Pravda.Ru Photo archive

The recent diplomatic history of the West has been intrinsically linked with the use of terrorists to topple governments, sowing havoc, committing war crimes while NATO either looked on or else actively involved itself in strafing Government forces while their terrorist minions did the rest. Russia’s anti-terrorist operation in Syria is more measured, goes hand in hand with international law and is producing results.

What has the West achieved?

Let us ask the question what did the West’s policy in Afghanistan achieve? Did they defeat the Taliban? Did they destroy the opium production? The answer to these questions is no. In 2015, 14 years after the Western invasion of Afghanistan, the Taliban is chalking up firsts in terms of occupying territory and the opium production is higher now than it was in 2001.

Let us move on to Iraq. What did the West achieve? A foreign policy disaster, where once and for all we saw NATO for what it is, namely the cutting edge of the weapons lobby and the other lobbies which follow an invasion – banking, pharmaceutical, energy, finance, food. We saw military hardware deployed against civilian targets, we saw war crimes, we saw the use of depleted uranium, breaching the Geneva Conventions, we saw hospitals strafed, schools bombed, children had their faces blown off, families had their futures blown away. Hands on hearts, let us all sing God Bless America and its Poodles.

So far, not so good

Meanwhile, the Iraqi State collapsed, and most of the working population is unemployed. The Weapons of Mass Destruction story was a barefaced lie and lo and behold, after several failed experiments, Islamic State grew under the watchful eyes of Washington and its Poodles. So far not so good.

Fast Forward westwards to Libya, the country with the highest Human Development Index in Africa, where hundreds of tribes lived in peace and prosperity in Gaddafi’s Jamahiriya. Enter NATO. War crimes, terrorists buzzing around like flies, marauding groups of criminals and murderers slicing the breasts off women in the streets, impaling little boys on stakes, raping little girls before and after beheading them. Helicopter gunships used against the authorities, water supply bombed, electricity grid strafed. Collapse of the State, total chaos, mayhem and Islamic State now controls three cities.

Hardly a good record so far…let us go back East then to Syria.

After supporting terrorist groups, after supplying, arming and aiding terrorist groups, what happened? The equipment fell into the hands of Al-Qaeda in Syria and now worse still, into the hands of Islamic State, which after over a year of bombing by the USA and its Poodles, continued until recently to grow and to push back the heroic Syrian Arab Army of President Bashar al-Assad.

Enter Russia into the fray.

After just over a week, Islamic State is feeling the effect of precision bombing and strafing with missiles as arms depots are surgically removed, Islamic State bases are destroyed and pockets of this vermin are exterminated like cockroaches. The areas infested by this filth are sterilized and the path is cleared for the Syrian Arab Army and its allies to move into the areas and re-establish law and order.

Both the Syrian and the Iranian Governments have expressed in recent days statements claiming that in just over a week, Russia’s anti-terrorist operation has provided the means for a diplomatic solution to be achieved, as the country is cleared of the foreign terrorists and as Western-brainwashed Takfiri Jihadi Syrians who had taken up arms are pardoned.

Today, areas of Homs have been cleared of terrorists which have been transported to Syria from dozens of countries, aided and supported by certain Middle East Kingdoms and trained by certain NATO countries, doubtless at the behest of their master, Washington. Large parts of the Golan Heights have also been reclaimed by Government forces following the liquidation of terrorist elements. Meanwhile in Aleppo, the Syrian authorities have sterilized several areas; large numbers of terrorists from Islamic State have been destroyed, equipment has been seized and those who survived scuttled away into the countryside like frightened insects.

Earlier in the day, the terrorist organization al-Nusra Front committed a massacre of civilians in the Square of Ter M’alah.

And what does the West do? It complains about Russia’s anti-terrorist operation, complaining that Russia is bombing the “wrong” terrorists, while it refuses to hold talks and then tries to send weapons and supplies to the very groups fighting the Syrian authorities. If that is not interfering in the internal affairs of a sovereign State, if that is not sponsoring terrorism and committing acts of State terrorism, I do not know what is.

I believe, ladies and gentlemen, that we have finally seen that Moscow’s foreign policy is coherent, mature, measured, adequate, correct and follows international law. As for the West, I believe the case speaks for itself.

Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey

Pravda.Ru 

(timothy.hinchey@gmail.com)

*Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey has worked as a correspondent, journalist, deputy editor, editor, chief editor, director, project manager, executive director, partner and owner of printed and online daily, weekly, monthly and yearly publications, TV stations and media groups printed, aired and distributed in Angola, Brazil, Cape Verde, East Timor, Guinea-Bissau, Portugal, Mozambique and São Tomé and Principe Isles; the Russian Foreign Ministry publication Dialog and the Cuban Foreign Ministry Official Publications. He has spent the last two decades in humanitarian projects, connecting communities, working to document and catalog disappearing languages, cultures, traditions, working to network with the LGBT communities helping to set up shelters for abused or frightened victims and as Media Partner with UN Women, working to foster the UN Women project to fight against gender violence and to strive for an end to sexism, racism and homophobia. A Vegan, he is also a Media Partner of Humane Society International, fighting for animal rights. He is Director and Chief Editor of the Portuguese version of Pravda.Ru.

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/16-10-2015/132338-russia_syria-0/

By Conor Friedersdorf

October 15, 2015 “Information Clearing House” – “The Atlantic” – Using contested intelligence, a powerful adviser urges a president to wage a war of choice against a dictator; makes a bellicose joke when he is killed; declares the operation a success; fails to plan for a power vacuum; and watches Islamists gain power. That describes Dick Cheney and the Iraq War—and Hillary Clinton and the war in Libya.

At Tuesday's primary debate, Clinton was criticized not just for the Iraq War vote that cost her the 2008 election, but also for the undeclared 2011 war that she urged in Libya. The Obama Administration waged that war of choice in violation of the War Powers Resolution and despite the official opposition of the U.S. Congress. "Governor Webb has said that he would never have used military force in Libya and that the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was inevitable," Anderson Cooper told the former Secretary of State. "Should you have seen that attack coming?"

Her answer included a broad defense of the war in Libya. "Remember what was going on," she began, repeating a version of events that some intelligence officials and human rights groups doubt. "We had a murderous dictator, Gadhafi, who had American blood on his hands … threatening to massacre large numbers of the Libyan people. We had our closest allies in Europe burning up the phone lines begging us to help them try to prevent what they saw as a mass genocide, in their words. And we had the Arabs standing by our side saying, 'We want you to help us deal with Gadhafi.'"

She characterized the Obama Administration's response as "smart power at its best," saying that while America refused to take the lead in the war, "we will provide essential, unique capabilities that we have, but the Europeans and the Arabs had to be first over the line. We did not put one single American soldier on the ground."

She then put a positive gloss on the war's outcome. "I’ll say this for the Libyan people…" she said. "I think President Obama made the right decision at the time. And the Libyan people had a free election the first time since 1951. And you know what, they voted for moderates, they voted with the hope of democracy. Because of the Arab Spring, because of a lot of other things, there was turmoil to be followed."

​That is about as misleading as summarizing the Iraq War by saying that the Iraqis had a terrible leader; they had a free election after the war; and they voted for moderates. It elides massive suffering and security threats that have occurred in postwar Libya.

Yet the answer didn't hurt the Democratic frontrunner. That's because neither CNN moderators nor prospective Clinton supporters understand the magnitude of the catastrophe that occurred amid the predictable power vacuum that followed Ghadafi's ouster. "Libya today—in spite of the expectations we had at the time of the revolution—it's much, much worse," Karim Mezran, senior fellow at the Atlantic Council's Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East, told Frontline. "Criminality is skyrocketing. Insecurity is pervasive. There are no jobs. It's hard to get food and electricity. There's fighting, there's fear … I see very few bright spots."

​U.S. arms found their way into the hands of Islamists.

"Nearly three and a half years after Libyan rebels and a NATO air campaign overthrew Muammar al-Qaddafi, the cohesive political entity known as Libya doesn't exist," Libya expert Frederic Wehrey reported earlier this year inDefense One. "There is no central government, but rather two competing claims on legitimacy."

He went on to describe the rivals:

On one side of the fight are the forces of Operation Dignity gathered around General Khalifa Hifter, a former Qaddafi-era officer who defected in the 1980s and returned to the country in 2011. In May, he launched Dignity as a military campaign to root out Islamist militias in the eastern city of Benghazi and exclude Islamists from political power. His allies include disaffected military units, security men from the old regime, prominent eastern tribes, federalists demanding greater autonomy for the east, and militias from Zintan and other western towns.

On the opposing side is the Libya Dawn coalition… It includes ex-jihadists from the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, militias from the powerful port of Misrata, and fighters drawn from certain Tripoli neighborhoods, the ethnic Berber population, and some communities in the western mountains and coast. Dawn has forged a tactical alliance with a coalition of Benghazi-based Islamist militias that are battling Hifter's forces, one of which is the U.S.-designated terrorist group Ansar al-Sharia. Each side claims its own parliament, prime minister, and army.

In August, The New Yorker's John Lee Anderson described the gains made by the Islamists as well as the consequences of ISIS fighters controlling territory in Libya:

Last November, battle-hardened Libyan Islamists, who had returned home from fighting in Iraq and Syria, along with Islamists from other countries, seized the eastern city of Derna and claimed it for ISIS. Emulating their comrades in Raqqa and Mosul, they stoned, shot, beheaded, and crucified people deemed guilty of espionage or 'un-Islamic' behavior. Last month, a rival militia loyal to Al Qaeda waged and won a battle for control of the city. The victors are said to have marched the captured ISIS commander through the streets naked before executing him. ISIS lost Derna, but in the past few months they have taken Qaddafi's home town of Sirte and surrounding areas in Libya's "Oil Crescent," and have begun attacks on the outer defenses of the city of Misrata.

Alas, that's not all:

For months, ISIS has been trumpeting its abduction and execution of African Christians in Libya. In February, a slick, ghoulish video showed twenty-one Egyptian hostages in orange jumpsuits being led along a beach by black-masked executioners, who forced them to kneel and then cut off their heads.

In April, another video appeared, showing the execution of twenty-nine Ethiopians in Libya. Gunmen who trained with ISIS in Libya were involved in the murder of twenty foreign tourists, at a Tunis museum in March, and thirty-eight more tourists, most of them British, at a seaside resort in Tunisia in June. These attacks focused attention on the fact that Libya, a vast, oil-rich, underpopulated country with a long southern-Mediterranean coastline, has become part of the self-proclaimed ISIS caliphate. In a parallel phenomenon, armed trafficking gangs in Libya are driving most of Africa's illegal immigration to Europe. As many as a hundred and seventy thousand are thought to have made the crossing last year, with thousands dying en route. Unprecedented numbers are continuing to cross this year, taking advantage of the chaos in Libya.

An unnamed Obama Administration official told Anderson, "We think that the threat from ISIL-affiliated groups in Libya is very serious and we're treating it that way."

A strong case can be made that the war made Americans less safe.

Michael Brendan Dougherty offers one of the most incisive descriptions of Clinton's incoherent approach. "American military adventurism relies on a very backward notion of causation," he explained. "When evil men in the world kill their own people, somehow America is to blame for not stopping them. When American action leads directly to disorder, barbarism, and terror, well, that’s someone else’s fault."

He continued:

Death and civil war in Libya were unacceptable outcomes for America when Gadhafi was alive. But death and civil war continue unabated, the difference being that the Islamic State is now one of the players — and somehow it’s not in the American interest to stop it or to help Libyans establish some kind of law and order. The lessons of Iraq have been internalized: Once you create a total power vacuum that will attract terror gangs and radical Islamic fundamentalists, it’s best to not have any boots on the ground to stop them.

The catastrophe continues to unfold this month. The International Business Times reports that "an armed group in the northwestern Libyan coastal city of Sabratha kidnapped dozens of Tunisians late Monday night. The number of hostages has not yet been confirmed, but local news reports state that roughly 300 Tunisians were taken."

The Wall Street Journal reports on the people trying to flee the region:

More than 300,000 refugees and migrants have tried to cross the Mediterranean to Europe so far this year, up from 219,000 in all of 2014, according to the United Nations refugee agency, and at least 3,000 have died en route. A significant percentage of those deaths have occurred on ships sailing from the Libyan coast around Zuwara, according to U.N. and Libyan officials. That area is known as a crossroads for smuggling both migrants and cheap fuel to Europe, and alcohol and cigarettes from Europe back to northern and sub-Saharan Africa.

What was a fringe business in Gadhafi's time has blossomed into a core part of the economy, especially after layoffs at Zuwara's main employers—a nearby oil refinery and chemical plant—because of the political uncertainty.

Clinton is hardly alone in bearing blame for Libya. But she was among the biggest champions of the intervention. As one of her closest advisors once put it in an email, "HRC has been a critical voice on Libya in administration deliberations, at NATO, and in contact group meetings—as well as the public face of the U.S. effort in Libya. She was instrumental in securing the authorization, building the coalition, and tightening the noose around Qadhafi and his regime." She stands behind her course of action even today. More than that, she calls it "smart power at its best"!

As a result, Democrats ought to conclude that she hasn't learned enough  from her decision to support the Iraq War, and that a Clinton administration would likely pursue more wars of choice with poor judgment and insufficient planning. It is difficult to imagine a more consequential leadership flaw. And yet, the issue remains an afterthought in the campaign, even as multiple Clinton rivals criticize her hawkishness and pledge to be more wary of involving America in wars of choice. Neoconservatives could hardly orchestrate a Democratic primary more to their liking.

Conor Friedersdorf is a staff writer at The Atlantic, where he focuses on politics and national affairs. He lives in Venice, California, and is the founding editor of The Best of Journalism, a newsletter devoted to exceptional nonfiction.

See also:

What Clinton left out about her history with Gadhafi: In the aftermath of Gadhafi's overthrow, Clinton's aides celebrated her role in Libya. "It shows [Secretary Clinton's] leadership / ownership / stewardship of this country's Libya policy from start to finish," her top foreign policy adviser, Jake Sullivan, wrote to her chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, in an Aug. 22, 2011,

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article43139.htm

By Robert C. KoehlerOctober 15, 2015 “Information Clearing House” –  "The Pentagon said on Saturday that it would make 'condolence payments' to the survivors of the American airstrike earlier this month on a hospital run by Doctors Without Borders in Kunduz, Afghanistan, as well as to the next of kin of those who died in the attack."

Such a small piece of news, reported a few days ago by the New York Times. I'm not sure if anything could make me feel more ashamed of being an American.

Turns out the basic payout for a dead civilian in one of our war zones is . . . brace yourself . . . $2,500. That's the sum we've been quietly doling out for quite a few years now. Conscience money. It's remarkably cheap, considering that the bombs that took them out may have cost, oh, half a million dollars each.

If we valued human life, we would never go to war. Everybody knows this. It's the biggest open secret out there, buried under endless public relations blather and — since the bombing of the hospital in Kunduz on Oct. 3, and the killing of 22 staff members and patients — a sort of international legalese.

Is it "really" a war crime? Simply asking the question implies that the law has a certain objective reality.

"The mere fact that civilians are killed, that a hospital is damaged, doesn't automatically mean that there has been a war crime," according to John Bellinger, a former legal adviser to the State Department, as quoted last week by National Public Radio. "It only becomes a war crime if it is shown that the target was intentionally attacked."

Another legal expert in the same story, a professor of international law, pointed out: "The burden would be on the prosecution to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that this was an attack willfully undertaken in the knowledge that it was an object entitled to protection. That is a very, very high hurdle."

What's given, in other words, is that air strikes are inevitable and without context: simply part of life. They happen all the time. What can you do? Remarkably, the mainstream discussion goes no deeper than this, leaving the world's combat zones essentially unprotected by anything resembling an international conscience.

Yet . . . why the condolence money? Why the insistence that there be no independent, transparent investigation of the air strike, or any other high-profile instance of collateral carnage? Apparently there's something the U.S., or any other country, can't defend itself against with high-tech weaponry. It can't defend itself against guilt. I find this fascinating. We can drop bombs and wreak enormous havoc — we can develop and test generation after generation of nuclear weapons and endanger the entire planet — but we can't be wrong.

All of which tells me that a conscience does lurk within our collective humanity and awaits emergence on the international stage, and the world's warmongers live in fear of it. Consider:

"Thus Doctors Without Borders calls for an independent investigation by the International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission, a body that was actually created in 1991 to investigate violations of international humanitarian law but has never been activated,"Medea Benjamin wrote recently at Common Dreams. "Dr. Joanne Liu, president of Doctors Without Borders, says 'the tool exists, and it is time it is activated.' The Commission has said it is ready to undertake an investigation, but it can only open an inquiry with the consent of the international community."

That consent is still in bondage. Meanwhile, regarding whether the strike on the Kunduz hospital was a war crime, I feel compelled to push the argument of the experts beyond a simplistic need for proof of intent. Did we attack the hospital on purpose, or was it just a tragic mistake? Such obsessive short-sightedness overlooks a slightly larger question. Why are we in Afghanistan in the first place? Shouldn't that be what's on trial?

In a brilliant analysis of the two primary U.S. quagmires of the 21st century — Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan) and Operation Iraqi Freedom — Andrew Bacevich writes at TomDispatch:

"In Washington, freedom has become a euphemism for dominion. Spreading freedom means positioning the United States to call the shots. Seen in this context, Washington's expected victories in both Afghanistan and Iraq were meant to affirm and broaden its preeminence by incorporating large parts of the Islamic world into the American imperium. They would benefit, of course, but to an even greater extent, so would we."

The template was Operation Desert Storm, the 1991 crushing of Iraq, which was so militarily successful, Bacevich pointed out, that President George H.W. Bush declared, "By God, we've kicked the Vietnam syndrome once and for all."

"In short, the Pentagon now had war figured out," Bacevich went on. "Victory had become a foregone conclusion. As it happened, this self-congratulatory evaluation left U.S. troops ill-prepared for the difficulties awaiting them after 9/11 when interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq departed from the expected script, which posited short wars by a force beyond compare ending in decisive victories. What the troops got were two very long wars with no decision whatsoever. It was Vietnam on a smaller scale all over again — times two."

And 14 years into the longest of these wars, the U.S. manages to take out a hospital and kill 22 people; it then assuages its guilt with an apology and pocket change. Nothing personal, guys. Mistakes were made.

How deep would an independent investigation dare to go into this reckless, globally toxic war? How big a war crime would it uncover?

Robert Koehler is an award-winning, Chicago-based journalist and nationally syndicated writer. His book, Courage Grows Strong at the Wound (Xenos Press), is still available. Contact him at koehlercw@gmail.com or visit his website at commonwonders.com.

© 2015 Common Wonders

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article43138.htm

By Finian Cunningham

October 15, 2015 “Information Clearing House” – “Sputnik” – When British Prime Minister David Cameron lambasted Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn for having a "terrorist-sympathising, Britain-hating ideology" the rightwing British media went into raptures over the bashing.

But amid the boorish braying, the question is: what about Cameron’s own extremist-supporting politics? And not just Cameron, but the whole British establishment.

Cameron made his cheap shot at Corbyn while addressing his Conservative Party annual conference last week. With the fulsome help of British media, Corbyn’s views on the death of Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, as well as on foreign policy issues, including Russia, Palestine, Hezbollah and Irish republicanism, have been wildly distorted. But the crude demonisation of Corbyn as national traitor is an easy job when you have a phalanx of willing media hatchet-wielders on your side.

How richly ironic it is then that a week after Cameron’s mud-slinging at Corbyn, news emerges of a British man who is facing a death sentence in Saudi Arabia.

Karl Andree, a 74-year-old British expatriate living in the oil-rich kingdom for the past 25 years is to receive 350 lashes under the archaic Saudi justice system. The man was caught last year reportedly in possession of homemade wine — in a country where alcohol is officially forbidden.

His family in Britain are making desperate appeals to British premier David Cameron to intervene in the case to save the pensioner’s life.

Suffering from cancer and asthma, the family of Karl Andree fear that he will die from the flogging, especially after having spent a year already in a Saudi jail. A son of the man told British media this week that Cameron’s government had done little to seek clemency from the Saudi rulers. Simon Andree “accused the Foreign Office of allowing business interests to get in the way of helping to free his father.”

Cameron may be obliged to finally intervene, such is the furore. But the mere fact that London has to be pushed into doing something to save the man’s life shows just how deeply entwined the British establishment is with the House of Saud.

The case is just one of many instances where the British government has steadfastly given the Saudi rulers political cover for their extremist practices. With an estimated 30,000 political prisoners languishing in Saudi jails and over 100 people executed by public beheadings every year, the kingdom has been described as one of the most despotic regimes on Earth. Some observers have noted that the House of Saud beheads as many people as the notorious terror group, Islamic State, which shares the same Wahhabi ideology as the Saudi rulers. Indeed probably bankrolled by the Saudi monarchs, as are other extremist jihadi groups, including Al Qaeda and Jabhat al Nusra.

Yet while Cameron and his government make high-profile calls for sanctions against Russia over alleged violations in Ukraine, London keeps silent when it comes to international appeals for human rights in Saudi Arabia.

Earlier this year it emerged from leaked cables that Cameron’s government was involved in “back-room deals” with the Saudis for the kingdom to be appointed to a chair on the United Nations Human Rights Council. This is while international campaigners have recently appealed in two particularly disturbing cases, one involving a Saudi blogger sentenced to receive a 1,000 lashes and the other of a pro-democracy activist, Ali Mohammed al-Nimr, who is due to be beheaded and crucified. Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn has personally entreated Cameron to intervene — but so far, Downing Street has declined to mediate.

Cameron has gone on the defensive about British-Saudi relations, telling media that Britain has a “special relationship” with the kingdom, and insisting that it must maintain “close ties”.

The British leader never fails to pontificate to international audiences about how Britain is “supporting democracy and human rights” around the world.

Cameron’s double-think fails, spectacularly, to acknowledge that his government and Downing Street predecessors have “close ties” with the Saudi regime, where elections are banned, women are prohibited from driving cars, and freedom of speech is exercised under the pain of death.

Even as Saudi Arabia carries out more than six months of slaughter in Yemen, the British government maintains a stony silence. Evidence of war crimes involving Saudi bombing of civilians in

Yemen

has not registered a pause by Britain in supplying the Saudis with

Tornado

and Typhoon fighter jets equipped with 500-pound Pave IV missiles.

Thousands of women and children have been massacred in the onslaught, while Britain reportedly finds new reserves for ordnance to sustain the Saudi bombardment, along with deadly supplies from Washington of course.

In 1985, former Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher — a political heroine of Cameron — lent her personal intervention in signing the al Yamamah arms deal between Saudi Arabia and Britain.

That ongoing deal — worth an estimated £80 billion ($120 billion) — is the biggest weapons contract every signed by Britain. A reputed 50,000 jobs depend on its fulfilment, mainly by Britain’s top weapons manufacturer, British Aerospace Engineering (BAE).

The contract is mired in corruption. Investigations have shown that some $1 billion in bribes were funnelled to key members of the House of Saud by BAE, including the former spy chief Bandar bin Sultan. In 2010, a US court found BAE guilty of corruption, for which the firm had to pay $400 million in fines.

But Britain’s own legal probe into corruption over the Al Yamamah arms deal was dramatically blocked in 2006 by then Labour leader and Prime Minister Tony Blair. Blair, as with Cameron recently, simply invoked “national security interests” to close the prosecution. Once again, the supposed “special relationship” between Britain and Saudi Arabia trumped any concerns about criminality or the despotic nature of the House of Saud.

One factor in why Blair gave cover to Britain’s Saudi clients was the threat from the House of Saud that it would pull the plug on the whole Al Yamamah contract, and instead direct its business to France. The French-made Rafale fighter jets were dangled as an alternative to the British-made Typhoon.

Resonating with that, this week a French delegation led by Prime Minister Manuel Valls, Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius and Defence Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian was in Saudi Arabia where it signed $11 billion in contracts for various industrial and military products.

This is the same French government that cancelled the $1.3 billion Mistral helicopter ship contract with Russia over alleged — yet unproven — violations by Moscow in Ukraine.

As with the British, the French government’s high-minded claims of democracy, rule of law and human rights are nothing but cynical public relations when it comes to the altar of financial profits, no matter how “extremist” the customers are.

So, let’s re-run that clip again of David Cameron denouncing others for “extremist-sympathising ideology”. Whatever Jeremy Corbyn’s alleged views are, they are nothing, absolutely nothing, when compared with the extremist-supporting practices of David Cameron and a host of British governments in their courting of Saudi oil money.

© 2015 Sputnik. All rights reserved

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article43143.htm

By Eric Draitser

See also

U.S. ‘excessive force’ comment touches nerve in Israel: Israel bristled on Thursday at U.S. suggestions it may have used excessive force to confront Palestinian stabbings, and also published hospital images it said refuted Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’s allegation a teen suspect had been “executed”.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article43137.htm

By Christian B. Malaparte

Dear friends, the article by Christian B. Malaparte, reprinted here with permission from The Voice of Idaho, is an outstanding comparision of the American and Russian presidents on the basis of their speeches to the UN on September 28, 2015. The article could not be written more truthfully. The unavoidable conclusion is that the United States has no political leadership worthy of the name, and Russia is overflowing with outstanding leadership. – Paul Craig Roberts

October 15, 2015 “Information Clearing House” –  If your bubble has burst, you can hardly listen to [Obama] through to the end. And if you somehow succeed you will develop an increased awareness of his deception. And of your own disgust.

Over 4,700 words that perfectly fit the narrative that the mainstream media daily foist off on the public. Indeed MSM has failed us all countless times, and though deception was revealed, no retraction followed. Yet this man persists. Dour mug, focused eye, a measured declaring, as of one who bears upon his shoulders fathomless commitments – we had gotten used to it. Patently, there's an impressive number of people who actually believe [that the world rests on America's shoulders.]

If the U.S. weren't sick with Corporatism, this man wouldn't be on that podium lying to us all. Advanced symptoms of the disease are apparent, as corporations dominate nearly every aspect of society, and government serves them as a tool to consolidate their power ever further. A Corporate State has a Corporate Government, which enacts Corporate Laws, pushes for a Corporate Economy, and then provides Corporate Jobs (aka McJobs), Corporate Education, and Corporate Healthcare to a Corporate Citizenry.

A Corporate State is a Corporation-ruled state.

In a Corporate State no one but a stooge will stand as President. No matter whether in charge is a bubba from Arkansas, a sham cowboy, a sissy black, or a warmongering harebrained bitch: a stooge bears no responsibility. However indecent or heinous he might be, as long as he's doing his Corporate Bidding, he'll brazenly beat the rap. The rise of dissenting voices will remain offstage; unheard, ineffective. A Corporate State holds power over the citizens through the Corporate Media apparatus, which spreads scourge by shaping opinion.

Mesmerized by News channels and distracted by status quo-supporting Hollywood paradigm, Corporate Citizenry firmly believes itself to be free and safe, while shamelessly parroting events and statements it was indoctrinated to, proudly saluting its flag, listening to and thanking the Stooge-in-Chief.

At the UN General Assembly on September 28, U.S. President Barack Obama praised the founding, 70 years ago, of the institution and its achievements, acknowledging unparalleled advances in human liberty and prosperity, diplomatic cooperation, a buttress to global economy, and the lift of a billion people from poverty. Despite many notches scored by the UN, his administration bypassed it entirely when it was time to invade Libya, and is currently doing the same in Syria, where it is bombing with no UN Security Council mandate or invitation by the duly-elected government.

In his speech, Obama called Syrian President Bashar al-Assad a tyrant who dropped barrel bombs on children, but the attacks in East Ghouta on August 2013 shortly afterwards turned out to be a false flag operation, with no shred of evidence against Syrian government forces. Indeed, it was to serve as pretext for another U.S. humanitarian invasion, but Russian warships were promptly deployed off the Syrian coast. Obama said that a terrorist group beheads captives, slaughters the innocent, and enslaves women. Those are the moderate rebels that his administration funded, the CIA trained, and its counterparts in the Mideast facilitated the rise, in order to create a strategic asset to use for regime change in Syria. Assad is fighting against them.

Obama purported to remind us how the Syrian mess began: "Assad reacted to peaceful protests by escalating repression and killing that, in turn, created the environment for the current strife." Before 2011, Syria was the only country in the Mideast with no domestic conflicts. Assad had, and still has, the support of the overwhelming majority of the population. The Syrian fake revolution began with attacks during pro-government rallies perpetrated by armed groups against demonstrators and police – the same plot as in Libya and Ukraine. Operations were masterminded by Western Intelligence services and triggered a civil war waged by the U.S., Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, and Israel. The truth is Syria is the only Mediterranean country with a state oil company and the only Arab country not indebted to IMF. Here's what created the environment for a strife.

A truly frightening thing Obama said was, "We know that ISIL depends on perpetual war to survive." Truly scary for those whose bubble has burst indeed, since they know that after WW2 in the U.S. even Defense Industry merged with Corporatism – a Corporate Defense to profit from war.

Likewise he referred to Gaddafi, without naming him, as a tyrant. Gaddafi's 40-year long rule turned Libya into the richest African country, which provided its citizens free healthcare, free education including University, free electricity, no interest loans, exceptional welfare state, and much more. In addition to this, Gaddafi was engaged in a project of de-dollarization in African natural resources trade, and the creation of an African bank system to free the continent from the clutches of Western corporations. A good reason to make a tyrant out of him.

Amazingly, Obama claimed the military intervention prevented a slaughter. Actually, it's estimated that 30,000 Libyans were killed by NATO and its rebels.

Then he recalled Russia's annexation of Crimea, pointing out Russian aggression in eastern Ukraine. Even Commander-in-Chief of theArmed Forces of Ukraine General Viktor Muzhenko stated they have no evidence of Russian troops on Ukrainian soil. French Intelligence and the OSCE observers claimed the same. German Authorities revealed that the 'Russian invasion' issue was an invention of U.S. mainstream media. Yet still some idiots yack about it – the Stooge-in-Chief along with them. Why does a referendum stir up plenty of bile to Obama? Were the Crimeans to use firebombs and batons, like the neo-Nazis in Kiev, to please him?

He went on to state that the U.S. has few economic interests in Ukraine. Possibly it's unknown to him that Hunter Biden, the cocaine addict son of U.S. VP Joe Biden, is on the board of directors of a company engaged in partnership with Shell in fracking (Hydraulic Fracturing) in East Ukraine, aka Donbass? A 50-year production sharing deal between Shell and Ukraine was signed on January 2013. It's worth $10 billion and is the largest foreign direct investment ever for Ukraine. Then, why did Senator Insane McCain and other U.S. and EU officials cheer up anti-government protesters in Kiev? By the way, none of them appealed to the mob to eschew violence. And why did Assistant Secretary of State V. Nuland discuss with U.S. Ambassador G. Pyatt who should or shouldn't be in the next Ukrainian government? And most of all, why did puppet-president Poroshenko – a CIA insider in Ukraine since 2006 – sign the law on Ukraine's abandonment of its non-aligned policy?

The Stooge said, "Imagine if Russia had engaged in true diplomacy." Let's say, "Imagine if Russia had deployed some hundreds bases in Mexico, Canada, and all over the Caribbean."

He praised the Trans-Pacific Partnership, an agreement that will open markets, while protecting the rights of workers. Of course, a deal comparable to a gift to workers is way better to be negotiated in secrecy?

He blathered on about a nation of immigrants, international law, Ebola, future generations, free media. Free media in a country where six corporations control 90% of the media – is a Corporate State! His administration has been brutal in targeting whistleblowers, guilty of leaking real information to the press. A Pentagon document, the Law of War Manual, states that journalists may be treated like 'unprivileged belligerents', and allows the military to detain and question them. World Press Freedom Index ranked the U.S. at 49th place, lower than several African and South American countries. Obama said, "You can jail your opponents, but you can't imprison ideas." He should have said, "I can detain indefinitely without trial, as well as torture, and kill whomever I please within the U.S. and abroad."

And again, "You can try to control access to information, but you cannot turn a lie into truth." Meanwhile his administration paid for CNN content to run propaganda. Trumped-up stories were to look like news and adverse ones were to be deleted – it was the Amber Lyon Show!

He mentioned social media, but not to say that Facebook and Google, along with U.S. spy agencies, are part of Big Brother, which intercepts all data communication of Americans and the colonized Europeans – including Merkel and Hollande.

Then, he rejected the wall to keep out migrants in Hungary – but the one built by Israelis is cool, right? According to him, for 50 years the U.S. pursued a Cuba policy that failed to improve the lives of the Cubans. Improving lives by imposing an embargo, I wonder? What an idea! Let's say the U.S. is increasingly isolated in Latin America, losing ground in favor of Russia, and this compelled him to end hostile policies.

And again he said, "We can be patriotic without demonizing someone else." So, were those compliments, when addressing Assad, Putin, Gaddafi? Lately, wasn't he saying even Venezuela has turned into a threat to American security? Wasn't a Chinese aggression undergoing in the South China Sea? After having violated the Constitution in any possible way, he dared to cite George Washington! And more minor gibberish, unsubstantiated claims likely ridiculous even to the debt-bloated penpusher who wrote that filth on his behalf.

Obama's speech included just a couple of sentences not to be labeled as pitiful lies. It was about Iran: "The Iranian people have a proud history, and are filled with extraordinary potential. But chanting Death to America does not create jobs, or make Iran more secure."

True. Neither do sanctions create jobs. Nor does surrounding Iran with U.S. military bases make it secure. By the way, how many jobs were created by chanting Death to Gaddafi? And has that made Libya more secure?

Iran has never owned nukes. Sanctions were imposed against them to harm a competitor rich in resources and noncompliant with a U.S.-vetted government in office, and they were lifted because circumstances were changing to its benefit: with or without their removal, Russia, China, and even the EU were to re-engage Iran.

Drawing to a close, Obama found a way to insert a veiled threat: "Catastrophes, like what we are seeing in Syria, do not take place in countries where there is genuine democracy and respect for the universal values this institution is supposed to defend."

It means any country whose government from the Western point of view is not deemed democratic, aka neoliberal/pro-U.S., runs the risk of facing violent uprisings and a raise of terrorist formations aiming at overthrowing the government in office. It's the export of colored revolutions, a destabilize/invade/plunder program sponsored by the U.S. State Department.

By the end of a self-complacent, [self-]damning, lengthy performance, the message handed over was: all in all, the Good Guys have done a good job, and American exceptionalism is here to stay.

"We can no longer tolerate the current state of affairs in the world."

These words bashed [the UN] audience into a fraught silence. Russian President Vladimir Putin put matters straight in 23 minutes and nailed whomever it may concern to their responsibilities without having to mention [their names].

Policies perpetrated by a sole center of dominance, based on conviction in its exceptionalism and impunity, may lead to the collapse of international relations, and give rise to a world ruled by selfishness rather than collective effort, by dictate rather than equality and liberty, with protectorates controlled from outside rather than independent states.

No nation should be forced to conform to a single development model that somebody has declared the right one. Still, some prefer to export so-called "democratic" revolutions. In the Mideast and North Africa, the unleashed violence has destroyed government institutions and local lifestyle, bringing about poverty, social disaster, and total disregard for human rights, including the right to life.
"I'm urged to ask those who created this situation: do you at least realize now what you've done?"

Vacuums of power resulted in the emergence of areas of anarchy, quickly filled with extremists and terrorists. Members of the so-called 'moderate' Syrian opposition get arms and training by the West, then defect to the Islamic State, which does not come from nowhere, for it was initially developed as a weapon against 'undesirable' secular regimes. It's hypocritical and irresponsible to warn against the threat of terrorism and then turn a blind eye to its funding channels.

Stop playing games with terrorists to achieve political goals. Create a broad anti-terrorism coalition based on UN Charter. Fix the Mideast to fix the refugee crisis. Restore statehood in Libya, strengthen government institutions in Iraq, provide comprehensive assistance to the legitimate government of Syria – President Assad's troops along with Kurdish militia are the only forces truly fighting terrorists in Syria. Any assistance to sovereign nations is to be offered rather than imposed, in strict compliance with the UN Charter.

It's been NATO expansionism to Post-Soviet countries to spark off a major geo-political crisis in Ukraine. Sole way out of the dead end is full implementation of the Minsk agreement. No integrity can be ensured by threats or military force, and the rights and choices of Donbass citizens must be respected.

Unilaterally imposed sanctions circumventing the UN Charter serve political objectives and aim to eliminate market competition.

Trade rules are to be discussed within the framework of the United Nations, the WTO, and the G20, not rewritten behind closed doors to accommodate the interests of a privileged few.

Once [Putin's] speech was over, it was clear who was in charge.

While Obama delivered the crude, deceptive propaganda to the assembly, Putin presented a stark foreign policy agenda, and eventually stood up as the man to take over and put an end to chaos. Putin has faced terrorism all his political career long. He fixed Dagestan. He fixed Chechnya. He fixed South-Ossetia. He's got skills to fix Syria and Iraq as well.

When he rose to power, Russia was falling apart after the disastrous policies of the [alcohol] soaked-puppet Yeltsin, with no real budget, rampant inflation, low foreign exchange reserves, high crime rate and unemployment, public asset looted by foreign companies and crook oligarchs, and deeply indebted. Fifteen years after, Putin has re-built the country into a superpower reasserting its stance on the global political chessboard, leading major trade partnerships and an impressive military. This makes him a true Statesman.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/09/28/remarks-president-obama-united-nations-general-assembly

http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/50385

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article43142.htm

The Intercept has obtained a cache of secret documents detailing the inner workings of the U.S. military's assassination program in Afghanistan, Yemen, and Somalia. The documents, provided by a whistleblower, offer an unprecedented glimpse into Obama's drone wars.

Secret military documents expose the inner workings of Obama's drone wars

The Assassination Complex

DRONES ARE A TOOL, not a policy. The policy is assassination. While every president since Gerald Ford has upheld an executive order banning assassinations by U.S. personnel, Congress has avoided legislating the issue or even definingthe word "assassination." This has allowed proponents of the drone wars to rebrand assassinations with more palatable characterizations, such as the term du jour, "targeted killings."

When the Obama administration has discussed drone strikes publicly, it has offered assurances that such operations are a more precise alternative to boots on the ground and are authorized only when an "imminent" threat is present and there is "near certainty" that the intended target will be eliminated. Those terms, however, appear to have been bluntly redefinedto bear almost no resemblance to their commonly understood meanings.

The first drone strike outside of a declared war zone was conducted more than 12 years ago, yet it was not until May 2013 that the White House released a set of standards and procedures for conducting such strikes. Those guidelines offered little specificity, asserting that the U.S. would only conduct a lethal strike outside of an "area of active hostilities" if a target represents a "continuing, imminent threat to U.S. persons," without providing any sense of theinternal process used to determine whether a suspect should be killed without being indicted or tried. The implicit message on drone strikes from the Obama administration has been one of trust, but don't verify.

The Intercept has obtained a cache of secret slides that provides a window into the inner workings of the U.S. military's kill/capture operations at a key time in the evolution of the drone wars — between 2011 and 2013. The documents, which also outline the internal views of special operations forces on the shortcomings and flaws of the drone program, were provided by a source within the intelligence community who worked on the types of operations and programs described in the slides. The Intercept granted the source's request for anonymity because the materials are classified and because the U.S. government has engaged in aggressive prosecution of whistleblowers. The stories in this series will refer to the source as "the source."

The source said he decided to provide these documents to The Intercept because he believes the public has a right to understand the process by which people are placed on kill lists and ultimately assassinated on orders from the highest echelons of the U.S. government. "This outrageous explosion of watchlisting — of monitoring people and racking and stacking them on lists, assigning them numbers, assigning them 'baseball cards,' assigning them death sentences without notice, on a worldwide battlefield — it was, from the very first instance, wrong," the source said.

"We're allowing this to happen. And by 'we,' I mean every American citizen who has access to this information now, but continues to do nothing about it."

The Pentagon, White House, and Special Operations Command all declined to comment. A Defense Department spokesperson said, "We don't comment on the details of classified reports."

The CIA and the U.S. military's Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) operate parallel drone-based assassination programs, and the secret documents should be viewed in the context of an intense internal turf war over which entity should have supremacy in those operations. Two sets of slides focus on the military's high-value targeting campaign in Somalia and Yemen as it existed between 2011 and 2013, specifically the operations of a secretive unit, Task Force 48-4.

Additional documents on high-value kill/capture operations in Afghanistan buttress previous accounts of how the Obama administration masks the true number of civilians killed in drone strikes by categorizing unidentified people killed in a strike as enemies, even if they were not the intended targets. The slides also paint a picture of a campaign in Afghanistan aimed not only at eliminating al Qaeda and Taliban operatives, but also at taking out members of other local armed groups.

One top-secret document shows how the terror "watchlist" appears in the terminals of personnel conducting drone operations, linking unique codes associated with cellphone SIM cards and handsets to specific individuals in order to geolocate them. – Continue

See also

Nearly 90% Of Those Killed By US Drones Were Not Intended Targets : Those are among the key revelations of a bombshell report published by the Intercept Thursday.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article43133.htm

Note: This article was originally published on our website in September 2003, shortly after the Canal Hotel bombing in Iraq. It deals with US empire building in the Middle East via UN-sponsored operations and addresses the colonial mindset/gross double standards of some UN officials charged with carrying out this aim. The article remains relevant today, for it accurately points to the UN as a "bogus body of vassal agencies run by hand picked functionaries" that has "lost its independence and utility as a force for peace". Indeed, not much has changed over the past twelve years; like Iraq 10 years ago, the UN's recent destruction of Libya and Syria are testimony to the fact that this international organization carries on betraying the very principles it is intended to embody .

*

The bombing of the United Nations compound in Iraq has provoked anger, sorrow, bombastic bluster from the Bush Administration and unreflective promises to "carry on the humanitarian mission" from the Secretary General Kofi Annan. Debate and discussion, to the degree that it has appeared in the mass media focuses on who was responsible for the "security lapses", the UN and its supporters pointing to the incompetence of the US occupation army, the US officials blaming the UN officials for negligence. These discussions are secondary, technical matters and fail to deal with the deeper political reasons behind the attack of the UN.

The pro-Israeli neo-conservatives in Washington predictably attribute the UN bombing to Arab-Islamic-terrorism and lump together the bombing of an Israeli bus and the UN as justification for greater US and Israeli violence. The center-left praise the diplomatic and humanistic virtues of the UN's special representative in Iraq, Sergio Viera de Mello and with unblinking incomprehension claim that the bombing harmed the cause of the Iraqi people and set back the process of national reconstruction.

Both UN and US officials, neo-conservatives and center-left intellectuals fail to analyze the actual political role of the United Nations in Iraq and particularly the partisan political role of Sergio Viera de Mello which might have provoked the attack.

The United Nations led by Kofi Annan has not played an impartial role in the US- Iraq conflict. For over a decade the UN supported economic sanctions against Iraq, causing over 1 million Iraqi deaths, mostly children and the resignation of two top UN officials in protest. UN inspectors oversaw the disarming of Iraqi defenses and ignored or approved the US-British bombing of Iraq for over 12 years. Up to the final hour of the US invasion of Iraq, the entire attention of the UN was directed toward pressuring the Iraqi government to accept US demands, not condemning US war preparations, even as the Security Council did ultimately refuse to give approval to the unilateral US invasion. The historical record of the decade preceding the invasion clearly puts the UN on the side of the US, to the point that several of the UN inspectors were identified as working with the CIA and conducting searches and providing strategic information to US military intelligence.

To this some writer may object and argue that UN-US collaboration was a thing of the past, after the US military conquest the UN has not supported the colonial occupation and promoted a transition to democratic self-rule. Published documents, official interviews and UN resolutions present a far different picture. One in which the UN accepted and worked with US colonial ruler, Paul Bremer in an attempt to consolidate US control of the occupied country.

After the disastrous month in office of the first US colonial governor Garner, and his replacement by Paul Bremer, it became clear even to the most tenacious and bloody militarist in the Pentagon that imperial rulership was resulting in a powerful resistance movement of all sectors of Iraqi society and the total isolation of the US colonial regime from every Arab, Muslim or European regime (except England and of course Israel). The Bush Administration was adamant in its demand for total power in Iraq, but was willing to allow the UN to operate under US rule. Annam dispatched Viera de Mello to work with the US colonial governor Bremer and he was a brilliant political success in terms that were advantageous to US colonial power. Viera de Mello's UN mission was to collaborate with Bremer and directed toward creating an advisory junta (Interim Iraqi National Council) that would provide a figleaf for US colonial control. Operating under Resolution 1483 passed by the Security Council on May 22, 2003, de Mello was assigned eight areas of activity, all of which had to do with the "reconstruction" of the country especially in the political sphere. De Mello was active in enticing tribal leaders, conservative clerics as well as exile prodigies of the Pentagon to form the junta, with the proviso that the US colonial governor approved all of its members, and that all approved the US invasion and occupation. In effect de Mello organized a powerless collection of self-appointed elites who had no credibility in Iraq or legitimacy among the Iraqi populace, to serve as window dressing for US colonial rule. Once the US approved junta was in place, de Mello traveled throughout the Middle East trying to convince neighboring countries that the US "creation", opposed by the majority of Iraqis was a legitimate and representative "transitional regime". De Mello's main argument was that the US appointed junta was a "governing" and not merely "advisory" body, an argument that convinced nobody, least of all the US officials handing out contracts to Halliburton Corporation and organizing the privatization of Iraqi oil and certainly not the US military terrorizing and shooting innocent Iraqi civilians.

Both UN resolution 1483 in pursuit of "reconstruction" under US colonial rule and de Mello's active role in promoting and defending the US puppet interim regime were not disinterested humanitarian activities. These were political positions – commitments that involved acceptance of US colonial rule, and a clear and deliberate decision to use the United Nations as a vehicle for legitimating imperial rulership via an impotent and corrupt junta rejected by the Iraqi people. De Mello was certainly aware of the concentration of power in the hands of Bremer, he was certainly aware that the Iraqi people – who were never given a voice or vote in its selection, rejected the junta; he actively participated in excluding any anti-colonial critics from the council. His close working relationship with Paul Bermer, the US ruler of Iraq certainly undermined any pretense that the United Nations was an independent force in Iraq. In the eyes of the Iraqis and two former top UN officials (Boutros Gali and Denis Halliday) the UN and in particular Kofi Annan and de Mello were appendages of US colonial power.

Denis Halliday, the former UN Assistant Secretary General and UN H umanitarian Coordinator in Iraq recently stated that the bombing of the UN in Iraq was payback for collusion with the US. On August 24, 2003 in an interview with The Sunday Herald (Scotland) he noted that "further collaboration" between the UN and the US and Britain "would be a disaster for the United Nations as it would be sucked into supporting the illegal occupation of Iraq. The UN has been drawn into being an arm of the US – a division of the State Department. Kofi Annan was appointed and supported by the US and that has corrupted the independence of the UN".

In an interview with the BBC, Boutros Boutros Ghali, former Secretary General of the UN, speaking in the aftermath of the bombing, stated "the perception in a great part of the Third World is that the United Nations, because of the American (sic) influenceŠ is a system which discriminated (against) many countries of the Third World." George Monbiot of the British newspaper The Guardian (August 25, 2003) observes: "The US government has made it perfectly clear that the UN may operate in Iraq only as a subcontractor. Foreign troops will take their orders from Washington." None of these remarks appeared in any form in any of the US mass media.

The UN has moved very far from its original founding principles. As one time the UN stood for peace, social justice and self-determination and opposed colonial wars, pillage of national wealth and colonial rule. Given the active partisan role of the UN in Iraq, in creating a political framework compatible with prolonged US colonial rulership, it is not at all a mystery why the Iraqi resistance targeted the UN building just as it targets the imperial army and the oil pipelines up for sale to US and European multinational corporations. Having taken sides with the US, it is the height of hypocrisy for top UN officials to claim to be innocent victims. Just as it is deceptive for US and UN officials to claim that the anti-colonial resistance is made up of "foreigners", Saddam Hussein "remnants", Al Queda terrorists, Sunni extremists or Iranian Shiites. The resistance is not confined to areas where Saddam Hussein was popular, nor is it limited to areas of Sunni believers; it is in the north and south, east and west, covering all ethnic and religious regions and enclaves. The resistance is national, indigenous and based on opposition to US colonial occupation, destruction of infrastructure and the physical and psychological degradation of 23 million Iraqis. While the Iraqis suffer from 80% unemployment and go without clean water, food and electricity, high UN officials draw salaries between $80,000 to $150,000 a year, are chauffeured in luxury cars and SUV's, work in air conditioned offices and dine on fresh imported food in comfortable apartments or villas – enjoying the best of colonial life. One does not need to introduce the Al Queda hypothesis to understand how political and personal resentment against these self- important imperial collaborators could boil over into a violent attack.

It is clear to many in the Middle East that the UN has become a bogus body of vassal agencies run by hand picked functionaries like de Mello, whose charm and cleverness does not compensate for their collaboration in US empire building. For a growing number of professionals, journalists and particularly ordinary people it is becoming clear that the United Nations has lost its independence and utility as a force for peace. Increasingly social movements and Third World nations are looking to new international organizations and forums to pursue the principles, which the UN has betrayed. The new body will have to renounce the elitist character of the current UN with its two tiered system of voting and power; it will have to reject membership to countries which embrace "preventive" wars of conquest and colonial rule and pillage of national resources. In a word the new international organization and its secretary-general must not be an appendage of Washington – if it wishes to avoid the tragedy of the UN – a body which started with great ideals and ended as a cynical manipulator of ideals in the services of imperial power.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-politics-of-the-un-tragedy/5482154

Interview of Andre Vltchek by Kourosh Ziabari

An acclaimed philosopher and journalist who has recently visited Iran tells Fars News Agency that the reality of Iran is absolutely different from the way it's being illustrated in the mainstream media.

Andre Vltchek says "Iran that you see when visiting the country has nothing in common with that imaginary, terrible and cruel Iran that the West's mass media has created."

Commenting on Iran's nuclear program and the international responses to it, Andre Vltchek says the majority of the Middle East nations and the global public don't have any objections to Iran developing nuclear technology, considering Iran's peaceful nature and its long history of non-violence.

"I am actually horrified that such countries, such colonial powers like the United States, France and the UK have their nuclear arsenal and that the world is tolerating it. These countries are responsible for loss of hundreds of millions of human lives, all over the world. But Iran! Why should anyone fear Iran? Yes, Iran is transparent and accountable over its nuclear program," he asserted.

Vltchek who has traveled to tens of countries in five continents talks of his experience in Iran with delight, noting that without visiting Iran, "one's knowledge of the world could never be complete."

Andre Vltchek was a keynote speaker at the International Congress on 17,000 Iranian Terror Victims held in Tehran last month.

FNA spoke to Mr. Vltchek about Iran's relations with the West, the portrayal of Iran in the Western media and the international perceptions of the country's nuclear program.

Q: You recently attended the International Congress on 17,000 Iranian Terror Victims, which commemorated the Iranian citizens and officials murdered by the terrorist groups following the Islamic Revolution in 1979. Isn't it ironic that while Iran says it's been a victim of global terrorism itself, it's being accused by some of the major powers and their allies of sponsoring terrorism?

A: Yes it is ironic, but the entire arrangement of the world is more than ironic; it is grotesque. We have a group of several, mainly Western countries, ruling the world, brutalizing all continents, reigning over entire planet using dictatorial and often criminal means, but these countries are accusing others, mainly their victims, of being undemocratic [and] even of sponsoring terrorism.

Their propaganda is extremely advanced. It was being perfected throughout the centuries. I suggest one thing: keep telling the truth and continue presenting facts. But the countries like Iran should not engage in direct debate with the West over these issues. It is because the West and its propaganda are too advanced in their ways and in the methods to manipulate public opinion through distorting the facts. Their outright lies are now more convincing than the truth.

Q: The Iranian officials and ordinary citizens have complained in the recent years that the international community didn't adopt a firm stance in protest against the assassination of the nation's nuclear scientists between 2010 and 2012. In March 2014, a CBS national correspondent Dan Raviv suggested that Israel's intelligence agency Mossad was behind the killing of five Iranian civilian scientists, and that the Obama administration had asked Benjamin Netanyahu to stop the assassination campaign. Why wasn't there any official, public condemnation by the world leaders and international organizations on those killings?

A: First of all, because in the West, the majority of people has absolutely no idea that Iran's nuclear scientists were actually assassinated. Only a very small percentage of the citizens of Europe and North America are well informed and capable of thinking independently. I estimate that between 1 to 2 percent of their population has any idea about the reality. And these people are not holding the power.

As you are well aware, Iran had been defined – by the West – as a pariah state. It had been accused of so many horrible things. These accusations are stereotypical. Actually, each country that does not kneel in front of the West's colonialist ambitions is accused of these same "crimes". This way, the West's public is systematically de-sensitized. After smearing a country like Iran, people in the West think, well, whatever is done to change their "regime" is actually quite legitimate. If it is done through the killing, fine; if using embargos, ok; overthrowing the government – why not? It is extremely brutal game, and there is no compassion there, no feelings; as there is no justice.

Q: The Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MKO), is an armed group responsible for the killing of hundreds of Iranian government officials and ordinary citizens in the years following the 1979 revolution. The group was on the US Department of State's list of foreign terrorist organizations for 15 years, and also considered a terrorist group by the Council of the European Union and the Canadian government. However, the designation was surprisingly lifted in 2012, and the sect is now simply considered a political opposition party. What's the main reason behind the decision to de-list MKO? Won't their decision give the MKO greater leeway to carry out terrorist operations inside Iran more conveniently and destabilize the country?

A: Exactly. But that is really their goal, to use MKO as destabilizing factor against Iran, as ISIL is used to destroy Syria and Iraq, [and] as some of the most ruthless and brutal right-wing groups are used to destroy Latin American revolutions. The West is using exactly the same methods against China and Russia and against so many other independent-minded countries. Please do not search for logic behind these acts committed by the West. Their goals are strictly destructive.

Q: One of the questions you raised during your keynote speech during the opening session of the International Congress on 17,000 Iranian Terror Victims in Tehran was that, "why is Iran a target of terrorists supported by the West?" What's your response to your own question? As you mentioned, Iran has been a harmless country that never attacked any of its neighbors, nor did it overthrow any government. So, why should it be on the receiving end of so much aggression?

A: As I mentioned during my speech in Tehran: it is because "Iran is doing many things right". It is because Iran's government wants to improve the standard of living of its people, instead of feeding foreign corporations, and instead of taking orders from the foreign regimes. It is because of Iran's great friendship with other independent-minded countries and movements in Latin America, the Middle East, Africa, as well as China and Russia – two powers that are now standing firmly against the Western imperialism. Presidents Ahmadinejad and Chavez of Venezuela were very close friends. Iran is seen with sympathy by tens of millions of people in this region. And as I was told by great North American thinker, Noam Chomsky, while we were making a film and writing a book entitled "On Western Terrorism – From Hiroshima to Drone Warfare", most of the countries of the Middle East are seeing real danger in the US and in Israel, while only a tiny fraction sees Iran as a menace. All that I just mentioned above makes the Western empire absolutely furious.

The only way to make a "peace" with the West would be to kneel down and to sacrifice Iranian people to the foreign interests. There is no compromise, no other way; the West always demands nothing less than everything. And Iran's government would never commit such treason; it would not betray or sacrifice its people.

Q: In one of your reports from Iran, you noted that there are powers which continually demand Iranians to show transparency and build confidence, while staying in "murkiness" themselves. You said they challenge, scrutinize, corner, bully and humiliate the people of Iran systemically. I suppose you were referring to Iran's nuclear program, for which it has been under pressure for over a decade. What do you think are the reasons for these pressures? Hasn't Iran been adequately transparent and accountable over its nuclear program?

A: Yes it has been. But again, it is not what Iran actually does. It is what the Western propaganda wants Iran to be perceived as, by the rest of the world. Iran that you see when visiting the country has nothing in common with that imaginary, terrible and cruel Iran that the West's mass media has created.

Again, referring to the public opinion in the Middle East, most of people there would absolutely not mind if Iran would have its own military nuclear program. I would definitely not mind! Why should anyone mind, given extremely peaceful history of Iran? I am actually horrified that such countries, such colonial powers like the United States, France and the UK have their nuclear arsenal and that the world is tolerating it. These countries are responsible for loss of hundreds of millions of human lives, all over the world. But Iran! Why should anyone fear Iran? Yes, Iran is transparent and accountable over its nuclear program.

But the way the West had been operating on the global stage is like this; a gang of bandits which just robbed a village corners some poor victim, then points fingers at him and shouts: "Thief!" and they run after him, beat him up.

I described this, in detail, in my 840-page book "Exposing Lies of The Empire". There, I am offering dozens of concrete examples, from all over the world, how the Empire is demonizing and destroying its "enemies".

This is how it is; this is arrangement of the world in which we are living and that is why this global dictatorship of the West has to end, as soon as possible.

Q: In the reports you filed from Iran, you described the country's public sphere as peaceful, tranquil and its people as cordial and hospitable. While many US and European citizens are afraid of traveling to Iran as visitors and tourists since they say it's an unsafe and dangerous place, what would you tell them about your experience? Why is there so much misconception about Iran and its people in the minds of the Western public? Is it necessary that they change the way they look at and think about Iran

A: We are talking about one of the oldest and one of the deepest cultures on earth! Without visiting Iran, one's knowledge of the world could never be complete. From ancient-days science, architecture and poetry, to modern cinema – arguably the greatest on earth, Iran managed to influence the world, greatly and positively.

To visit Iran, to mingle with its people – that is absolutely the minimum that any thinking human being could and should do.

Why is there so much misconception? It is very simple question to answer: Western propaganda knows that the easiest way to gain support at home and abroad for its hostile, or call it terrorist, actions against those proud and independent nations that are opposing the Empire, is to smear them, demonize them. Hollywood and mainstream media play submissive, servile role, spreading false information and perceptions. And Hollywood as well as the Western mainstream media, have been pushed down the throat of the people all over the world. They are part of that grand disinformation and brainwashing apparatus. Once the country is defamed, it is much simpler to justify sanctions, even direct or indirect invasion.

I therefore encourage people from all corners of the world to visit Iran and to see the reality with their own eyes. I tell them: stop trusting Western propaganda, and stop acting like sheep! Go and see, and judge by yourself!

Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. His latest books are: "Exposing Lies Of The Empire" and  "Fighting Against Western Imperialism".  Discussion with Noam Chomsky:On Western Terrorism. Point of No Return is his critically acclaimed political novel. Oceania – a book on Western imperialism in the South Pacific. His provocative book about Indonesia: "Indonesia – The Archipelago of Fear". Andre is making films for teleSUR and Press TV. After living for many years in Latin America and Oceania, Vltchek presently resides and works in East Asia and the Middle East. He can be reached through his websiteor his Twitter.

Kourosh Ziabari is an award-winning Iranian journalist and media correspondent. He has won three awards in Iran's National Press Festival and is the recipient of the National Medal of Superior Iranian Youth in a festival that recognized the elite Iranian youth in sciences, arts, sports, entrepreneurship, environmental activism, literature and media. Kourosh has been a member of the student assembly at the International Student Energy Summit 2009 in Calgary, Canada. His articles and interviews with prominent world leaders, politicians, diplomats and academicians have appeared on many leading sites. A collection of his articles and interviews can be found on his website at:www.KouroshZiabari.com
Facebook: www.facebook.com/Kourosh.Ziabari
Twitter:www.twitter.com/KZiabari

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-west-is-lying-about-iran-iran-has-been-transparent-and-accountable-over-its-nuclear-program/5482094

Universal jurisdiction is one of those legal beasts that frightens as much as it excites.  The debate about such jurisdiction, which enables prosecutors from one state to effectively prosecute war crimes or crimes against humanity committed in another state is a highly contentious one.

The International Criminal Court is meant to provide a platform that has looked, largely because of circumstance and procedure, all too much like a body with an African bias.  Regarding the Syrian conflict, there have been calls to bring its operations within the purview of ICC jurisdiction, one made difficult by Syria being a non-signatory to the Rome Statute.  On May 19, 2014, 58 countries issued a statement and letter calling on the UN Security Council to adopt a French sponsored resolution doing just that.

The move was welcomed by Human Rights Watch, including its international justice counsel Balkees Jarrah.  "The movement for justice for victims in Syria is gaining unprecedented momentum. By officially co-sponsoring the resolution for an ICC referral, countries will be taking a critically important stand for accountability for serious crimes by all sides."[1]  Wheels, however, tend to turn slowly in the UN.

Retaining the colouring of an equally balanced prosecution, with an effort to evenly account for crimes created by all sides, is where such efforts tend to break down.  But the ICC, in that sense, still retains some link to an internationalised procedure that can account for atrocities.  Critics of the various sides in the conflict will, however, be impatient, and France, having taken the lead to bring the ICC into play, is charging out with its own suggestions.

Needless to say, these efforts haven proven to be more selective. To that end, it is hard to envisage a situation of objectively contrived justice for Assad's "victims" and his prosecution without also placing French objectives for the region into perspective.  The Hollande government wishes Assad out; its prosecutors wish to see him in the dock.  Syria's victims provide the handy, if cynically manipulated alibis, to justify the action.

On September 30, the prosecutor's office in Paris announced that it will be opening an investigation into torture carried out by the Assad regime. It does not even purport to target other sides in the conflict, including Islamic State.  In a conflict of competing cruelties, even this action seems calculating.

French Foreign Minister, Laurent Fabius, made it clear who he had in his legal sights.  "Faced with these crimes that offend the human conscience, this bureaucracy of horror, faced with this denial of values of humanity, it is our responsibility to act against the impunity of the killers."  The move was billed as "the world's first criminal inquiry into torture under President Bashar al-Assad of Syria".[2]

This enterprise is already filled with a range of calculations, much of them based upon the assumption that this legal case will rile Assad and form the basis of negotiations for a future "settlement" of the conflict. For one, it involves the French foreign ministry, ever that intrusive figure of imperial valour in the Middle East, pushing upon prosecutors a dossier stacked with pictures of torture victims.

The pictures first made their appearance on CNN in January last year, suggesting that eleven thousand individuals had been systematically murdered in the Syrian prison system, mostly through a gruesome regime of torture.  The graphic imagery had been the work of a photographer for the military police code-named Caesar, one tasked with taking pictures of bodies brought from prison detention.[3] In escaping Syria, his stash of images numbered some 55 thousand.  Denials about their authenticity followed.

Even legal outlets keeping an eye on the proceedings conceded that the moves had a stark political flavour.  Russia's efforts to "rehabilitate" Assad had to be countered by such measures, even if they needed Paris to identify a French victim or arrest a Syrian official.[4]

Such zealous efforts are not necessarily going to ring sweetly in the corridors of power in the US and Israel. Both sides have made their opposition to universal jurisdiction, or at least instances of its use, before.  Political expedience is cited as a prevailing poison in such affairs.

One of its strongest critics remains a figure who himself would look fitting in a criminal court – former US Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger.  "The danger lies [in submitting international politics to judicial procedures] in pushing the effort to extremes that risk substituting the tyranny of judges for that of governments; historically the dictatorship of the virtuous has often led to inquisitions and even witch-hunts" (Foreign Affairs, Jul/Aug 2011).

One country that has shown a particular interest in universal jurisdiction is Spain.  On October 31, 2010, Spanish Judge Ferdinand Andreu refused to grant former Internal Security Minister Avi Dichter immunity from prosecution for a trip to Spain where he was intent on participating in a peace summit.[5]

Dichter was facing charges for war crimes and crimes against humanity for his involvement in the assassination of former senior Hamas member Salah Shedade.  The operation, supervised by Dichter, saw the deployment of a one-ton bomb in Al-Daraj, a residential neighbourhood in Gaza that killed fourteen civilians, including eight children, and injured 150 others.

While it is tempting to see international law as a manifestation of higher workings, wise judges and legal briefings without political manipulation, the view is but an illusion. The French effort here to forge a prosecution through domestic mechanisms looks more political than substantial, even if there has been, over the last 25 years, an understanding that "enemies of the human race"– hostes humani generis – need to face some judicial procedure.  But international law, for all its contentions, remains a product of the law of nations and national interest.  Human rights protocols remain weapons used by governments against others.

While there is much to merit investigations and prosecutions of a range of horrendous crimes committed against civilians in Syria by a complex range of sides and powers, the specificity of these claims against Assad for torture, tend to dispel notions of a virtuous tyranny in action.

This is a warring environment that permits barrel bombs, chemical weapons, beheadings and torture.  It is a hothouse of cruelties, and pulling the rabbit out of the hat specifically for Assad's criminality, in the absence of considering those he is battling against, will be a tall order.  The only truly appropriate forum, should it ever come, will have to be a Syrian court, but do not expect that to be particularly balanced, either by local or international design, either.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-tyranny-of-virtue-france-universal-jurisdiction-and-syrias-assads-regime/5482203