Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

UK has spent $2.4bn on bombing Iraq, Syria: Official data

Press TV – February 27, 2018

The British government has spent over $2.44 billion (£1.7bn) to carry out airstrikes in Iraq and Syria since 2014, the year the US and its allies formed a so-called coalition to allegedly counter terrorist groups wreaking havoc in the two Arab countries, according to official data.

The larger chunk of the money, around $2 billion (£1.5bn), has gone into flying the Royal Air Force (RAF)’s Tornado and Eurofighter Typhoon fighter jets as well as Reaper attack and surveillance drones for more than 42,000 hours.

The figures, revealed on Monday in response to a Freedom of Information requests by anti-war group Drone Wars UK, seemed to be a fraction of what London has spent over the course of its unauthorized intervention dubbed Operation Shader.

The British air force has also dropped over 3,500 units of various munitions in over 1,700 airstrikes on Syrian and Iraqi targets at a cost of around $375 million (£267mn) over the past three and a half years.

That includes Paveway IV laser-guided bombs that cost an estimated $98,000 (£70,000) apiece for the older version and $140,000 (£100,000) for the enhanced ones.

RAF pilots have also fired no less than 8 Storm Shadow cruise missiles that are said to cost around $1,100,000 (£800,000) per unit, the activist group said.

The costs would grow if besides fuel, which is included in official figures, undisclosed data such as crew payments, aircraft maintenance and capital data are also included.

Drone Wars UK estimates that it costs the RAF $112,000 (£80,000) to keep the multi-role Typhoons airborne for an hour, while the figure drops to $49,000 (£35,000) and ($4,900) £3,500 for Tornado and Reaper aircraft respectively.

However large, the numbers are still a fraction of what the US-led coalition has collectively spent during the campaign, which has seen 105,000 bombs and missiles used in some 29,000 airstrikes. Drone Wars said the military campaign has cost around $10.5 billion (£8 bn).

The sheer number of US-led airstrikes since 2014 has alarmed rights activists about the possible civilian casualties.

While the US has only admitted to killing 841 civilians in the strikes, Drone Wars UK said it had recorded over 6,000 civilian deaths as a result of the military campaign. Neither Syria nor the United Nations have authorized the attacks.

The coalition forces have on many occasions air-dropped weapons and equipment for terrorists while targeting Syrian and Iraqi government forces who fight them.

February 27, 2018 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Bull in a China Shop: US Announces More Unilateral Sanctions on North Korea

By Alex GORKA | Strategic Culture Foundation | 26.02.2018

On Feb.23, the US Treasury Department announced the introduction of sanctions on 56 shipping vessels and entities accused of illicit trading with North Korea. The pressure intensification pursues the goal of compelling Pyongyang to give up its nuclear program. Today, almost all ships used for trade with that country are under the restrictive measures, including ship-to-ship transfers.

It’s timing that is important. The move is taken at a time the Winter Olympics are being hosted by South Korea. The event is used for easing tensions and launching dialogue between Seoul and Pyongyang.

Gradually, Washington is edging closer to the imposition of an economic blockade enforced by the US Navy. “If the sanctions don’t work, we’ll have to go Phase 2,” President Trump said, obviously meaning the use of force. “Phase 2 may be a very rough thing,” he warned.

Washington appears to be serious about its intent to go really far. In December, 2017, the US tried to insert a provision into the resolution on Pyongyang that would permit to hail and board North Korean ships in international waters. In January, Defense Secretary James Mattis said the US military had prepared a North Korea war plan. According to leading American experts on nuclear issues, Pyongyang may have as many as 20 nuclear warheads.

US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin says his country will sanction anyone who does not comply with the restrictive measures it imposes. But only the UN-endorsed sanctions are mandatory. If Russia or China imposed sanctions against a country the US maintains trade ties with, would it agree to comply?

There is another aspect of the problem to be paid attention to. US lawmakers are not biding time. The legislation has already passed the House of Representatives. This is a very dangerous legislation that few people remember about. It not only the calls for being as tough as can be but also includes «inspection authorities» over the sea ports of Russia, China, Iran and Syria (Section 104). The legislation mentions the Russian ports of Vladivostok, Nakhodka and Vanino. It authorizes US Secretary of Homeland Security to search any vessel or aircraft that have used North Korean airports or seaports to make them subject to nothing less than “seizure and forfeiture”! The bill openly dictates that other countries must comply with US laws.

And the proposed surveillance of sovereign ports in the Russian Far East! If enforced, it would not only grossly violate international law but also constitute an act of war. But how could lawmakers approve it? Will US senators be wise enough to realize that Russia, China or Iran compliance with these provisions is as realistic as a dog observing a barking ban?

One more thing to emphasize. There had been no real bipartisan debate before the Act was voted by the House. It was handled under a “suspension of the rules” procedure, which is normally applied to noncontroversial bills. It helped to make it pass with only one “no” vote.

The UN Security Council has never delegated the authority to inspect other countries’ vessels or seaports to the US. The 1994 Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control in the Asia-Pacific Region describes in detail the procedures in question. No country has special rights to get onboard of other countries’ ships.

An attempt to board a foreign ship would be a hostile act with unpredictable consequences. Russia and China will certainly counter such activities. But the US Navy will have to do it, once the legislation becomes law. The representatives who endorsed it were fully aware of what it might lead to but they did what they did. It reflects the mentality of those who are responsible for shaping US foreign policy as members of Congress.

And the new sanctions just announced by the administration, who are they aimed at? Probably, ordinary people instead of those who are responsible for the nuclear tests.

The problem is the reluctance of American politicians to perceive reality. The days when the US could do it alone are gone. Only an international effort can solve the North Korean problem. Unilateral actions are fraught with provoking conflicts not because other countries sympathize with or support North Korea but because they have no choice but stand up to the US challenge to remain sovereign nations. It’s time for the US to change mentality and stop behaving like a bull in a china shop.

February 26, 2018 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

New Proposal Designed to Confuse Public and Prevent Medicare for All

By Margaret Flowers | HealthOverProfit | February 23, 2018

The Center for American Progress (CAP), a Washington-based Democratic Party think tank funded by Wall Street, including private health insurers and their lobbying group, unveiled a new healthcare proposal designed to confuse supporters of Medicare for All and protect private health insurance profits. It is receiving widespread coverage in ‘progressive’ media outlets. We must be aware of what is happening so that we are not fooled into another ‘public option’ dead end.*

The fact that CAP is using Medicare for All language is both a blessing and a curse. It means Medicare for All is so popular that they feel a need to co-opt it, and it means that they are trying to co-opt it, which will give Democrats an opportunity to use it to confuse people.

This effort could be preparation for the possibility that Democrats win a majority in Congress in 2018 or 2020. It is normal for the pendulum to swing to the party opposite the President’s party during the first term in office. If Democrats win a majority, they will be expected to deliver on health care, but they face a dilemma of having to please their campaign donors, which includes the health insurance industry, or pleasing their voters, where 75% support single payer health care.

The public is aware that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) protects the profits of the medical-industrial complex (private health insurers, Big Pharma and for-profit providers) and not the healthcare needs of the public. “Fixing the ACA” is not popular. Last year during repeal attempts, people made it clear at town halls and rallies that they want a single payer healthcare system such as National Improved Medicare for All (NIMA). By offering a solution that sounds good to the uninformed, “Medicare Extra for All,” but continues to benefit their Wall Street donors, Democrats hope to fool people or buy enough support to undermine efforts for NIMA.

This is an expected development. If we look at the phases of stage six of successful social movements by Bill Moyer (see slide 8), we see that as a movement nears victory, the power holders appear to get in line with the public’s solution while actually attacking it. If the movement recognizes what is happening, that this is a false solution and not what the movement is demanding, then we have a chance to win NIMA. If the movement falls for the false solution, it loses.

Our tasks at this moment are to understand what the power holders are offering, recognize why it is a false solution and reject it.

“Medicare Extra for All” versus National Improved Medicare for All

The basic outline for the new proposal is that people would be able to buy a Medicare plan, a form of ‘public option,’ including the Medicare Advantage plans offered by private health insurers. People who choose to buy a Medicare plan would pay premiums and co-pays, as they do now for private health insurance. The new Medicare system would replace Medicaid for people with low incomes.

Private health insurance would still exist for employers, who currently cover the largest number of people, federal employees and the military. While workers would have the option to buy a Medicare plan, it is unclear how many would do so given that most employers who provide health insurance have their own plans and that private health insurers are experts at marketing their plans to the public.

NIMA, as embodied in HR 676: “The Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act,” would create a single national healthcare system, paid for up front through taxes, that covers every person from birth to death and covers all medically-necessary care. NIMA relegates private insurance to the sidelines where it could potentially provide supplemental coverage for those who want extras, but it would no longer serve as a barrier for people who need care.

Here are the flaws in the CAP proposal:

  1. CAP’s plan will continue to leave people without health insurance. Instead of being a universal system of national coverage like NIMA, coverage under the CAP plan relies on people’s ability to afford health insurance. Only people with low incomes would not pay, as they do now under Medicaid. Just as it is today, those who do not qualify as low income, but still can’t afford health insurance premiums, would be left out. Almost 30 million are without coverage today. There is no guarantee that health insurance premiums will be affordable.
  2. CAPS’s plan will continue to leave people with inadequate coverage. Under NIMA, all people have the same comprehensive coverage without financial barriers to care. The CAP plan allows private health insurers to do what they do best – restrict where people can seek health care, shift the cost of care onto patients and deny payment for care. This is the business model of private health insurers because they are financial instruments designed to make profits for their investors. People with health insurance will face the same bureaucratic nightmare of our current system and out-of-pocket costs that force them to delay or avoid health care or risk bankruptcy when they have high health care needs.
  3. CAP’s plan will continue the high costs of health care. NIMA has been proven over and over to have the best cost efficiency because it is one plan with one set of rules. It is estimated that NIMA will save $500 billion each year on administrative costs and over $100 billion each year on reduced prices for pharmaceuticals. As a single purchaser of care, NIMA has powerful leverage to lower the costs of goods and services. The CAP plan maintains the complicated multi-payer system that we have today. At best, it will only achieve 16% of the administrative savings of a single payer system and it will have less power to reign in the high costs of care.
  4. CAP’s plan will allow private health insurers to continue to rip off the government. NIMA is a publicly-financed program without the requirement of creating profits for investors. With a low overhead, most of the dollars are used to pay for health care. The CAP plan maintains the same problems that exist with Medicare today. Private Medicare providers cherry pick the healthiest patients and those who have or develop healthcare needs wind up in the public Medicare plan. This places a financial burden on the public Medicare plan, which has to pay for the most care, while private health insurers rake in huge profits from covering the healthy with a guaranteed payor, the government.
  5. CAP’s plan will continue to perpetuate health disparities. NIMA provides a single standard of care to all people. Because all people, rich and poor (and lawmakers), are in the same system, there are strong incentives to make it a high quality program. CAP’s plan maintains the current tiered system in which some people have private health insurance, those with the greatest needs have public health insurance, some people will have inadequate coverage and others will have no coverage at all.
  6. CAP’s plan will continue to restrict patients’ choices. NIMA creates a nationwide network of coverage and consistent coverage from year-to-year so that patients choose where they seek care and have the freedom to stay with a health professional or leave if they are dissatisfied. CAP’s plan continues private health insurers and their restricted networks that dictate where patients can seek care. Private plans change from year-to-year and employers change the plans they offer, so patients will still face the risk of losing access to a health professional due to changes in their plan.
  7. CAP’s plan does not guarantee portability. NIMA creates a health system that covers everyone no matter where they are in the United States and its territories. CAP’s plan maintains the link between employment and health coverage. When people who have private health insurance lose their job or move, they risk losing their health insurance.
  8. CAP’s plan will perpetuate physician burn-out. NIMA creates a healthcare system that is simple for both patients and health professionals to use. Under the current system, which the CAP plan will perpetuate, health professionals spend more time on paperwork than they do with patients and physician offices spend hours fighting with health insurers for authorization for care and for payment for their services. This is driving high rates of physician burnout. Suicides among physicians and physicians-in-training are higher than the general population.

The new proposal is a ‘public option’ wrapped in a “Medicare for All” cloak. It is a far cry from National Improved Medicare for All. And, contrary to what CAP and its allies will tell you, the CAP plan will delay and prevent the achievement of NIMA.

Co-founders of Physicians for a National Health Program**, Drs. Steffie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein, explained why the public option would not work in the last health reform effort:

“The ‘public plan option’ won’t work to fix the health care system for two reasons.

“1. It forgoes at least 84 percent of the administrative savings available through single payer. The public plan option would do nothing to streamline the administrative tasks (and costs) of hospitals, physicians offices, and nursing homes, which would still contend with multiple payers, and hence still need the complex cost tracking and billing apparatus that drives administrative costs. These unnecessary provider administrative costs account for the vast majority of bureaucratic waste. Hence, even if 95 percent of Americans who are currently privately insured were to join the public plan (and it had overhead costs at current Medicare levels), the savings on insurance overhead would amount to only 16 percent of the roughly $400 billion annually achievable through single payer — not enough to make reform affordable.

“2. A quarter century of experience with public/private competition in the Medicare program demonstrates that the private plans will not allow a level playing field. Despite strict regulation, private insurers have successfully cherry picked healthier seniors, and have exploited regional health spending differences to their advantage. They have progressively undermined the public plan — which started as the single payer for seniors and has now become a funding mechanism for HMOs — and a place to dump the unprofitably ill. A public plan option does not lead toward single payer, but toward the segregation of patients, with profitable ones in private plans and unprofitable ones in the public plan.”

What we must do

The movement for National Improved Medicare for All experienced tremendous growth in the past few years. All of the flaws of the Affordable Care Act are becoming reality as people are forced to pay high health insurance premiums, face high out-of-pocket costs before they can receive care and have their access to health professionals or services denied. There is a strong demand for NIMA that has resulted in more than half of the Democrats in the House of Representatives signing on to HR 676 and a third of the Democratic Senators endorsing the Senate Medicare for All bill. Medicare for All is becoming a litmus test for the 2018 elections and 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.

Power holders are feeling threatened by support for NIMA. They are looking for ways to throw the movement off track and allow lawmakers who don’t support NIMA to support something that sounds like NIMA. This is why they invented “Medicare Extra for All.” It is common for the opposition to adopt our language when we have strong support.

This is the time when the movement for NIMA needs to remain focused on our goal of NIMA, resist compromising and escalate our pressure for NIMA. We are closer to winning, it’s time to increase our efforts to pass the finish line.

Here are our tasks:

  • We need to expose the reasons for CAP’s proposal. It is designed to protect  health insurance industry profits.
  • We need to educate ourselves and others about the reasons why CAP’s proposal is flawed and deficient.
  • We need to educate and challenge lawmakers and candidates who speak in favor of CAP’s proposal and push them to support NIMA.
  • We need to be loud and vocal in our demand for nothing less than NIMA, as described in HR 676.
  • We need to make support for HR 676 a litmus test in the upcoming elections.

We need to practice “ICU” – being independent of political party on this issue by not tying our agenda to the corporate agenda of major political parties, being clear about what will and what will not solve our healthcare crisis, and being uncompromising in our demand for National Improve Medicare for All.

With a concentrated effort for NIMA, we can overcome this distraction*** and win National Improved Medicare for All. This is the time for all supporters of single payer health care to focus on federal lawmakers from both parties. Movements never realize how close they are to winning and victory often feels far away when it is actually close at hand.

The fact that the Democrats are proposing something that sounds like NIMA means we are gaining power. Let’s use it to finally solve the healthcare crisis in the United States and join many other countries in providing health care for everyone. NIMA is the smallest step we can take to head down the path of saving lives and improving health in our country.

 

 

*The ‘public option’ dead end occurred during the health reform process of 2009-10. Faced with widespread public support for National Improved Medicare for All, and 80% support by Democratic Party voters, the power holders had to find a way to suppress that support. They created the idea of a ‘public option,’ a public health insurance for part of the population, and convinced progressives that this was more politically-feasible and a back door to a single payer healthcare system. Tens of millions of dollars were donated to create a new coalition, Health Care for America Now (similar in name to Healthcare-Now, a national single payer organization – this was intentional), that organized progressives to fight for this public option and suppress single payer supporters (they were openly hostile when we raised single payer). Many single payer supporters fell for it, and the movement was successfully divided and weakened. Kevin Zeese and I wrote about this in more detail in “Obamacare: The Biggest Health Insurance Scam in History.”

** Read more about this from Dr. Don McCanne of Physicians for a National Health Program in his Quote-of-the-Day.

*** Read more about intentional distractions through incremental approaches to prevent National Improved Medicare for All in this presentation.

February 25, 2018 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Economics, Solidarity and Activism, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

US curbs bid to take Iran off FATF financial blacklist

Press TV – February 24, 2018

The world’s financial watchdog has extended a waiver for punitive measures against Iran for another six months but refused to remove the country from its blacklist.

The Paris-based the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) had been weighing Tehran’s request for the lifting of so-called countermeasures for some time but a flurry of recent visits by a top US official to France and other European countries thwarted the bid.

Change of heart

Iran’s removal from the blacklist had gained support in European capitals in recognition of the steps Tehran has taken in recent years to enact legislation barring terrorist financing and money laundering.

However, the US sent the official to France, Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium ahead of a plenary meeting of the task force Friday to warn that keeping Iran on the FATF blacklist was a top priority, and that Washington would aggressively pursue that policy.

As a result, the FATF decided to continue the suspension of countermeasures, taking into account the fact that Iran has draft legislation currently before Parliament, but did not remove the country from the list in a decision which many believe is political.

The FATF suspended its punitive measures for a year in 2016 when Iran reached a landmark nuclear deal and promised to step up its fight on money-laundering. The task force extended the waiver last July and again on Friday.

The Iranian government hopes that the exit from the FATF blacklist would remove one hurdle to foreign investment. Critics of the government, however, say membership in the Financial Action Task Force has not only failed to attract investment, but it has also exposed various institutions to extraterritorial regulations and penalties.

Iranian institutions targeted

In its Friday decision, the FATF threatened Iran with new penalties in June if it doesn’t bolster oversight of alleged terrorism financing and money laundering within its borders.

Some in Iran believe the US is using the FATF to target key organizations such as the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) which has both a role in the Iranian economy and supports groups such as Lebanon’s Hezbollah regarded as legitimate “resistance” entities by the Islamic Republic.

The FATF cited nine “action items” which Iran had to fully address before the body considers its bid for removal from the blacklist.

“Until Iran implements the measures required to address the deficiencies identified in the Action Plan, the FATF will remain concerned with the terrorist financing risk emanating from Iran and the threat this poses to the international financial system,” it said.

“The FATF, therefore, calls on its members and urges all jurisdictions to continue to advise their financial institutions to apply enhanced due diligence to business relationships and transactions with natural and legal persons from Iran, consistent with FATF Recommendation 19,” it added.

Countries that do not follow FATF are often labeled as high-risk or uncooperative jurisdictions by the West, making international trade costly and difficult.

US threats

Iran agreed to scale back its nuclear energy program in return for the lifting of sanctions which would facilitate business with the world and pave the way for foreign investment. However, US pressures on bodies such as FATF and its threats have driven away banks, investors and companies.

Earlier this week, Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said Tehran will withdraw from the nuclear deal if there is no economic benefit and major banks continue to shun the Islamic Republic.

Big banks are afraid of falling foul of remaining US sanctions.

Araqchi said even if US President Donald Trump relents and issues fresh “waivers” to continue suspending sanctions on Tehran, the existing situation is unacceptable for Iran.

“The deal would not survive this way even if the ultimatum is passed and waivers are extended,” Araqchi, Iran’s lead nuclear negotiator, said in a speech at the Chatham House think tank in London.

“If the same policy of confusion and uncertainties about the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) continues, if companies and banks are not working with Iran, we cannot remain in a deal that has no benefit for us,” he said. “That’s a fact.”

February 24, 2018 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

US Violates Iranian Nuclear Deal Almost Every Day – Tehran

Sputnik – February 22, 2018

Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Thursday that the US violated the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) almost every day, while Trump’s public statements contribute to this.

“It is a fact that the United States is not implementing the JCPOA [the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action], it is a fact that it violates it almost daily,” he told the BBC.

According to him, Trump’s statements regarding the deal being “bad,” or seeking to change it are a violation of the agreement.

“This violates the letter, not the spirit of the agreement,” the deputy minister added.

Speaking further, the senior Iranian official said that Iran would withdraw from the agreement if there would be no economic benefits for the country and major banks wouldn’t work with Iran.

“The deal would not survive this way even if the ultimatum is passed and waivers are extended,” Araqchi said.

The statement comes almost two weeks after US President Donald Trump delivered an ultimatum to the heads of European countries, saying that he wouldn’t extend the US sanctions relief on Iran if the sides refused to “fix the terrible flaws of the Iran nuclear deal.

“The day before, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said in an exclusive interview with Sputnik that “the US has never adhered to its liabilities within the JCPOA.”

Fears of Syrian War Tearing Middle East Apart

Araghchi also commented on the on-going conflict in Syria, which has recently escalated after an Israeli F-16 jet was shot down by the Syrian Army as it was about to attack Iranian positions for allegedly flying a drone into Israel’s airspace.

The Deputy FM denied the accusations, claiming that the drone in fact belonged to the Syrian government.

At the same time, he underlined the policy of double standards on the part of Israeli  Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who had earlier branded Iran as the “greatest threat to our world,” while the Israeli military itself is frequently flying drones over Syria and  neighboring countries.

“They shouldn’t be angry when they are faced with something that they are doing against others on a daily basis,” Araghchi said.

The deputy minister noted that the incident has had a significant destabilizing impact on the de-escalation process in Syria and on the maintenance of peace in the Middle East.

“Fear of war is everywhere in our region,” Araghchi stated.

Nevertheless, Araghchi stressed that the presence of Iranian forces in Syria should not be misinterpreted as a threat to Israel, since their sole objective is to assist the government of Bashar al-Assad in combating terrorists.

“Just imagine if we were not there. Now you would have Daesh [the Islamic State group] in Damascus, and maybe in Beirut and other places,” he said.

The Deputy FM affirmed that the “de-escalation of tensions” is “very important” to the Iranian strategy in Syria, and the country has “worked hard to achieve that.”

February 22, 2018 Posted by | Economics, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Washington Post Editorial Writer Disturbed to Discover the Importance of Precedent in Court Decisions

Charles Lane Continues Attack on Unions

CEPR | February 15, 2018

The Washington Post has long had a hostile attitude toward unions, which it expresses in both its opinion and news sections. (As an example of the latter, this front page article complaining about high pensions for public sector workers in California, highlighted the case of Bruce Malkenhorst Sr., a retired city administrator, who received a pension of more than $500,000 a year. Only after reading down in the piece do readers discover that Mr. Malkenhorst was awaiting trial for misusing public funds. Of course, as an administrator, he was not a typical public employee or a union member.)

The latest expression of hostility is from editorial writer Charles Lane. Lane is upset that public sector employees can be required to pay representation fees to the unions that represent them as a condition of working in a unit that is represented by a union. There is much about the current situation that draws his wrath.

First, he complains that the unions arguing the case currently before the Supreme Court are citing the precedent of a prior ruling supporting this practice. Apparently, Lane didn’t realize that US courts are governed by precedent.

Lane then makes the argument that there is a serious problem with public sector unions collecting representation fees and dues (dues are paid only by those who choose to join the union), which come out of their paychecks, and then use some of this money to support their favored political candidates. (Only dues can be used for political campaigns, not representation fees, which can only be used for the cost of running the union.)

Lane argues that this creates a conflict of interest because the government is effectively paying money to unions, who then support candidates that are favorable to the union. It’s not clear how this is different from government contractors who give campaign contributions to candidates who support giving them government contracts, or from oil companies who give campaign contributions to candidates who give them favorable access to government land, or from drug companies who give campaign contributions to candidates who will give them stronger and longer patent monopolies on their drugs.

For some reason, Lane thinks we should be troubled by workers who get a public sector paycheck supporting candidates who represent their interests. When private corporations use profits derived from government actions to support candidates who will increase their profits further, this is fine.

Of course, the immediate issue before the court is whether the government can sign a contract with a union that requires that everyone who benefits from union representation has to share in the cost of the representation. Lane wants to deny workers the right to have a contract that imposes conditions on their co-workers.

Interestingly, the court has explicitly gone the other way in allowing employers to impose terms on their employees with which they may not agree. In the Hobby Lobby case, the Supreme Court ruled that a company can require its workers to have insurance that does not cover contraceptives if the company’s owners have a religious objection to the use of contraceptives. In this case, the remedy for workers who believe that it is important that contraceptives be covered by insurance is to work somewhere else.

Under current law, companies can impose all sorts of conditions on their workers, such as wearing stupid hats, smiling at customers and giving overly friendly greetings, and even having insurance that comports with the boss’s religious beliefs. But Lane wants us to think that it interferes with workers’ individual freedom if their co-workers vote to put any conditions on employment.

February 18, 2018 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Economics, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , | Leave a comment

China gives dressing-down to Maldives’ Nasheed

By M K Bhadrakumar | Indian Punchline | February 18, 2018

The mystery of the Supreme Court judges in Male promoting democracy in their beloved country is deepening. One of the three judges who gave the ruling to destabilize the political situation had unaccounted money to the tune of $220000 in his possession and a second judge in the troika had a big amount of $2.4 million transferred to him by “a private firm.” Evidently, democracy doesn’t come cheap.

We do not know who is spending all that money to promote democracy in the Maldives – at least, not yet. But Maldives is such a small country that nothing remains secret for long. All we know for the present is that “the investigation is not limited to Maldives.” Put differently, there has been the ubiquitous “foreign hand” pushing the regime change agenda in Maldives.

Male has approached unspecified foreign governments for assistance in conducting the enquiry. Hopefully, India is not one of them. It seems India – along with Sri Lanka, Malaysia, the Netherlands and the UK – is one of the countries the two debonair judges involved in the scam had visited in the past one-year period. (Gulf Today )

There is obviously more – much more – to the events in Maldives than meets the eye. The Xinhua news agency carried an extraordinary commentary last Thursday attacking by name the former Maldives President Mohamed Nasheed (who is spearheading the democracy campaign from his locations in Sri Lanka and India) for spreading canards about the Chinese “presence” in Sri Lanka. Nasheed recently told the Hindu newspaper, “Without firing a single shot, China has grabbed more land than what the East India company had, at the height of the colonial era. They have weaponised foreign direct investments.”

Evidently, the Chinese found it an outrageous remark even by Nasheed’s yardstick. Xinhua tore into him. The commentary disclosed, inter alia, that Nasheed himself was once an enthusiastic promoter of Maldives’ relations with China when he was president, and, in fact, the commentary drops a bombshell saying, “However, as a former Maldivian president, who has also experienced the benefits from the fruitful cooperation between the Maldives and China, Nasheed this time chose to turn a blind eye to the fact.”

The Counselor in the Chinese embassy in Male Yang Yin told Xinhua, “Why did Nasheed support this normal economic and trade cooperation during his tenure and now turns to oppose it? Let alone fabricating statistics to tarnish the normal bilateral cooperation between the two countries? These doubts remain in the mind of the Chinese side.”

Hmmm. This Nasheed fellow is turning out to be quite a guy. He always seemed a bit of a maverick. (He once made the immaculate decision on the opening of the Chinese embassy in Male to coincide with the arrival of the then PM Manmohan Singh in the Maldives on official visit in November 2011.) Indeed, it now appears that he has dark secrets that only he and the Chinese could be privy to. But, Yang has asked a good question: Why did Nasheed become a turncoat? Conceivably, some people made an offer to him in recent years that he couldn’t refuse.

To my mind, however, the fascinating thing about the Xinhua commentary is the snippet of information it shared in regard of the scale of the “Chinese presence” in the Maldives. Of course, there have been dark rumors circulating in the Indian press for months on this topic, making it out that the Chinese are building a military base in the Maldives. Well, it seems the plain truth is that the “Chinese presence” in the Maldives actually adds up to seven resort hotels that Chinese companies are constructing on seven islands (out of the country’s total 100 islands) for foreign tourists. To be sure, enterprising Chinese business people see that with the big influx of Chinese tourists into the Maldives, there is good money to be made.

According to Forbes magazine, Maldives figures 7th among the first ten eco-tourist hot spots that Chinese jet setters are choosing. The number of Chinese tourists visiting the Maldives tripled from 1 lakh in 2010 to 3.6 lakhs in 2014, accounting for nearly one-third of the entire tourist traffic to the island, representing the single biggest source market for Maldives. Tourism is the main source of income for Maldives and Male is smart enough to know that China already accounts for more than a fifth of the money spent by outbound tourists worldwide, twice as much as the next-biggest spender, the US (according to the United Nations World Tourism Organization.)

Read the Xinhua commentary here – Spotlight: Former Maldivian president’s statement on China “grabbing land” false, irresponsible.

February 18, 2018 Posted by | Corruption, Economics | , , | Leave a comment

Libya: 7 Years since February 17

By Yuriy Zinin – New Eastern Outlook – 17.02.2018

On February 17 it will be 7 years since the start of the events in Libya which led to the overthrow of its leader – Muammar Gaddafi. These years have been full of dramatic and often bloody events, which, according to a number of different indices (effective sovereignty, stability, commercial activity etc.), have left the country much worse off.

Since 2014 the country has been in chaotic situation- divided into two sectors, with opposing capitals in Tripoli and Tobruk, each of which have their own government, parliament, and security services. The balance of power between them is changing.

In the last year the area controlled by the National Army, led by Marshal Khalifa Haftar (i.e. the eastern, or Tobruk, sector) has expanded. That sector includes the ‘oil crescent’ (the oil wells and the main ports for oil exports). The Government of National Accord, headed by Fayez al-Sarraj, has an unsteady hold over the country.

For three years the United Nations and a number of neighboring Arab countries have tried, without success, to persuade the two opposing parties to comply with the peace agreement that they signed in Morocco (which called for the creation of unified national transitional state structures, elections to the new parliament etc.) The Shkirat Agreement expired at the end of 2017.

Many experts consider that the negotiators meeting to discuss issues arising from the treaty lack the authority to make any decisions, and the military groups who they represent are heterogenous, each split into a number of camps, divided along regional and tribal lines.

To save the negotiating process, the UN special representative for Libya, Hasan Salam has presented a three-stage plan for the next year. He proposed that the Shkirat Agreement be amended, the Tripoli-based government be restructured, a constitution be drawn up and elections be held in the new parliament.

The question is, how can fair, impartial and democratic elections be held, when there are two governments? And how important are elections to the average Libyan, living in a delicate security situation and suffering from disorder and social and economic problems?

The falling value of the Libyan dinar and annual inflation of 30% are causing a fall in his standard of living. Before the revolution a dinar could be exchanged for three dollars and at its highest level Libyans looked down on the ‘green dollar’ with contempt. Now one dollar can be exchanged in the market for 9 Libyan dinars.

This is genuinely resulting in an increase in prices, as the majority of goods, especially food, are imported. Libyans are faced with the curse of cash shortages, queues in banks, power cuts, deteriorating services etc.

All these problems are the result of the collapse of Libya’s economy and manufacturing sector. According to Mustafa Sanalla, the president of the National Oil Corporation, Libya has lost $180 billion since 2011 because of the actions of various militias in the regions where oil is extracted, refined and transported.

In 2017 Libya received $14 billion from oil sales, three times more than in the previous year. But in 2010, the year before the revolution, oil exports brought approximately $47 billion into the national budget. It is true that recently the amount of ‘black gold’ extracted has increased to 1 million barrels a day, but this is still below the pre-revolution level of 1.6 million barrels a day.

Out of the 150 countries listed in Forbes Magazine’s rating of the ‘Best Countries for Foreign Business’, Libya occupies the last but one position.

As a result of the above situation, people’s attitudes towards the ideals of the February revolution are changing. Today, in Libya’s political and media circles, a clear divide is being observed between so-called ‘Februarists’ and ‘Septemberists’.

The ‘Februarists’ are those who fully support the February 17 revolution, and are convinced that the ‘rebels against a despotic regime’ won a just victory.

Those who support the former Gaddafi regime are known as ‘Septemberists’, as it was the September Revolution that brought Gaddafi to power. The latter camp, shaking their heads in wonder, ask themselves whether it was worth shedding so much blood, losing lives and suffering a huge material loss, merely to end up in Libya’s current fragmented state.

Both of these schools of thought have their own liberal, Islamist, and secular factions. That is why many local political analysts are urging them to find common points of agreement, steer clear of extreme positions, and put the interests of their country above their own selfish political calculations and concerns.

For example, Fatima Hamroush a former minister in Libya’s first post-revolution government, called for the creation of an emergency cabinet made up of politicians with a wide range of affiliations, including former associates of Gaddafi (). That is despite the fact that Dr. Hamroush was at one time a fierce critic of the previous regime.

It appears possible that a political consensus, arrived at in accordance with the law, might be able to fill the current institutional vacuum. But Libyan society is still divided by the powerful shocks it suffered in a war involving NATO and other foreign powers, and during the period of sectarian conflict which followed.

Political circles are pulled apart by disagreement, and are kept hostage by mutual resentments, suspicions and hostilities that have built up over a number of years.

Yury Zinin, Leading Research Fellow at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO).

February 17, 2018 Posted by | Economics, Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | , , | Leave a comment

Bernie Sanders Hits on Winning Message He Avoided in 2016

By David Swanson | CounterPunch | February 15, 2018

A video has shown up on Senator Bernie Sanders’ Facebook page, with his name on it and his face in it making all the familiar (to a small number of people) points about U.S. military spending (how much it is, how it compares to the rest of the world, how it does not produce jobs, what wonders could be achieved with a small fraction of it, etc.).

I wish there were mention of the fact that it kills huge numbers of people, or that it risks apocalypse, or that it damages the earth’s environment. I wish the alternatives proposed were not all of the bring-our-war-dollars-home variety, as if the amount of money under consideration were not enough to radically transform this and every other country.

Still, had Sanders put out this video in 2015, tens of thousands of people wouldn’t have had to petition him in vain to oppose militarism, to fill the glaring gap in his website. I wouldn’t have had to write this or this or even this.

Sanders willingly subjected himself to endless accusations of raising taxes, rather than declare that he would push for a small cut in military spending. Jeremy Corbyn has had greater success — albeit in a different country — by taking the other approach. I continue to think Sanders is snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

It’s not as if Sanders doesn’t know the issues. A half-century back he would have said something very close to what I want to hear. There’s no reason why he can’t do so now. But I’m afraid that this video may have slipped through because there’s not a presidential election this year, and that such things will be nowhere to be found in the years ahead.

I hope I’m wrong. I hope that Sanders actually declares himself in favor of a serious transfer of resources from militarism to human and environmental needs. As soon as he does, I’ll start advocating for all of us to work for his election. He can keep promoting the Russiagate nonsense that was primarily invented to distract from the story of the DNC cheating him. He can publicly commit to allowing the DNC to cheat him again. He can ask Saudi Arabia again to kill even more people. But if he comes out against the military budget, that’s the big one. He will deserve the support he could have had last time.

February 15, 2018 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

The Patheticism of U.S. Sanctions on North Korea

By Jacob G. Hornberger | FFF | February 12, 2018

Officials of the Sheraton Hotel might be experiencing some sleepless nights as a result of what they recently did at the Winter Olympics in South Korea. A five-star Sheraton Hotel permitted Kim Yo Jong, the sister of North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un, to stay there during her official visit to the Olympic Games. If they did that without the permission of U.S. officials, they might just find themselves the targets of severe punishment at the hands of U.S. bureaucrats.

Why might that incur the ire of U.S. officials? Because U.S. officials have Kim Yo Jong on their list of North Koreans specifically targeted for U.S. sanctions. If the Sheraton permitted her to stay there without securing the permission of U.S. officials, they might soon find that U.S. officials can be as vicious as their North Korean counterparts.

Just ask Bert Sacks, the American citizen from Washington State who dared to violate U.S. sanctions against the Iraqi people. Horrified by the high death toll among Iraqi children from the sanctions, Sachs decided to take medicines into Iraq knowing full well that he was violating the sanctions. U.S. officials went after him with a vengeance that bordered on the pathological. Fining him $10,000 for daring to violate their sacred sanctions, a fine that Sachs refused to pay, U.S. officials pursued him for more than a decade in their attempt to collect not just the fine but also extremely high penalties and interest. (For more on the remarkable story of Sack’s heroic resistance to the U.S. sanctions on the Iraqi people, see here.)

It’s what they do to anyone who dares to violate their sacred sanctions. That’s why even big and powerful international businessmen quiver and quake whenever they are faced with the possibility that they are violating U.S. sanctions. They know what U.S. officials will do them if they violate them.

Consider Samsung, for example. It has a policy of giving out smartphones to the Olympic athletes, not only as a means of communication but also so that they will be able to take photos of their Olympic experience.

Not so for the North Korean athletes, who won’t be taking any selfies home with them. No, not because they might be punished by North Korean officials for having something by which they could access the Internet but because Samsung was scared to death that they would be violating U.S. sanctions if they gave free phones to the North Korean athletes. Samsung officials were scared of what the U.S. government, not the Korean government, might do to them.

Is that pathetic or what?

That’s not all.

A North Korean 229-member cheerleading squad, consisting of an “army of beauties,” has mesmerized the crowds and the press at the Olympics. They came down from North Korea in a huge ferry, where North Korean officials required them to stay to prevent their learning too much about life in South Korea and to prevent defections.

But a big problem arose with the ferry. After it arrived, it was low on fuel and asked the South Koreans to refuel it. South Korean officials were scared to death. They just didn’t know how the U.S. government would react to what would amount to a clear violation of sanctions. According to an article in the New York Times, “As of Wednesday evening, the South had not decided whether to supply the fuel.”

Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic.

According to the Times’ article, the sanctions problem extends to hockey sticks and uniforms. When North Korea’s hockey team showed up at a tournament in New Zealand last year, they brought their battered wooden sticks with them. The organizers lent them high-tech carbon fiber sticks but required they return them before going home for fear of what U.S. officials would do to them for violating the sanctions.

Nike is another company afraid of antagonizing the U.S. government. Despite being an official Olympics sponsor, it decided to let a Finnish company furnish the uniforms for the Korean hockey team for fear of violating the sanctions.

U.S. officials decided to be nice to Asiana Airlines. It granted the airlines permission an “exception” to the sanctions by permitting it to enter U.S. airspace after flying South Korean hockey players to train in North Korea. The sanctions require that when a plane flies into North Korea, it has to wait six months before entering U.S. airspace. Maybe U.S. officials are concerned with the spread of communist germs, which, theoretically, could lead to an expansion of such socialist programs as Social Security, Medicare, public schooling, and farm subsidies.

Vice President Pence was in attendance at the Olympics and, not surprisingly, spent all his time growling, scowling, and calling for increased enforcement of U.S. sanctions against the North Koreans. Agitated and angry over North Korea’s Olympics outreach to South Koreans, Pence was not amused by either the cheerleaders or Kim Yo Jong, who he pointedly refused to acknowledge when she was seated directly behind him during the opening ceremonies.

The last thing Pence or other U.S. officials want is for Americans to begin personalizing the North Koreans. Better that Americans continue thinking of everyone in North Korea as nothing more than a bunch of commies or commie sympathizers. It that way, Americans, including American Christians, will consider it to be no big deal to kill all of them, either with sanctions or, if war breaks out, with carpet-bombing of towns and villages, as the U.S. military did during the Korean War.

After all, don’t forget the purpose of the sanctions: To kill the North Korean populace, including those North Korean cheerleaders, through starvation and illness. The idea is that if enough of them are dying, either Kim Jong-un will abdicate in favor of a pro-U.S. dictator or the North Korean people will initiate a violent revolution and install a pro-U.S. dictator into power.

Neither one is going to happen. Kim Jong-un is not going to capitulate to U.S. extortion. And the North Korean people are never going to revolt, especially since they are all disarmed as a result of North Korea’s strict gun-control policy. Thus, the only thing that is going to happen is that the sanctions will continue to kill more and more North Koreans, especially in combination with North Korea’s socialist system.

Unfortunately, business people are not the only ones afraid of acting without getting the permission of U.S. officials. When Kim Yo Jong extended an invitation to South Korean president Moon Jae-in to visit North Korea, he deflected the invitation, no doubt scared to accept the invitation without first checking with U.S. officials to see if it was okay to accept.

Throughout the Olympics, the American right-wing has never ceased reminding us of the brutality of the North Korean regime. Well, duh. It is a communist regime. But I can’t help but wonder whether the North Korean people are more afraid of their government than Samsung, Nike, and other big businesses are scared of the U.S. government. I also can’t help but wonder whether it matters to a North Korean whether he dies from North Korean socialist policies or U.S. sanctions policies.

February 14, 2018 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , | Leave a comment

New US Sanctions Against Russia Are Coming, ‘Expect Them’ Soon – US Treasury Sec

Sputnik – February 14, 2018

The United States Secretary of the Treasury revealed that sanctions against the people mentioned in the so-called ‘Kremlin list’ would be soon introduced.

“We are actively working on those sanctions. And you should expect them in… [the] near future,” US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin told the US Senate Finance Committee.

Previously responding to the “Kremlin report” release, Russian President Vladimir Putin described the sanctions as a deadlock solution, which is likely to lead to losses for those who introduced them.Putin expressed hope the West would soon “get bored with the sanctions policy” and Russia-US relations would normalize.

“The policy of artificially imposed restrictions in international business relations is a dead-end road that leads everyone, including the initiators of such a policy, to missed profits and direct losses,” Russian President stated.

In January, the US published the so-called “Kremlin report,” which listed names of 114 Russian politicians, including the Russian presidential administration and members of the government, as well as 96 businessmen.

Inclusion on the list implies that restrictive measures against named officials can be introduced in the future.

Commenting on the release of the report, Vladimir Putin called it an “unfriendly step” by the US administration, which harms Moscow-Washington relations.

In the wake of the publication, the Association of European Businesses (AEB) warned that the US Treasury’s “Kremlin Report” can affect the interests of European investors and European companies doing business in Russia.

The “Kremlin Report” was drafted in accordance with the law called Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanction Act and signed by the US President Donald Trump in August 2017.

On July 28 the Russian Foreign Ministry suspended the use of all US Embassy warehouses and its compound in Moscow amid the new US anti-Russia sanctions bill and follows a series of restrictive measures which have been imposed by Washington since 2014. It is similar to Washington’s decision to expel 35 Russian diplomats and suspend the use of diplomatic assets by Moscow in late 2016.

The relationship between Russia and the US worsened amid the internal conflict in Ukraine and Crimea’s reunification with Russia. Although Moscow denied all the allegations of meddling in Ukrainian internal affairs, a number of Western countries imposed sanctions on Russia, with the Kremlin then introducing response measures and launching the policy to replace foreign imports with domestic products.

February 14, 2018 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

France to spend $33bn on upgrading nukes to meet NATO commitments

Press TV – February 9, 2018

France is planning to spend $33 billion (€27bn) to upgrade its arsenal of nuclear weapons as part of a massive $370 billion (€300bn) military spending over the next few years to meet the NATO military alliance’s requirements, the French defense chief has announced.

Speaking to the media on Thursday, French Defense Minister Florence Parly said Paris wanted to increase its military budget so that it can “hold its own” as a key power in Europe.

“The government’s goal is twofold: reach the target of spending two percent of GDP on defense by 2025, while also ensuring we manage our public finances,” Parly said.

France spends $42 billion (€34bn) or 1.8 percent of its GDP for military purposes, slightly less than the two-percent threshold set by NATO.

Under the new plan, President Emmanuel Macron’s government increases overall spending by $2 billion (€1.7bn) a year starting from 2019 until 2022, when it will reach $53 billion (€44bn). Then the budget would be bumped up by $3.6 billion (€3bn) a year between 2023 and 2025.

By then, Paris is supposed to have completed the expensive revamp of its nuclear arsenal, with work on a third-generation nuclear submarine program and a new generation of airborne nuclear missiles already underway today.

“We are going to make up for past shortfalls and build a modern, sustainable, protective army” that would allow France “to hold its own,” said Parly.

French military forces are currently deployed to West Africa on a declared mission to fight militant groups.

The French president says the country is ready to enhance its military presence in the Sahel region if needed.

The country is also a main contributor to a US-led coalition that has been targeting alleged terrorist positions in Iraq and Syria since 2015.

The years-long operations have put strain on France’s military forces and equipment.

With thousands of troops overseas, the new program allows the defense department to perform a host of upgrades on equipment, from bullet-proof vests to combat uniforms.

There will also be a 34-percent increase in spending on “modernizing weaponry,” which includes buying new Scorpion armored vehicles, four Barracuda attack submarines and three multi-mission frigates, as well as a new fleet of Griffon multi-role armored vehicles.

There are also plans to develop new spy satellites, light surveillance aircraft, new Rafale fighter jets and armed drones. Air tankers are also on the long list of upgrades.

The development is a major reversal in France’s military strategy over the past years and is expected to please US President Donald Trump, who has put NATO allies under pressure to increase their military budgets.

February 8, 2018 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »