geopolitical opponents will change their hostile course anytime in the foreseeable future. The EU countries recently extended the sanctions they have imposed on us, and discussions continue in the United States on toughening sanctions against us.

Amidst all of this, no one is even trying to analyse the reasons for what is now happening in southeast Ukraine, which was what started all of this fuss in the first place. What I mean here is that those who are imposing these restrictive measures and so-called sanctions on Russia are in fact responsible for the events that we are now witnessing in southeast Ukraine.

We must respond accordingly to this situation, of course, and take additional systemic measures in all key areas.

Firstly, we must make a rapid analysis of all the potential challenges and risks we face – political, economic, information risks and others. Based on this analysis, we then need to make adjustments to our National Security Strategy.

Once the National Security Strategy is updated, we will also need to update strategic planning documents currently in force or in the process of drafting. Furthermore, if needed, we will make clarifications to the Foreign Policy Concept and the Foundations of Russia’s Comprehensive Policy in the CIS Area.

At the same time, our strategic course in the foreign policy area remains unchanged. We are open for equal cooperation and collective work on key issues on the international agenda. We will continue to build relations with our partners based on the principles of respect and mutual consideration of each other’s interests, so long as this does not harm our own sovereignty and national security of course.

As before, we support active development of economic integration in the CIS area. We support expanding political, business and humanitarian ties with the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and the BRICS group.

Economic security issues are a crucial matter. Our strategic planning documents must define the main threats in each area in clearer and more detailed fashion. These documents must define the criteria and set the threshold indicators for the economic situation at which national security risks would start to emerge. They must also put into concrete terms the measures and mechanisms that would enable us to reduce our economy’s dependence on negative external factors.

At the practical level, the Government and the Central Bank must pay particular attention to ensuring the financial system’s stable operation. They must also put in place measures to achieve more balanced budgets and reduce the debt burden on regional budgets.

Overall, we must ensure very close coordination between everyone taking part in this work.

We must develop and present new proposals for the conceptual basis of strategic planning and forecasting of our country’s sustainable socioeconomic development and for risk management. We need to analyse the socioeconomic situation in the regions and conduct on-going monitoring using the regional situation centres. This is especially important for the border regions.

As I said, the restrictive measures we will discuss today have created problems for our economy, but they have also opened new opportunities. Above all, our producers have been able to significantly bolster their positions on the domestic market.

We continue our support for import replacement projects, especially in the agriculture sector, defence sector, engineering, pharmaceuticals, and the chemicals industry. If need be, our companies will receive additional support in these areas.

But let me draw one very important matter to your attention. The Prosecutor General’s Office, Rospotrebnadzor (national consumer protection service), the Federal Anti-Monopoly Service and other agencies must protect our people and companies from fake and poor quality goods. No matter whether goods are produced in Russia or abroad, they must meet modern requirements and standards and their origin and price setting must be transparent and clear.

In conclusion, our direct responsibility is to ensure reliable protection of Russia’s security in all areas and preserve our country’s social, political and economic stability.

Much here will depend on consolidating the efforts of our state institutions and civil society and on concentrating our resources on the priority areas. I am sure that you all understand this well and will do everything possible to resolve the tasks before us effectively.

Thank you very much for your attention.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

[printfriendly]

Remember: All captions and pullquotes are furnished by the editors, NOT the author(s). 

What is $5 a month to support one of the greatest publications on the Left?

PAUL STREET

Compare and Contrast

[dropcap]D[/dropcap]emocracy is among other things the rule of majority public opinion. Plutocracy is the rule of the wealthy few over and against the popular majority. To understand the different meanings of these two terms, you can consult a dictionary. You can also look at the very different decision-making processes on display regarding major political-economic policies in Greece (the ancient homeland of the Western democratic ideal) and the United States (the self-declared homeland and headquarters of contemporary democracy).

Greece: “The People Must Decide”

Let’s start with Greece. It has been under pressure from international, principally European creditors to slash social and other governmental expenditures in order to qualify for a five-months extension of the “economic rescue program” (bailout) that European authorities have advanced to keep the nation’s financial system solvent. The austerity (“reform”) proposals advanced by the European Commission, the European Central Bank, and the International Monetary Fund (the “Troika”) include deregulation of the Greek labor market, rollbacks in union power, pension cuts, and an increase in taxes on basic food products. The Troika give Greece until yesterday (I am writing on the morning of Wednesday, July 1, 2015) to accept their terms or face default.

The “reforms” demanded by the European financial power elite promise to further the economic humiliation of a nation that has been struggling for years to meet the outrageous debt payment and austerity commands of its northern creditors. As liberal U.S. economist Paul Krugman explained in the New York Times two days ago, austerity has been a dead end for Greece, denied (thanks to its membership in the Eurozone) the ability to reduce its deficits by devaluing its currency:

“most…of what [Americans have] heard about Greek profligacy and irresponsibility is false. Yes, the Greek government was spending beyond its means in the late 2000s. But since then it has repeatedly slashed spending and raised taxes [as required by the Troika]. Government employment has fallen more than 25 percent, and pensions…have been cut sharply. If you add up all the austerity measures, they have been more than enough to eliminate the original deficit and turn it into a large surplus….So why didn’t this happen? Because the Greek economy collapsed, largely as a result of those very austerity measures, dragging revenues down with it….And this collapse, in turn, had a lot to do with the euro, which trapped Greece in an economic straitjacket. Cases of successful austerity, in which countries rein in deficits without bringing on a depression, typically involve large currency devaluations that make their exports more competitive. This is what happened, for example, in Canada in the 1990s, and to an important extent it’s what happened in Iceland more recently. But Greece, without its own currency, didn’t have that option.”

A letter published yesterday by a number of international academics, including former Archibishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, Slavoj Zizek, and Judith Butler, notes that:

“Over the past five years, the EU and the IMF have imposed unprecedented austerity on Greece. It has failed badly. The economy has shrunk by 26%, unemployment has risen to 27%, youth unemployment to 60% and, the debt-to-GDP ratio jumped from 120% to 180%. The economic catastrophe has led to a humanitarian crisis, with more than 3 million people on or below the poverty line…Against this background, the Greek people elected the Syriza-led government on 25 January [2015] with a clear mandate to put an end to austerity. In the ensuing negotiations, the government made it clear that the future of Greece is in the Eurozone and the EU. The lenders, however, insisted on the continuation of their failed recipe, refused to discuss a write down of the debt – which the IMF is on record as considering unviable – and finally, on 26 June, issued an ultimatum to Greece by means of a non-negotiable package that would entrench austerity. This was followed by a suspension of liquidity to the Greek banks and the imposition of capital controls.”

The Troika’s ultimatum has been rejected by the Syriza government. That government arose on a wave of anti-austerity sentiment fist expressed in years of mass street protests and then organized electorally in the form of the Syriza Party.

Telling the democratically elected Syriza government to sign off on the Troika’s “deal” is directing it to commit political suicide. Anti-

austerity has always been Syriza’s political raison d’etre, as the Troika knows quite well. So the ultimatum amounts to something of an attempted coup by the financial command of neoliberal bureaucrats in Brussels, consistent with the European “democracy deficit” that the left historian Tony Judt characterized several years ago as “a sense that that decisions were being taken ‘there’ with unfortunate consequences ‘here’ and over which ‘we’ have no say.”

In the name of popular and national sovereignty and with an honest understanding that rejecting the “reform” and bailout package offered by the Europeans will entail costs, Greece’s 40-year old Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras Syriza decided (imagine) to take the deal to the Greek citizenry. Hours after meeting with European “leaders” at a summit in Brussels last week, Tsipras announced that his government would put the European creditors’ proposals up to a yay or nay popular referendum on Sunday, July 5^th. “The people must decide,” Tsipras said. “We should respond to authoritarianism and harsh austerity with democracy, calmly and decisively,” Mr. Tsipras said. “Greece, the birthplace of democracy, should send a resounding democratic message to the European and global community.”

Here’s the ballot measure that will be posed to the Greek people:

“Should the agreement plan submitted by the European Commission, European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund to the June 25 eurogroup and consisting of two parts, which form their single proposal, be accepted? The first document is titled ‘Reforms for the completion of the Current Program and Beyond’ and the second ‘Preliminary Debt sustainability Analysis.’”

“Not approved/NO”

“Approved/YES”

It’s a very basic act of democracy, taking a policy decision that will impact millions of Greek workers and citizens to…well, to millions of Greek workers and citizens.

European financial elites have reacted with shock and horror. The Eurozone finance ministers’ Dutch leader Jeroen Dijsselbloem said he was “very negatively surprised” by the Greek referendum decision. “That is a sad decision for Greece because it has closed the door for further talks where the door was still open in my mind,” Dijsselbloem added.

Germany’s hardline pro-austerity finance minister Wolfgang Schaeuble said the Greek government had “ended the negotiations unilaterally.” The European Commission chief, Jean-Claude Juncker, said he felt “betrayed” by the “egotism” shown by Greece in failed debt talks. He accused Tsipras of playing “liar’s poker.”

“Stunned,” New York Times correspondent James Yardley reported yesterday, “[Tsipras’] fellow European leaders shut down negotiations, capped the lifeline they had been providing Greece’s banks, angrily denounced him as irresponsible and dishonest with his own people, and not so subtly suggested that Greece needed a new government if it wanted to continue drawing economic help.”

Jacob Funk Kierkegaard, a Senior Fellow at the arch-neoliberal Peterson Institute for International Economics, responded to Tsipras’ referendum call by saying that Greece was “joining countries we would normally regards as failed states” (NYT, July 1, 2015).

The Troika has refused to extend the deadline for its latest bailout out offer until the day of the historic Greek referendum. The vote will be held nonetheless, with it being understood that a “No” victory very possibly spells Greece’s exit from the Eurozone, that is, from the European Economic Union. Without the European bailout, Greece will have no choice but to pay pensioners and government employees and others in scrip, creating a parallel national currency.

A “yes” victory would signal national submission to yet more creditor-imposed Greek austerity, the very policy that has failed for five years running. It would also likely lead to the departure of Tsipras. Anti-austerity has always been his political raison d’etre. With Western (European and US) elites scrambling to prevent a “Grexit,” it seems possible that a deal of some sort will still be possible despite European elite’s chagrin at the horror of a democratic vote.

The key point for the purposes of this essay, however, is that decision-making power is largely in the hands of the Greek populace.

The United States: a Different Kind of Failed State

Things could hardly be different in the United States. Look now at the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a sweeping corporatist measure that U.S.President Barack Obama, big business, and top Republicans have been slowly but surely advancing in Washington. It’s a sweeping measure that would cover 40 percent of the world’s economy and negatively impact the lives of millions of Americans, their jobs, their quality of life.

Lawyers and lobbyists for giant multinational corporations have been working it up and promoting it for nearly a decade. Beneath standard propagandistic boilerplate about trade and jobs, the real thrust and significance of the TPP is about strengthening global corporations’ ability to protect and extend their intellectual property rights (drug patents, movie rights, and the like) and to guarantee that they will be compensated by governments for any profits they might lose from having to meet decent public labor and environmental (and other) standards, something certain to discourage the enactment and enforce of such standards. It’s all about what the Times calls “investor protection.”

No wonder Obama has done everything he can to keep the TPP’s details under wraps. The secrecy has been remarkable: U.S. Congresspersons and some of their staff can see the TPP’s text only if they agree not to take notes or discuss the details in public. No wonder Obama wanted Congress to give him “fast-track” authority to force a yay or nay Congressional vote on the TPP, with no time for careful consideration and no chance for revisions. (Under fast-track rules, there’s no chance for delays or alterations: the pact must be voted up or down in a very short time-frame.) And no wonder most of the U.S. population is (all too irrelevantly) opposed to the TPP and fast track.

How about a national citizens’ referendum on these key political-economic measures of great significance for “We the [American] People”? The very notion of such a popular vote is absurd in the U.S. as currently constituted. No such basic act of popular and national sovereignty is remotely conceivable under America’s reigning model of corporate oligarchy.

Meanwhile the unpopular TPP is marching its way through the halls of American so-called popular governance. After some momentary difficulties in the U.S. House, fast-track just sailed quietly through the U.S. Congress while the nation was focused on the gay marriage issue along with terrible racist and gun violence and the Confederate Flag issue in the U.S. South. All indications are that Obama and his Republican allies will succeed in passing the TPP.

Sadly enough, there’s nothing particularly unusual about a global-corporatist measure moving its way through the U.S. government over and against popular opposition. Over the past three plus decades, the mainstream political scientists Martin Gilens (Princeton) and Benjamin Page (Northwestern) calmly reported last Fall, the U.S. political system has become “an oligarchy,” where wealthy elites and their corporations “rule.” Examining data from more than 1,800 different policy initiatives in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, Gilens and Page found that wealthy and well-connected elites consistently steer the direction of the country, regardless of or even against the will of the U.S. majority and regardless of which party holds the White House or Congress. “The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy,” Gilens and Page wrote, “while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence.” As Gilens explained to the liberal online journal Talking Points Memo (TPM) last year, “ordinary citizens have virtually no influence over what their government does in the United States.” And that is no small part of why the United States has entered a savagely unequal New Gilded Age in which the top 1 percent owns more wealth than the bottom 90 percent, along with a likely comparable percentage of the nation’s “democratically elected” officials.

Such is the harsh reality of “really existing capitalist democracy” in the U.S. —what Noam Chomsky calls “RECD, pronounced as ‘wrecked.’” Does this perhaps qualify the United States as a “failed state”?

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Paul Street’s  latest book is They Rule: The 1% v. Democracy (Paradigm, 2014). He can be reached at:  paul.street99@gmail.com.

[printfriendly]

Remember: All captions and pullquotes are furnished by the editors, NOT the author(s). 

What is $5 a month to support one of the greatest publications on the Left?

Andrew Korybko } The Saker

The G7 Summit lineup of “world leaders”: All warmongers and eager pushers of imperialism. The Big Lie shields them from well-deserved justice. 

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he mainstream media is fawning over the G7 leaders and their latest summit, relishing in the fact that Russia was expectedly excluded. They’ve decided to overplay the ‘cool’ factor of the event by emphasizing how all the leaders are casually ‘ hanging out ’, making it seem as though Putin missed a friendly campfire with his pals and not one of the most pro-Western meetings of the year. Although there are some who regret Russia’s absence, those adherents are likely overlooking the comparatively larger and more important summits that the country will host next month. The BRICS and SCO summits will be held back-to-back in Ufa at the beginning of July, and they’ll bring together the most important movers and shakers of today’s world. When compared with the G7, one can clearly see the differentiation between the multipolar and unipolar world summits being thrown in their respective spheres, and Russia ultimately has more to gain by siding with the former than the latter.

The G7 Summit (Or NATO + Japan)

The meeting in Germany could be better described as a gathering of NATO’s most important allies. Essentially, it functions as a trans-Atlantic talking club disguised as an economic forum, and it includes Japan owing to the fact that the island nation is the Western world’s geopolitical bastion in the East. Besides the ritual comments about climate change, this specific meeting saw its members unanimously condemning supposed ‘Russian aggression’ in Ukraine and pledging to continue the sanctions despite the economic whiplash some of them are facing. This year’s meeting also saw a handful of cooperative non-European states attend, which brought the leaders of Ethiopia, South Africa, Iraq, Tunisia, Algeria, Nigeria, and Senegal to Schloss Elmau to discuss politics with the big boys. Each of these states is looking for some type of assistance from the West, be it in development or the fight against terrorism, and their participation should be read as a sign of where the unipolar world wants to strike next.

Some of the non-European states are pure vassals, as is the case of Iraq, Tunisia, and Senegal, while the others (Ethiopia, South Africa, Algeria, and Nigeria) are pivoting between the unipolar and multipolar worlds as their leaders seek to find the right (or most profitable) ‘balance’. It’s evident that the further they move to the West, the more strategically indebted to it they’ll become, but in the case of Algeria, for example, it’s extremely difficult to maneuver outside of its confined geopolitical position. South Africa, on the other hand, has no reasonable excuses for why it would attend the G7 without its BRICS ally Russia other than the fact that Zuma wants to schmooze with the Western big shots. Anyhow, when looking at the big picture, it’s easy to see that the West intends on using these states as geopolitical beachheads into their respective African regions (with Iraq already fulfilling this role for the entire Mideast).

The BRICS and SCO Summits (Or The Multipolar Meeting)

The Multipolar Meeting in Ufa is a completely different matter than the G7 in Schloss Elmau. To begin with, BRICS brings together some of the most notable geopolitical forces in Eurasia, Africa, and South America, each of which has an interest in constructing a multipolar world. As regards South Africa, like it was earlier mentioned, Zuma wants to politick with the Western puppeteers, but at the same time, his country’s establishment is invested in a multipolar trajectory. This bipolar political identity makes South Africa the weakest and most unstable of the BRICS countries, and it’s likely it was only brought into the framework to serve as an economic door to the rest of the continent, beginning with its relatively more stable southern cone countries. Be that as it may about South Africa, however, it’s still expected that the BRICS countries will continue building their breakthrough non-Western financial architecture by strengthening the recently announced New Development Bank (known by many as the BRICS Bank). Firm statements about the rejection of unilateral sanctions, in clear reference to the West’s policy about Russia, are also likely on the agenda, as could be a couple surprise bilateral or multilateral projects between the group’s members.

Munich popular protest against the G7 circus.

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he second part of the Multipolar Meeting, the SCO summit, will be even more exciting than the BRICS one before it. The group’s core members will be joined by all observers and dialogue partners, which will see the majority of Eurasia represented in some form or another. It’s been reported that India and Pakistan will be finally be admitted as full-fledged members, and Russia has hinted that the same could happen with Iran if the international sanctions are lifted by 30 June, just prior to the event’s commencement. Not only that, but the group’s Secretary General, Dmitry Mezentsev, announced in early February that Syria, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, and Bangladesh would be applying for observer status, with the Maldives and Nepal submitting requests to become dialogue partners. All of this means that the SCO is slated to bring together most of Asia, thereby enabling it to one day function as a sort of ‘Concert of Great Powers’ in addressing Eurasia’s security concerns. There certainly are challenges in achieving workable synergy between such diverse official and non-official members, but the whole point of the SCO will be to facilitate this in the future and establish a mechanism for closer cooperation.

Cui Bono?

Having looked at both the G7 and the BRICS/SCO Summits, it’s now time to question which of the two present the best benefits for Russia, and which one is actually to its strategic detriment:

G7 (NATO + Japan):

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he G8, as it was called when Moscow partook in it, was largely a feel-good exercise designed to allay the West (NATO + Japan) and Russia’s mutual insecurities about the other. For the former, it made them feel that Russia’s leadership could be influenced by the group’s pro-Western slant, and that with just enough time (as the Atlantists always argue), it could be brought into the ‘Western community of nations’ as a junior partner. On the other hand, Russia viewed the group in an entirely different dimension. It didn’t see it as a means of surrendering its interests or identity, but rather as a triumphant recognition of its power and influence. Having the head of the Russian Federation sit side-by-side with his Western counterparts in discussing the year’s biggest topics was a hard-hitting sign of prestige, and it showed that despite their continual ‘democracy’-related objections, the West ultimately accepted the Russian leadership as an equal.

“Russia miscalculated the benefits of the G8, likely thinking that it could enhance its influence by dealing with its affiliated members as equals. But the thing is, the only two ‘equals’ in the group were Russia and the US, as all the other states are subservient to Washington and don’t function as independent members…”

Unfortunately, it turned out that Russia’s perception of the G8 was misguided, as the Western countries’ understanding of it was more true to the fact (also because they constitute 7/8 of its members). The unipolar groupthink present in the format led to Russia’s dismissal from the G8 in the early stages of the New Cold War, and the group has now unleashed its true colors as a gathering of unipolar leaders. It may not have fulfilled this explicit function during the years that Russia partook in it (1998-2014), but that’s only because it was purposely restraining itself as it sought to woo Russia closer into the fold (especially during the late Yeltsin years, when Russia first joined). Now that it doesn’t have to worry about such indirect, soft power considerations, it’s free to ‘be itself’, so to speak, hence all the aggressive rabblerousing about Russia and the sanctions. Russia appeared to be somewhat disappointed when it was kicked out of the organization last year, but in hindsight, this was arguably for the better, as the next section will explain.

BRICS/SCO (The Multipolar Meeting):

Russia miscalculated the benefits of the G8, likely thinking that it could enhance its influence by dealing with its affiliated members as equals. But the thing is, the only two ‘equals’ in the group were Russia and the US, as all the other states are subservient to Washington and don’t function as independent members. Russia’s greatest oversight was thus thinking that the other states would pursue their logical economic interests in dealing with it and wouldn’t at all dare to sanction their partner, but this was proven to be absolutely incorrect when the sanctions were first implemented. The reason that this account is being recited as the lead-in to the multipolar section is because it precisely represents the opposite of what BRICS and the SCO are. In these two formats, all members are seen as equal, and none of them can realistically be described as ‘puppets’ by anyone. This is because they’ve all pursued a multipolar path over the past two decades that has led them to equally balance between their main partners, as is the case with the Central Asian states vis-à-vis Russia and China. India, Pakistan, and Iran also perform their own balancing acts, but behave much more assertively than the Central Asian states due in part to their comparatively larger populations, economies, and freedom of geopolitical movement.

None of this, however, detracts from the fact that all of the BRICS and SCO members are independent states with a shared agenda of cooperation. Pertaining to BRICS, its members seek the creation of a fairer economic model for the world, ergo their steps in constructing a non-Western financial architecture and tightening cooperation between themselves. SCO members unite in their shared opposition to the scourges of terrorism, separatism, and extremism, and they’re keenly aware of the existential threats that each of these asymmetrical weapons poses. While unity between India and Pakistan certainly leaves something to be desired, it’s worthwhile that they still want to enter the same regional organization, showing that rivalry does in fact have its limits and raising hopes that the SCO might be able to temper their mutual antagonism towards the other. After all, it’s a Eurasian axiom at this point that the US capitalizes off of all conflicts in its quest to keep Eurasia divided, and that it doesn’t find terrorism, separatism, or extremism to be beneath it in attaining this goal. The more divided that Eurasia stands amongst itself, the easier it is for the US to achieve its strategic goals; conversely, the more that it unites through various frameworks (such as the SCO), the more resilient it can grow in warding off unnecessary external interference in its affairs.

Concluding Thoughts

The greatest unintended consequence of the G7’s rejection of Russia has been for Moscow to wake up from its daydreams of Western acceptance and realize the nightmare that it’s found itself in, which is that the West never was its true partner and that all of its previously ‘friendly’ gestures and statements of support were generated to achieve the strategic disarmament of Russia’s policy makers. In response to the cold shower of anti-Russian rhetoric and action coming out of the West nowadays (which just a few years ago was supposedly on ‘good terms’ with Moscow), Russia has shifted its sights eastward and firmly declared its intent to construct a multipolar world. While it had announced this long before, at no time in the past has it ever been as serious about it as it is now. The West has proven that it can never peacefully coexist with Russia so long as unipolarity is the order of the day, and that the only way for Russia to stand a chance at being seen as an equal (let alone surviving in its current political and territorial form) is to resolutely pivot towards Eurasia once and for all.

“G7 Summit Stop Your Lies!” Germany saw some big demonstrations against the G7 conclave of imperialists.

Accordingly, Russia and China have dedicated themselves to streamlining their strategic partnership into an engine for pan-Eurasian integration (which it already functioned as in the past, but not to this ambitious extent) in order to bring about the multipolar vision that they both share. In this context, the Multipolar Meetings of the BRICS and SCO groupings in Ufa can be regarded as the next big step in actualizing this, and it’s highly symbolic that Russia is hosting both of them this year (and back-to-back, at that). Nothing else could have shown the West that Russia now rejects it just as much as they reject Russia, no matter how surprising this may at first seem to them. Moscow is indicating that any forthcoming cooperation between it and the West will have to be done on Russia’s multipolar terms of true geopolitical respect and equality, and that the old pattern of Russia rushing into established Western frameworks is long gone. Instead of unipolar relics such as the G7, emerging multipolar institutions such as BRICS and the SCO have become the most dynamic actors in shaping global events, and Russia’s sovereign interests are best safeguarded and served by embracing the multipolar alternative that the West has unwittingly forced upon it.

ANDREW KORYBKO is Political analyst and journalist for Sputnik who currently studies at the Moscow State University of International Relations (MGIMO).

…

[printfriendly]

Remember: All captions and pullquotes are furnished by the editors, NOT the author(s). 

What is $5 a month to support one of the greatest publications on the Left?

Obama, Cameron and Hollande: hypocrisy is their default mode of governance.

[dropcap]O[/dropcap]n May 16, an Egyptian court sentenced Mohamed Morsi, the first democratically elected president of Egypt, to death. The Islamist former president, who came out of the Muslim Brotherhood movement, was convicted of escaping prison during the Egyptian uprising that overthrew Hosni Mubarak, the U.S.-backed authoritarian leader of the country.

Over 100 others, including an academic and an Islamic cleric, were sentenced to death in a number of court cases that day. Morsi’s death sentence received the most attention for good reason. In June 2012, he became Egypt’s first freely elected leader. But amid popular discontent with his rule, the powerful Egyptian military stepped in and overthrew him in a coup. Morsi was arrested, thrown in jail and held incommunicado before being put on trial.

It is unclear if capital punishment will actually be carried out. The death sentence will be reviewed by Egypt’s top religious scholar, and the rulings could be appealed. Nevertheless, the death sentences are the latest shocking example of how Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi has consolidated his repressive rule by using death sentences, mass arrests, sexual violence and harsh restrictions on political protest. Egypt’s revolt, which called for democracy, dignity and social justice, is being crushed under Sisi’s boot.

---

In the meantime, just imagine for a moment how the Western media and leaders, who have the gall to invade countries in the name of human rights, would react if this level of naked repression were happening in Russia. How much proof do we need of their repulsive hypocrisy?

---

Sisi has been supported by the West despite loads of evidence that he is presiding over a regime that is violating human rights. Since Sisi rose to power, there have been four mass death sentences handed out to thousands of political opponents. In May, the International Federation for Human Rights released a damning report documenting widespread sexual violence at the hands of security forces, including sexual harassment, “virginity tests,” rape, sexual assault, and electrocution of genitals.

While human rights groups have condemned his regime, Sisi has a lot going for him, including the unstinting support of Western nations.In March, President Obama lifted a hold on U.S. weapons flowing to the Egyptian military, which was originally put in place after Egyptian security forces crushed a pro-Morsi sit-in by killing at least 900 people. The Obama administration is now set to give the Egyptian regime fighter jets, missiles and tanks. Western officials from the U.S. and Europe have also voiced rhetorical support to Sisi, casting him as a bulwark against terrorism in a volatile region.

Egyptian dictator al-Sisi: Most Americans will never know of his crimes.

Here are four top Western officials who have given strong support for Sisi’s regime.

1. John Kerry. The Secretary of State is the face of American foreign policy. So people took notice when Kerry, in the immediate aftermath of the military coup, strongly endorsed the intervention. The military takeover was actually about “restoring democracy,” Kerry said in August 2013. “The military was asked to intervene by millions and millions of people…The military did not take over, to the best of our judgment — so far.”

In 2014, Kerry gave more strong endorsements of Sisi’s regime, which has locked up tens of thousands of people, tortured many of them and driven the Muslim Brotherhood, the nation’s largest opposition group, underground.

Days after Sisi was elected during a process called “repressive” by a U.S. election observer, Kerry visited Egypt and said he was confident that Sisi’s government would get full U.S. military aid, which had, at the time, been held up. In July 2014, Kerry said he wanted “to thank the people of Egypt for their hard work in transitioning to a democracy through their election.”

Kerry made good on his words when he signed a legal waiver this year allowing the U.S. to give Egypt billions in military aid in the name of national security.

2. Tony Blair.The former British leader has kept up his involvement in Middle East politics since leaving office. For eight years, he served as Special Envoy to the Quarter, the group of major powers working to bring Israeli and Palestinian leaders together for negotiations.

He’s also an economic advisor to the Egyptian regime led by Sisi. He has encouraged governments to back Sisi’s regime. Blair backed the coup in 2013, saying, “I am a strong supporter of democracy. But democratic government doesn’t on its own mean effective government. Today efficacy is the challenge.”

In an interview in January 2014, Blair said that “the Muslim Brotherhood tried to take the country away from its basic values of hope and progress. The army have intervened, at the will of the people, but in order to take the country to the next stage of its development, which should be democratic. We should be supporting the new government in doing that.”

Blair offered more support for the coup and the military-backed regime in a speech on the Middle East given in April 2014. He said “we should mobilize the international community in giving Egypt and its new president as much assistance as we can so that the country gets a chance not to return to the past but to cross over to a better future.”

3. David Cameron. The current leader of Britain has also endorsed Sisi’s rule. He has repeatedly lauded Egypt for fighting terrorism.

After the first Cameron-Sisi meeting in 2014, Cameron’s press office released a statement outlining how “the prime minister stressed Egypt’s pivotal role in the region, both economically and in the fight against Islamist extremism.” He sounded similar notes after the Islamic State beheaded 21 Egyptian migrant workers in Libya earlier this year. There was, of course, no mention of how Egypt’s brutal crackdown on Islamists could be fueling terrorism within Egypt.

Cameron has done more than just support Sisi with words. In March 2014, he ordered a British investigation into the Muslim Brotherhood, the pan-Islamist movement that has a presence in most Arab countries. Cameron said he ordered the inquiry to “understand what this organisation is, what it stands for, what its beliefs are in terms of the path of extremism and violent extremism.” The Muslim Brotherhood is a largely peaceful movement, though, and its Egyptian branch has sworn off violence.

Britain also supplies the Egyptian army with weapons. In 2013, the British government exported over $55 million worth of weapons to Egypt.

4. Francois Hollande. The French president has held talks with Sisi on how to combat terrorism, and has also claimed that Egypt is on the path toward democracy.

“We want the process to continue, a process of democratic transition which respects the roadmap and allows Egypt to succeed fully,” Hollande said last year after a meeting with Sisi in Paris.

Like the U.S. and Britain, France sells military equipment to Egypt. Hollande’s 2014 meeting with Sisi was also about paving the way toward French military exports. In February 2015, as Egypt was bombing Libya, Hollande’s government signed a $5.9 billion deal to export 24 fighter jets to Egypt.

---

 

[box] Alex Kane is former World editor at AlterNet. His work has appeared in Mondoweiss, Salon, VICE, the Los Angeles Review of Books and more. Follow him on Twitter @alexbkane. [/box]

[printfriendly]

Remember: All captions and pullquotes are furnished by the editors, NOT the author(s). 

What is $5 a month to support one of the greatest publications on the Left?