Trump, the Crown Prince and the Whole Ugly Big Picture

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

 


Trump in photo op with Saudi Arabia's new strongman, Mohammed Bin Salman. Both fully qualify as sociopathic war criminals, of course.

There are few countries on earth more oppressive than Saudi Arabia, an absolute monarchy shaped by Sunni theocracy. It stones adulterers and hurls gay men off buildings by judicial decision. The State Department routinely, matter of factly, reports widespread human rights abuses in the country.  International human rights organizations use Saudi Arabia as the poster child of egregious violations. Everybody knows how Saudi women have been forbidden to even drive cars, although the ban will be lifted due to international pressure in June.

Donald Trump seems unconcerned with such matters. Following the May 2017 sword dance in Riyadh he has cozied up with the Saudi king and crown prince Mohammed bin Salman, who just visited Washington. The pair celebrated the $ 200 billion arms deal last year and more sales to come. Trump noted that the Saudis are “a very wealthy nation, and they’re going to give the United States some of that wealth.”

The prince’s visit drew out Codepink and other protestors targeting Saudi repression and the vicious Saudi assault on Yemen, which has killed at least 10,000 civilians an is currently experiencing what the UN terms the world’s worst humanitarian catastrophe. The U.S. abets this assault with military intelligence and refueling. It justifies the Saudi effort to crush the Houthis and restore the former (unelected) president as a necessary move to counter Iranian influence in the region. Even though there is little evidence for Iranian support for the Houthis. The evidence is rather that the Saudi leaders fear and hate Shiism, and tend to depict any Shiites (in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen etc.) as Iranian pawns.

Yemen was governed by a Shiite imamate for a thousand years. It was Shiite before Iran became so. Its Zaydist form of Shiism differs from the Twelvers form prevalent in Iran, although it resembles the Shiism practiced by maybe 15% of Saudis (suffering discrimination in the kingdom). The war is not about Iran’s alleged influence but about Shiism, and Saudi determination to push back what they consider Shiite gains throughout the region since the Iranian Revolution of 1979.

The young prince is widely viewed as reckless, his Yemen war having become a disaster. Another problematic initiative was his provocation of Qatar, where the U.S. has troops stationed, sanctioning it for alleged terrorist ties (a euphemism for proper trade and diplomacy with Iran, and sponsorship of the Al-Jazeera news network). In the midst of the ongoing crisis, Trump tweeted last November: “I have great confidence in King Salman and the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, they know exactly what they are doing….”

There are 10,000 U.S. military personnel at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar. You’d think the U.S. president would be concerned about the prospects of a Saudi invasion of Qatar, along the lines of the intervention in Bahrain in March 2011 (intended to suppress Shiite protests and protect the Sunni king), if only because such a conflict could involve them. But he is probably unaware of details, or they flit in and out of his child-mind. Heavy praise over the phone instills in him great confidence in his foreign colleague.

So isn’t it wonderful that the Saudis are going to give the United States some of their wealth, by profiting Boeing, providing jobs, so they can better bomb airports and schools in Yemen? They can do so confident that the U.S. media will ignore their war crimes due to the pressing need to cover presidential sex scandals, Russian collusion, the Mueller investigation, school shootings, fake news on the internet, Saturday Night Live sketches, Sarah Huckabee Sanders’ performance, the removal of Confederate monuments, etc. You notice how coverage of Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria has become minimal in the mainstream press. It’s just too painful to report how the U.S. is in a quagmire in Afghanistan, unable to defeat the Taliban; how Iraq remains a horrible mess, as a result of the 2003 invasion, as Iranian influence in the country ascends; how Syria is returning to stability under its secular regime, with Russian and Iranian help, but there is a sharp nascent contradiction between Turkish and U.S. interests in Syria involving the use of Kurdish forces to undermine Assad. All this stuff is too complicated, if not embarrassing, to report. And to report it would be to underscore the fact that U.S. policy foreign has not changed in any fundamental way under Trump.

The reptilian part of the mass mind is primitive as Trump’s. The media keeps saying he has record low popularity. But for a moron to retain 40% support is scary. He has the necessary support base to continue. But CNN and MSNBC are preoccupied with bringing him down, for whatever reason, anything that works.

So we hear next to nothing of Yemen, the Saudis’ bombing of Yemen, the presence of al-Qaeda and ISIL in Yemen. Or the Israeli political crisis. Or the U.S.-Turkish standoff in Syrian Kurdistan. Or the chaos in Libya. The crown prince’s visit ends without any exposure of the nature of the regime because anchors are too busy condemning Trump’s congratulations to Putin on winning the Russian election. As though that message was more outrageous that his praise of the Saudi royals.

Watching CNN’s Morning Joe I note the indignation on Miki Brzenzinski’s face as she reports on Trump’s unforgivable congratulations to Putin, against the advice of his advisors. Even though Russian elections are widely considered (by unnamed people) unfair. (Oh gosh. Imagine an unfair election someplace, and heads of state exchanging greetings about a routinely rigged farcical bourgeois-democratic parliamentary process.) That’s the news.

Yemen should first-page news. Capitalist imperialism should be at the heart of discussion. Not Trump himself, not identity politics, not “fake news” but the horrible system itself under which we live and Trump vows to make greater. By selling U.S. jet fighters built by U.S. workers to the Saudis. All the better when they’re shot down and need replacement. By imposing tariffs on foreign steel to protect U.S. steel workers, while likely hiking the price of steel (hence the price of cars hence lay-offs in the auto industry) Trump is posing as a pro-labor president.  Just as he does in building the wall to keep out Mexicans taking our jobs.

Lines connect the war in Yemen with White House chaos and earlier wars and market-driven media opportunism. The lines expand out like Indra’s net in the Avatamsaka Sutra and glare back at one another. A culture of war shaped by smirking chimps like Dubya Bush leads to domestic terrorism and school shootings. The misogyny inscribed in corporate culture gives rise to the MeToo movement, just as the president gets hit with more accusations. The system is the problem.

Youth I think increasingly understand this.


 

 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan; and Interracial Intimacy in Japan: Western Men and Japanese Women, 1543-1900. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion, (AK Press). He can be reached at: gleupp@tufts.edu 

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

black-horizontal
[premium_newsticker id=”154171″]

Things to ponder

While our media prostitutes, many Hollywood celebs, and politicians and opinion shapers make so much noise about the still to be demonstrated damage done by the Russkies to our nonexistent democracy, this is what the sanctimonious US government has done overseas just since the close of World War 2. And this is what we know about. Many other misdeeds are yet to be revealed or documented.

window.newShareCountsAuto="smart";




CBS News Gives Saudi Crown Prince a Platform to Lie

BE SURE TO PASS OUR ARTICLES ON TO KIN, FRIENDS AND COLLEAGUES

CBS NORAH O'DONNELL made it easy for the Saudi Crown Prince to lie. Following the issue "du jour" inside the identity politics cocoon pushed by liberals,  she made a lot of noise about the putative new freedoms being gained by women, including the right to drive.


Last November, the NYT tried reinventing the ruthless Saudi dictatorship through its interview with crown prince Mohammad bin Salman (MBS) by pseudo-journalist Thomas Friedman – a disgraceful exercise in deception.

Riyadh is the Arab world’s most ruthless regime, a despotic crime family, masquerading as legitimate governance – its rule absolute, no opposition tolerated, no civil or human rights afforded ordinary Saudis, no speech, media or academic freedoms, nor right of assembly, association, internal movement, foreign travel, or religion.

Saudis have (no) right to choose their government nor have easy access to education, healthcare, public housing, legal services or social ones. Political parties are banned. So are collective bargaining rights and Internet access.

Arbitrary arrests and detentions are commonplace. So are state-sponsored kidnappings and disappearances – due process and judicial fairness denied. Torture and other abuses substitute. Besides its oil, Saudis are best known for public beheadings, whippings, torture, political imprisonments, sponsoring terrorism, wars of aggression and other lawless actions.

They’re honored guests in Washington, other Western capitals, even Israel, praised by US media scoundrels, ignoring their high crimes. 60 Minutes is CBS News’ premiere newsmagazine program – its longest-running one, aired since 1968. The NYT once falsely called it “one of the most esteemed news magazines in American television.”

None exist today. The era of Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite ended long ago – no one in US electronic or print media approach their stature today. CBS News disgracefully gave MBS a platform to lie. He took full advantage, falsely claiming Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11.

He was dying in a Pakistani hospital months before the incident. Western media, including the NYT, BBC and Fox News, reported his death in December 2001 – repeat December 2001. Obama didn’t kill Osama, as falsely claimed.

CBS correspondent Norah O’Donnell perpetuated the myth of responsible Saudi reforms, saying “it looks like what you’re trying to do is change things here at home” – giving MBS a chance to misportray reality in the kingdom.



It’s run by Islamic extremists. Not according to MBS, blasting Iran, calling its government a dangerous “Islamic theocracy next door,” claiming Saudis “liv(e) very normal lives like the rest of the Gulf countries,” adding:

We’re “just normal people developing like any other country in the world until the events of 1979,” meaning the Iranian revolution – failing to explain the Islamic Republic is the region’s leading peace and stability champion, neither attacking or threatening other nations.

MBS claiming he’s involved in “taking Saudi Arabia back to what we were, a moderate Islam” belies its regional and domestic ruthlessness, its support for ISIS and other terrorist groups, its imprisoning, torturing and tolerating no opposition to its tyrannical rule.

King Salman, MBS, and other Saudi officials want information about their ruthless agenda suppressed.

MBS turned truth on its head claiming the kingdom believes “in many of the principles of human rights. In fact, we believe in the notion of human rights.”

Its tyrannical record speaks for itself. Human and civil right in the kingdom have always been nonstarters.

MBS is no political reformer. As defense minister, he orchestrated naked aggression on Yemen, along with Washington and Britain, supplying the kingdom with most of its weapons and munitions, supporting its illegal blockade – the war creating the world’s gravest humanitarian crisis.

MBS lied claiming Yemeni Houthis use Iranian missiles against the kingdom. Blockade prevents any weapons from entering the country, along with enough food, medical supplies and other essentials to life.

He lied calling Ayatollah Khamenei “the new Hitler,” a disgraceful remark.

He lied claiming Iran “wants to expand…in the Middle East very much like Hitler who wanted to expand at the time.”

The Islamic Republic seeks no territorial expansion. It wants regional peace, not wars the Saudis support with Washington. It wants a nuclear-free Middle East, these devastating weapons eliminated.

A CBS 10-person team, including correspondent Norah O’Donnell, spent a week in Saudi Arabia for the story it called “Heir to the Throne.”

It gave MBS a platform to misportray the region’s most ruthless Arab state as a normal country – perhaps for its royal family members still in favor, not for its countless victims domestically or abroad.


Also recommended:  MEDIA: Unexpectedly, The Intercept lambastes CBS for puff job on Saudi tyrant


ABOUT THE AUTHOR
 Screen Shot 2016-02-19 at 10.13.00 AMSTEPHEN LENDMAN was born in 1934 in Boston, MA. In 1956, he received a BA from Harvard University. Two years of US Army service followed, then an MBA from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania in 1960. After working seven years as a marketing research analyst, he joined the Lendman Group family business in 1967. He remained there until retiring at year end 1999. Writing on major world and national issues began in summer 2005. In early 2007, radio hosting followed. Lendman now hosts the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network three times weekly. Distinguished guests are featured. Listen live or archived. Major world and national issues are discussed. Lendman is a 2008 Project Censored winner and 2011 Mexican Journalists Club international journalism award recipient. His new site is at http://stephenlendman.org


black-horizontal
[premium_newsticker id=”154171″]




MEDIA: Unexpectedly, The Intercept lambastes CBS for puff job on Saudi tyrant

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

 

We are obviously inhabiting a bizarre world in which truth is more elusive than a cancer cure. A veritable house of mirrors in which appearances can and are often deceiving, for good and for ill, while the means to trace and verify ultimate agendas is next to impossible to determine. Take for example the contradictions attaching to The Intercept itself. This is a new journalistic platform boasting some of today's most vital voices, beginning with the formidable and incorruptible Glenn Greenwald, a scourge of the empire, but which also, doing no doubt the bidding of the guy who pays the bills, Paris-born multibillionaire Pierre Omidyar, of Iranian origin,  (thanks to eBay's IPO), has been lately leaning more and more toward the imperial line laid down by Washington. Yes, Omidyar, whatever he thought when he started The Intercept, remains very much an international oligarch with obligations and loyalties to his class, first and foremost. And that means toeing Washington's line. So how do we explain an article (see below) which, among other things, openly and deservedly castigates the repulsive prostitution of the imperialist media, in this case personified in the cheerleader-looking Norah O'Donnell, brandishing the 60 Minutes pom pom, and attacks the new-fangled Saudi regime of Mohammed Bin Salman, a personage strategically embedded in the Washington/London/Paris axis of mayhem? Was Omidyar taking a nap when this piece was commissioned and run? Which leads me to a secondary but related question: How the hell do we get such a refreshingly radical and passionate viewpoint from a man—Mehdi Hasan—whose resume includes just about everything dishonorable and criminal in the annals of Western soi-disant journalism? Based in London, Hasan is obviously a recognised Atlanticist establishmentarian, embraced by "the New York Times, the Washington Post, The Guardian, and the Times of London, among others, and is the former political director of the Huffington Post U.K. and a contributing editor to the New Statesman." Being embraced by the WaPo alone would be the kiss of death, a critical alarm going off announcing some unsavory connection, but all of these worthies, these shameless warmongering imperial shills?? And yet, here it is, a courageous, scathing, anti-Neocon-sounding piece that spares nothing in the analysis of another entry in the crowded annals of Western disinformation. How does he walk that high wire? I won't ask. But I'll say this much: Bravo Hasan!—PG

O'Donnell pitching Bin Salman to the American public.

The CBS Interview With Saudi Arabia’s Mohammed bin Salman Was a Crime Against Journalism

“AT JUST 32, Mohammed bin Salman seems fearless and determined. He has quickly become the most dominant Arab leader in a generation.”

That’s how “60 Minutes” began its interview with, and profile of, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, or MBS, Sunday evening, ahead of his visit to the White House on Tuesday.

Launched on CBS in 1968, “60 Minutes” has been described as “one of the most esteemed news magazines on American television” and has won more Emmy awards than any other primetime U.S. TV show. It claims to offer “hard-hitting investigative reports, interviews, feature segments and profiles of people in the news.”

Got that? Award-winning. “Esteemed.” “Hard-hitting.”

So why did the segment on MBS resemble more of an infomercial for the Saudi regime than a serious or hard-hitting interview? “His reforms inside Saudi Arabia have been revolutionary,” intoned correspondent Norah O’Donnell prior to the start of her exclusive sit-down with the crown prince in Riyadh. “He is emancipating women, introducing music and cinema, and cracking down on corruption.”

Move over Tom Friedman and David Ignatius — in O’Donnell, the Saudis seem to have found a new cheerleader within the U.S. press corps. Forget the Saudi bombardment and siege of Yemen, described by United Nations agencies as “the worst humanitarian crisis in the world,” which received a mere two minutes of coverage over the course of a 30-minute segment. Forget the horrific Saudi record of beheadings and stonings, which received zero coverage from the “60 Minutes” team in Riyadh. Instead, we were treated to O’Donnell oohing and aahing over the crown prince’s youthfulness, workaholism, and — lest we forget — support for women drivers.

The interview itself consisted of one softball question after another. (Example: “What’s been the big challenge?” Another example: “What did you learn from your father?”)

So, in a spirit of constructive criticism, and in an attempt to try and push back against the U.S. media’s bizarre love affair with MBS ahead of his D.C. visit …

Here are 10 much tougher, more relevant questions that “60 Minutescould and should have asked

CBS disinformer O'Donnell—out of her depth to begin with.

1) You helped launch the war in Yemen in 2015 and continue to accuse Houthi rebels of causing all the violence and suffering there, yet the United Nations has blamed airstrikes by the Saudi-led coalition for the majority of Yemeni civilian deaths while Amnesty International has documented “34 air strikes … by the Saudi Arabia-led coalition that appear to have violated international humanitarian law” including “attacks that appear to have deliberately targeted civilians and civilian objects such as hospitals, schools, markets and mosques.” How do you square “reform” at home with war crimes abroad?

2) You have said in this interview that the Houthi rebels in Yemen “block humanitarian aid in order to create famine and a humanitarian crisis,” but what about your own role in causing that crisis? A U.N. panel of experts “found that Saudi Arabia is purposefully obstructing the delivery of humanitarian aid into Yemen.” Is it not a moral outrage for one of the richest countries in the Middle East to be starving the poorest country in the Middle East?

3) Congratulations on lifting the Saudi ban on women drivers, but when will you be abolishing the death penalty for blasphemy, sorcery, adultery, and homosexuality? Isn’t it true that more people have been beheaded by your government than by the Islamic State?

4) You have compared Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran’s unelected and self-styled “supreme leader,” to Adolf Hitler, but what about your own autocratic style of rule? You have cracked down on dissent by rounding up clerics, intellectuals, and activists and have detained and allegedly tortured your fellow princes — is it any wonder that the prominent Saudi journalist and former adviser to the royal family, Jamal Khashoggi, has compared you to Vladimir Putin and called you Saudi Arabia’s very own “supreme leader”?

5) You say these princes had to be arrested as part of an anti-corruption drive, but how are Saudi citizens supposed to know whether or not you’re corrupt, too? After all, you’re the prince who spotted a Russian-owned luxury yacht while on holiday in the south of France and then bought it on the spot for $550 million — where did that money come from?

6) Shouldn’t you also be wary of invoking Hitler given Saudi Arabia’s history of brazen anti-Semitism? In fact, as part of your “reform” efforts, would you be willing to apologize for the Saudi-based Arab Radio and Television Network’s production of a TV series based on the notorious “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”; or for the imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca calling Jews “rats of the world” and “the scum of the earth”;  or for your own father, King Salman, attributing the 9/11 attacks to a Mossad “plot”?

7) You have suggested in this interview that Iran is working with Al Qaeda. Yet Bob Graham, the former chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has said that 28 declassified pages of the 2002 Congressional Joint Inquiry suggest “a strong linkage between [the 9/11] terrorists and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Saudi charities, and other Saudi stakeholders.” Isn’t it time the government of Saudi Arabia admitted to its extensive and long-standing role in fundingarming, and inciting“jihadi” terrorism?

8) Isn’t it the case that the Saudi education system fans the flames of intolerance and extremism? How else do you explain the fact that when ISIS “needed textbooks to distribute to schoolchildren in Raqqa, it printed out copies of Saudi state textbooks found online”?

9) You have said in this interview that the Iranians “want to expand” in the region. But was it the Islamic Republic of Iran or the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, under your leadership, that detained not one, but two, elected heads of Arab governments — the president of Yemen and the prime minister of Lebanon — against their will?

10) You and your ministers have dubbed your changes and reforms a “revolution.” So why not stand for election yourself and allow the citizens of Saudi Arabia to choose their own leader? After all, how can it be called a “revolution” if the absolute monarch is still in absolute control of the country at the end of it?

IT WAS MOHAMMED bin Salman’s “first interview with an American television network,” bragged O’Donnell at the beginning of the show. Yet she and her award-winning “60 Minutes” team of producers and researchers threw away a unique, on-camera opportunity to hold an unelected dictator to account. Shamefully, O’Donnell did not mention the words “democracy” or “elections” even once. Rather, in the final moments of the interview, the CBS correspondent seemed to be positively giddy at the prospect of MBS ruling over Saudi Arabia for the rest of his life.

“You’re 32 years old. You could rule this country for the next 50 years,” she exclaimed, adding: “Can anything stop you?”

CBS might like to call this “hard-hitting” reporting. I prefer to call it a crime against journalism.



About the Author
Mehdi Hasan is an award-winning British columnist, broadcaster, and author based in Washington, D.C. He hosts UpFront on Al Jazeera English and has interviewed, among others, Edward Snowden, Hamid Karzai, Ehud Olmert, and Gen. Michael Flynn. He is also the author of two books — a biography of former U.K. Labor Party leader Ed Miliband and an e-book on the financial crisis and austerity economics. Mehdi has written for the New York Times, the Washington Post, The Guardian, and the Times of London, among others, and is the former political director of the Huffington Post U.K. and a contributing editor to the New Statesman. He has been included in the annual list of the 500 most influential Muslims in the world and named as one of the 100 most influential Britons on Twitter. 

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

 ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS

black-horizontal
[premium_newsticker id=”154171″]




Reader mail: ‘I am more dangerous than a Russian!


horiz-long grey

Reader mail: ‘I am more dangerous than a Russian!’

The letter writer with his ISIS pals. “Greetings!”, he says.

As a daily journalist covering a wide range of fields, I get a lot of unsolicited emails which give me news tips, unique outlooks and recommendations. 

This email below came with so many threats and oaths against my person that I almost didn’t publish it, but I think some of what was written regarding the Russophobia campaign across the West makes sense.

However, anyone familiar with me or my work knows I don’t condone terrorism or bigotry of any manner.

I absolutely will not be following this reader’s advice, but I encourage you to read his thoughts, nonetheless.

—RM

Dear Mr. Mazaheri,

Seeing as how you work for the Iranian government, I have no doubt that you fully support Islamic terrorism. That is why I have come to you with my problem: 

America’s Russophobia campaign has shunted aside hysterical fear-mongering over Islamic terrorism for entirely too long. As a hard-working Islamic terrorist, let me be clear: I am not amused. 

The Russophobia campaign was funny at first. It was clearly a slapped-together lie to rationalise the election victory of Trump, rather than discussing the morally-bankrupt Democratic Party. Certainly, it was amusing to watch Rachel Maddow’s nightly attempt to hypnotise American fake-leftists in to believing that Russia was the sole reason for Hillary’s loss.

As a card-carrying Islamic terrorist, I was sincerely quite sad to see Hillary lose  – she’s been so good to us. I’m ideologically opposed to supporting women in power but – in my country – if you wear a suit every day…you must be a man, right? 

Anyway, we Islamic terrorists would sit around our Syrian campfire at night and, rather than actually read the Koran (boring!), we would gamble big bucks about when US public opinion would finally force the end of Russophobia narrative in order to get back to good old Islamic terrorism.

I actually lost a lot of my US Petrodollar-funded salary because I failed to remember  that Americans are idolaters: their idol is television, and they believe whatever it says as if it was divine revelation. 

One night, quite drunk, one of my Islamic terrorist friends made a good point: “This will last until the US mid-term elections so the Democrats don’t have to address their failures at all. They’re going to use Russophobia to regain parliamentary control.” 

After I had sobered up the next day I realised: That’s a good point.

But then it hit me – what if the Democrats don’t win their parliamentary elections in 2018 – Russophobia is going to go on until 2020?!

Well, such a long-term marginalization of Islamic terrorism I cannot abide! Don’t they realize my high salary depends on our popularity?

Ok, fine, I admit it: Syria has proved that I am not more dangerous than a Russian. We never thought they’d actually get involved…and they kicked our butts.

However, as you are an Iranian journalist, you are therefore also an apologist for Islamic terrorism. That’s why I am emailing you to give you some good propaganda tips on how we Islamic terrorist comrades can get Islamic terrorism back at the top of the newscast. Trump seems totally disinclined to orchestrate another 9/11 – at least not until 2020 presidential polling gets serious – so we have no choice but soft power.

Please begin promoting the follow points:

1) Does the American media not realize that 20% of Israelis are Russian? This Russophobia can negatively impact them, and as an Islamic terrorist in 2018 I obviously refuse to support any movement which threatens Zionism.

I think what is also needed is a reminder of the many advantages of fear-mongering against Muslims as opposed to Russians:

2) Russophobia can bring no imperialist benefits to the average American. Think of all the things the average American has gained from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Of course, the list is too long to mention here.

Russia, however, is not going to be invaded and we all know it. All the US can do is destabilise their neighbors, like Ukraine or North Korea. So, from an economic point of view: Russophobia over Islamic terrorism makes no economic sense! Why do Americans not vote their interests anymore?

3) The Russophobia campaign is only focused on Putin…but imagine if Putin dies of natural causes tomorrow? For certain, this Russophobia campaign would fall apart! Americans can’t find Russia on a map – do you think they can name Russia’s previous president? America needs – nay, deserves –  a phobia which is broadly grassroots-based for a hateful relationship that is reliable and lasting.

And the US has already spent so many years building a hate-based relationship with Islam! How can we throw out the window all those bad times we spent together? Don’t leave me, baby! We can still make this thing not work, just like it used to – I promise!

And this leads to my next point:

4) Russians look too much like White people – you can’t pick them out in a crowd. A Muslim, conversely, ranges from Black to pale brunette to even redhead – you can easily justify stopping a Mexican or following an African-American around your store by citing “Islamic terrorism”. Certainly, a woman wearing any sort of hat deserves to be viciously eye-balled thanks to the security necessities easily provided by Islamophobia.

Furthermore, we all agree: this Russophobia campaign hasn’t produced the goods after all this time, so it’s just plain boring now. I almost feel bad for Americans…but what are they going to do – turn off the TV?

Islamophobia over Russophobia makes long-term economic and cultural sense – you should be doing more to make it happen, Mr. Mazaheri. 

Of course, Mr. Mazaheri, you are obviously a shameful excuse for a Muslim, and you and your family belong to a sinful sect of apostates who are all consigned to the eternal damnation and will be forever boiled in sheep excrement – but I kindly thank you in advance for all your help on this matter. 

Sincerely,

NAME WITHHELD

US military base, Al-Tanf Syria


About the author
 RAMIN MAZAHERI, Senior Correspondent & Contributing Editor, Dispatch from Paris •  Ramin is the chief correspondent in Paris for Press TV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Iran, Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea and elsewhere. His work has appeared in various journals, magazines and websites, as well as on radio and television.


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

horiz-long grey

uza2-zombienation


black-horizontal




The $1.5 Billion Campaign to Whitewash Genocide in Yemen

 



“The situation in Yemen – today, right now, to the population of the country,” UN humanitarian chief Mark Lowcock told Al Jazeera last month, “looks like the apocalypse.”

150,000 people are thought to have starved to death in Yemen last year, with one child dying of starvation or preventable diseases every ten minutes, and another falling into extreme malnutrition every two minutes. The country is undergoing the world’s biggest cholera epidemic since records began with over one million now having contracted the disease, and new a diptheria epidemic “is going to spread like wildfire” according to Lowcock. “Unless the situation changes,” he concluded, “we’re going to have the world’s worst humanitarian disaster for 50 years”.

The cause is well known: the Saudi-led coalition’s bombardment and blockade of the country, with the full support of the US and UK, has destroyed over 50% of the country’s healthcare infrastructure, targeted water desalination plants, decimated transport routes and choked off essential imports, whilst the government all this is supposed to reinstall has blocked salaries of public sector workersacross the majority of the country, leaving rubbish to go uncollected and sewage facilities to fall apart, and creating a public health crisis. A further eight million were cut off from clean water when the Saudi-led coalition blocked all fuel imports last November, forcing pumping stations to close. Oxfam’s country director in Yemen, Shane Stevenson, commented at the time that “The people of Yemen are already being starved to submission – unless the blockade is lifted quickly they will have their clean water taken away too. Taking clean water from millions of people in a country that is already suffering the world’s largest cholera outbreak and on the verge of famine would be an act of utmost barbarity.”

Since then, things have been getting worse. As of late January, fuel imports through the country’s main port Hodeidah were still being blocked, with cholera cases continuing to climb as a result. And on 23rd January, the UN reported that there are now 22.2 million Yemenis in need of humanitarian assistance – 3.4 million more than the previous year – with eight million on the brink of famine, an increase of one million since 2017.

This is unsurprising, as both the bombardment and the blockade have intensified in recent months. For almost a month at the end of last year, the coalition blocked all imports into Hodeidah port, through which 70% of the country’s imports would otherwise enter. And since the death of former President Ali Abdullah Saleh on 4th December, the air campaign has been stepped up, with massacres occurring on a near-daily basis. On 9th February, the UN announced that 85,000 had been displaced in ten weeks due to “surging violence”, particularly on the Red Sea Coast, where the coalition have mounted a new campaign to capture the country’s strategically important Hodeidah port.

With the Hodeidah campaign now entering a new phase, this war on the Yemeni population is set to escalate still further. Since it launched in early December, the coalition and their Yemeni assets have taken several towns and villages on Hodeidah province, and are now poised to take the battle to the city itself. On 20th February, Emirati newspaper The National reported that, in the coming days, “more forces will be committed to Hodeidah as a new front is to be opened in the next few days by Maj Gen Tariq Mohammed Abdullah,” nephew of the deceased former president Ali Abdullah Saleh. This attack would put the almost completely-import dependent country’s most essential port out of action for months, leaving millions unable to survive. “If this attack goes ahead”, Oxfam chief executive Mark Goldring told the press when a similar attack was proposed earlier last year, “this will be a deliberate act that will disrupt vital supplies – the Saudi-led coalition will not only breach International Humanitarian Law, they will be complicit in near certain famine.” His colleague Suze Vanmeegan added that “any attack on Hodeidah has the potential to blast an already alarming crisis into a complete horror show – and I’m not using hyperbole.”


The killing of children by the Saudis, directly by bombs and indirectly by hunger and disease—with irrefutable support from the Americans and the British, and who knows who else in the NATO/Zionist coalition—is a prosecutable crime under international statutes promulgated by the UN. Yet the very UN has named Saudi Arabia as chair of the Human Rights Council. It doesn’t get more Orwellian than that.


There is no doubt the war’s British and American overseers have given their blessing to this escalation. In late 2016, the “Yemen Quartet” was formed by the US, the UK, Saudi Arabia and the UAE to co-ordinate strategy between the the war’s four main aggressors. Throughout 2017, they met sporadically, but since the end of the year their meetings have become more frequent and higher-level. At the end of November, just before the launch of operations in Hodeidah province, Boris Johnson hosted a meeting of the Quartet in London as Theresa May simultaneously met with King Salman in Riyadh, presumably to give the go-ahead to this new round of devastation for Yemen’s beleaguered population. They met again two weeks later, and then too on 23rd January, also at Johnson’s instigation, where the meeting was attended, for the first time, by Rex Tillerson. The “economic quartet” – also attended by officials from the IMF and World Bank – convened  on 2nd February in Saudi Arabia, whilst Johnson and Tillerson once again met with their Saudi and Emirati counterparts to discuss Yemen in Bonn on 15th February. Of course, these meetings do not carry out the nitty-gritty of strategic war planning – civil servants in the military and intelligence services do that. The purpose of such high level forums is rather for each side to demonstrate to the others that any  strategic developments carry the blessing of each respective government at the highest level. That the “quartet” met just days before an announcement that the long-planned attack on Hodeidah port was imminent, then, speaks volumes about US-UK complicity in this coming new premeditated war crime.

These military and humanitarian ‘developments’ (if such a word can be applied to the deliberate reversal of a country’s living standards) form the backdrop to the Saudi-led coalition’s unveiling on 22nd January of their new plan to deliver “unprecedented relief to the people of Yemen”. YCHO – “Yemen Comprehensive Humanitarian Operations” – is a new ‘aid’ programme with the ostensible aim of “addressing immediate aid shortfalls while simultaneously building capacity for long-term improvement of humanitarian aid and commercial goods imports to Yemen”, primarily through increasing the “capacities of Yemeni ports to receive humanitarian as well as commercial imports” – and all sealed with a whopping $1.5billion in aid contributions. What could possibly be wrong with that?

The problem here is not only that the the funding required to meet the needs created by the Saudi-led coalition is estimated by the UN to be twice that amount. The real problem is that the plan will not, in fact, increase the imports on which Yemen is utterly dependent, but reduce them still further. This is because the much-vaunted ‘improvements in port capacity’ will apply solely to “coalition-controlled ports”, excluding the ports outside their control – Hodeidah and Saleef – which, between them, handle about 80% of Yemen’s imports. For these, absolutely critical, ports, the plan explicitly states that it wants a reduction in the flow of cargo they handle: by around 200 metric tons per month, compared to mid-2017 levels. Yes, you heard correctly: cargo levels in mid-2017 – when 130 children were dying each dayfrom malnutrition and other preventable diseases largely caused by the limits on imports already in place – are now deemed in need of further, major, reductions. This plan is nothing less than a systematisation of the starvation politics of which the Saudis were accused by the UN Panel of Experts on Yemen in relation to their closure of Hodeidah and Saleef in November. Back then, noted the panel’s Final Report, all Yemen’s ports had been closed following a Houthi missile attack on Riyadh airport. But whilst coalition-controlled ports were quickly reopened, Hodeidah and Saleef remained closed for weeks. “This had the effect,” said the panel, “of using the threat of starvation as an instrument of war.” Today, the ‘Comprehensive Operations’ plan envisages making permanent the juxtaposition of wilful starvation of Houthi-controlled territory (in which the vast majority of Yemenis live) and ‘generous’ aid deliveries into coalition-controlled territories. These are the same ‘methods of barbarism’ as were employed by the British in the Boer war – when Boer-controlled territories were subjected to scorched earth policies of torching farms and destroying livestock – and then revived for Britain’s colonial wars in Malaya,  Kenya and, indeed, Yemen in the 1950s-60s. Small wonder Britain is so deeply involved today.

But such a strategy will surely be hard to sell in this day and age. Certainly, the Saudis seem to think so; which is presumably why they have employed a plethora of the world’s most notorious PR agencies to help them do so.

An exceptional investigation by the IRIN news agency reported that “the press release journalists received announcing the [YCHO] plan came neither from the coalition itself nor from Saudi aid officials. It came, along with an invitation to visit Yemen, straight from a British PR agency”. That agency was Pagefield Global Counsel, one of the successor companies to disgraced PR giant Bell Pottinger (employing over 20 former Pottinger staff).

The investigation also revealed that the powerpoint presentation used to introduce the YCHO to high level UN officials was authored by Nicholas Nahas, of Booz Allen Hamilton, a US management consultancy with long-established links to the US state – including involvement in the illegal SWIFT and PRISM mass surveillance programmes – and which currently has, says IRIN “35 job listings in Riyadh on its website, including “military planner”, a role that requires the applicant to: “Provide military and planning advice and expertise to support the coordination of Joint counter threat operations executed by coalition member nations and facilitate resourcing to enable operations.””

Another PR company involved in ‘selling’ the YCHO, long on the Saudi payroll, is Qorvis MSLGROUP, who, says IRIN, “booked US revenue of more than $6 million from the Saudi Arabian embassy [in the US] over a 12-month period up to September 2017”.

These masters of spin have certainly been busy: their work on the plan has been delivered to “the offices of major INGOs in the UK as well as to members of the UK parliament”, and YCHO accounts has been set up on facebook, twitter, instagram, youtube and gmail. The YCHO twitter account has around 10,000 followers; but, says the investigation, “almost half of YCHO’s followers have less than 10 followers themselves, while some 1,000 followers were accounts created on the same day in 2016 – signs that a significant number of bots or fakes are inflating YCHO’s popularity”.

“All of this,” concludes IRIN, “has fed suspicions that rather than a genuine attempt to help the people of Yemen, the plan is really intended more to gloss over the Hodeidah issue and improve Saudi Arabia’s battered image, or at least a bit of both.”

You would think a strategy aimed at starving the world’s most starving population still further would be a hard sell. But, then, money not only talks, it silences.  And $1.5 billion is a lot of money.

The UN’s own ‘Humanitarian Response Plan’ for Yemen, issued just two days before the YCHO, on 20th January, had noted that “Al Hudaydah port, which accounts for 70-80 per cent of commercial imports in Yemen, remains a critical lifeline, despite operating at reduced capacity after being hit by an airstrike in August 2015”, adding that “the extended blockade imposed on Al Hudaydah and Salif ports on 6 November 2017 significantly threatened this lifeline of Yemenis” and that “only a sustained flow of imports of essential basic goods can avert further catastrophe”. Yet the cash-strapped UN, facing dramatic budget cuts from the Trump administration, and presumably nervous of saying anything that might jeopardise Saudi-Emirati money as well, officially welcomed the announcement, despite its clear commitment to essentially tightening the very blockade of Hodeidah and Saleef ports which the UN had denounced just days earlier.

Thankfully, the aid agencies do not seem to have been fooled. A joint statement on the YCHO by a number of international NGOs, including Oxfam and Save the Children, stated that “We remain concerned that the blockade on Red Sea ports has still not been fully lifted and about the insufficient volume of fuel reaching these, which has led to an increase in the price of basic goods across the country. As a result, we are seeing families pushed into preventable disease and starvation because they cannot afford to buy food and clean water. Hodeidah port handles the majority of the country’s imports and cannot be substituted. It is vital that the warring parties commit to keep Hodeidah port fully open and functioning, including unfettered access for both humanitarian and commercial supplies.” Save the Children’s Caroline Anning explained that the plan “is a misconception – in the publicity around this new plan they say the blockade around Hodeida port has been fully lifted but actually what we’re seeing is that fuel is still being blocked coming into that port which is having a really horrendous knock-on effect around the country.” She added that if “they want to try and push the delivery of key important commercial supplies through other ports like Aden, Jazan and Saudi Arabia and cut off the Hodeida port, again that could be really problematic and again it means one of the warring parties in the conflict is controlling access routes for goods coming in…Improved humanitarian access is really important and that’s been a massive challenge – but in reality that’s not going to solve the humanitarian conflict in Yemen. We’ve seen increased violence, air strikes across the country in the last few months, civilians being killed every day, vital infrastructure like health clinics being hit all the time. While that’s happening and while the economy is collapsing and public sector salaries aren’t being paid, the humanitarian crisis is going to continue.”

And the International Rescue Committee (IRC)’s scathing response – issued with the title “Yemen: Saudi ‘aid’ plan is war tactic” – is worth quoting at length:

“The Yemen Comprehensive Humanitarian Operations (YCHO), announced on January 22, 2018, is neither comprehensive, nor reflective of clear, shared humanitarian priorities…The YCHO politicizes aid by attempting to consolidate control over access and transit points. Rather than endorsing a parallel plan, which was created without broad input from humanitarian actors, the Saudi Led Coalition (SLC) and its supporters, notably the US and UK, should work to ensure the full implementation of the existing UN humanitarian response plan.

“The name in itself is misleading: it is neither comprehensive, nor particularly humanitarian,” said Amanda Catanzano, senior policy and advocacy director at the International Rescue Committee. “The Saudi-led coalition is offering to fund a response to address the impact of a crisis it helped to create. The acute crisis in Yemen needs more than what appears to be a logistical operations plan, with token gestures of humanitarian aid”. The IRC go on to list a number of ‘red flags’ about the plan, first and foremost, that it does not end the blockade: “If the Saudis were serious about addressing the humanitarian crisis,” they point out,  “the most valuable step they could take would be to lift the blockade, permanently, which they and the international community should do without delay”. Furthermore, they add, the YCHO “severely threatens humanitarian access, endangering the lives of millions more civilians. The plan would move the main hub of the response from Hodeidah port to Aden port and would increase capacity of additional Southern ports of Mokha and Mukalla as additional alternatives. The development of additional Yemeni ports is welcome and laudable, but not at the expense of access to Red Sea ports like Hodeidah and Saleef. The southern ports are neither equipped for, nor well placed to service populations in need: they the lack basic infrastructure and capacity of the northern ports, through which 80% of all imports come into Yemen, and humanitarians would need to go through 70 checkpoints between Sanaa and Aden, complicating delivery and driving up costs”. They also note that it is precisely the Saudi-led coalition and its Yemeni stooges who have implemented a  policy of cutting off payments to public sector workers, leading to the current public health disaster: “The acute deprivation in Yemen is as much a function of the blockade as it is the absence of basic public services. The SLC is overfunding the war effort at the expense of governance and service delivery. The vague “economic stabilization” clause in the YCHO does not address the restoration of basic public services. These funds should be used to reinstate basic government services and pay government workers.” It concludes:

“A meaningful response to the world’s largest humanitarian crisis requires more access – not less. At best, this plan would shrink access and introduce new inefficiencies that would slow the response and keep aid from the neediest Yemenis, including the over 8 million on the brink of starvation,” said Catanzano. “At worst, it would dangerously politicize humanitarian aid by placing far too much control over the response in the hands of an active party to the conflict.”

Essentially, this is a plan to tighten the blockade whilst monopolising access to aid in the hands of the aggressors, presented as a great humanitarian effort, and unveiled just as the coalition begins an attack on the country’s “vital lifeline” which will lead to “a complete horror show” and “near-certain famine”. In the twisted minds of men like Mohammed bin Salman, Rex Tillerson and Boris Johnson – for whom even the liquidation of an entire people is a apparently a noble cause in the pursuit of containing Iran – this is what passes for humanitarianism today.

A shorter version of this article originally appeared in Middle East Eye


ABOUT THE AUTHOR
http://fundrazr.com/c1CSnd. 

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

 CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS

black-horizontal
[premium_newsticker id=”154171″]