Neoconservatism began to take root in the 1970s as strength through militarism and an interventionist foreign policy were increasingly seen as the path to peace. Ideological Manicheanism and narratives of peace through strength challenged more traditional concepts of security that focused on mitigating the security dilemma. Human rights, rather than restraining the use of force, were discovered as a weapon that would legitimize the removal of restraints on the use of force.
I had a conversation with Alastair Crooke and Alexander Mercouris about the geoeconomic confusion in Europe. The US is repositioning itself as the unipolar world order has ended, and multipolarity is already here. The Europeans have no strategy and the policies subsequent lack direction and reason. In Isreal, society has polarised to the extent that political and societal instability will become a challenge to national security.
The administration of US President Donald Trump is retreating from initiatives aimed at investigating and prosecuting alleged Russian crimes linked to the Ukraine conflict, the New York Times reported on Monday.
According to sources cited by the newspaper, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) will withdraw from the EU-backed International Center for the Prosecution of the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine (ICPA), established to investigate Russia, Belarus, North Korea, and Iran for the alleged crime of international aggression.
The US became the only non-European ICPA member when it joined in 2023. Sources told the NYT that Washington had informed European partners about its imminent exit ahead of a formal announcement.
Administration officials reportedly justified the withdrawal by citing a broader reduction in government expenditures. The DOJ had pledged $1 million to support European investigators when US participation was initially announced.
Additionally, Washington is curtailing operations of a DOJ team known as WarCAT, formed in 2022 to train Ukrainian prosecutors on charging and trying Russians for alleged war crimes, according to NYT sources.
Last week, reports emerged that the US had cut funding for a Yale-based research group searching for Ukrainian children “abducted” by Russia. Moscow has dismissed Kiev’s allegations of state-orchestrated kidnappings of thousands of minors as politically motivated mischaracterizations of its evacuation efforts in war-affected areas.
Trump is aiming to normalize bilateral relations with Russia, viewing a resolution of the Ukraine conflict as a crucial step. He and Russian President Vladimir Putin are expected to have a direct phone conversation this week.
Chinese President Xi Jinping has turned down an invitation to visit Brussels for a summit this year marking the 50th anniversary of his country’s relations with the EU, the Financial Times reported on Sunday.
The Chinese leader’s reported snub comes at a time of growing tensions between Beijing and Brussels. Over the past year, China and the EU have clashed over what the EU believes is Beijing’s dumping of certain key goods and its industrial overproduction. Adding to the tension was a wave of retaliatory tariffs placed by the EU on Chinese goods.
Beijing informed EU officials that Prime Minister Li Qiang would meet the presidents of the European Council and European Commission instead of Xi, the FT said, citing two people familiar with the matter.
The prime minister usually attends the summit when it takes place in Brussels, while the president hosts it in Beijing. However, this time the EU wanted Xi to attend given the significance of the meeting, which marks half a century of diplomatic relations, the sources told the outlet.
“Informal discussions are ongoing, both about setting the date for the EU-China summit this year and the level of representation,” an EU official told the FT, while the Chinese ministry was quoted as saying it did not have any information to provide on the matter.
Tensions between the EU and China intensified following the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022 when the EU accused Beijing of supporting Moscow.
China has adhered to a policy of neutrality in the Ukraine conflict, and has firmly rebuffed Western calls to impose sanctions on Russia, opting instead to boost trade with its neighbor. This has led to accusations from the bloc and its NATO allies that Beijing is fueling Russia’s military effort by supplying it with dual-use components that can be utilized in weapons production.
The rift deepened last year after the EU imposed tariffs of up to 35.3% on Chinese electric vehicles, claiming that Chinese manufacturers benefit from unfair government subsidies. The decision sparked strong objections from Beijing, which retaliated by slapping tariffs of between 30.6% and 39% on the bloc’s brandy imports. The move hit major French cognac producers particularly hard, as they rely heavily on sales in the Chinese market.
China has also filed a complaint with the World Trade Organization, arguing that the EU’s “protectionist” actions amount to “an abuse of trade remedies” and violate WTO rules.
Jacques Baud, retired Colonel in the Swiss Strategic Intelligence Service, has published several books on the origin of the Ukraine War, and he presents the conditions to bring the war to an end. Understanding what happened to the Minsk agreement is important to understand what is required to find a solution. Colonel Baud also laments the dangerous geopolitical immaturity in Europe that no longer addresses reality.
Brussels should take decisive steps towards denying EU membership to Ukraine and ending the influence of foreign agents linked to billionaire George Soros on the bloc’s policies, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has stated. He has called for the absolute national sovereignty of member states over domestic issues.
In a post on X on Saturday, Orban urged Brussels to “expel Soros agents” from the European Commission and “remove corrupt lobbyists” from the European Parliament.
The Hungarian prime minister has a long history of opposing foreign-funded organizations in his country, particularly those sponsored by Soros. Orban has repeatedly accused the Hungarian-American magnate of meddling in Hungary’s domestic affairs, undermining traditional family values, and promoting a globalist agenda.
Orban also called for “a Union, but without Ukraine,” having demanded “peace, freedom, and unity.”
Budapest has strongly opposed the rapid acceptance of Ukraine into the EU, citing the potential harm to the bloc’s economy. Kiev applied for membership shortly after the escalation of the conflict with Russia in February 2022 and was granted candidate status within just three months.
The demands voiced by Orban were included in a broader list that contained calls for protecting Europe’s Christian heritage, banning “the unnatural re-education of children,” eliminating debt, and establishing equality before the law for all members of the bloc.
Orban emphasized that the Hungarian people expect Brussels to restore the competencies unlawfully taken from member states. He demanded “national sovereignty” and the right to “a strong veto for national governments.”
He also urged the EU authorities to stop obstructing the Hungarian National Guard from protecting the country’s borders. “Do not bring in migrants, and remove those who have arrived illegally,” he wrote.
Since the 2015 migrant crisis, Orban’s government has taken tough measures to curb the influx of migrants, including building border fences along Hungary’s southern borders with Serbia and Croatia and rejecting EU-mandated refugee quotas. These policies have triggered legal challenges, including a €200-million fine from the European Court of Justice last year for non-compliance with the bloc’s asylum rules.
Four years ago, Budapest updated child protection regulations to ban the promotion of LGBTQ topics in media, advertising, and educational materials accessible to minors. The move sparked outrage in Brussels, which launched legal action against Budapest, referred the case to the European Court of Justice, and froze billions in EU funds intended for Hungary over what it claimed were violations of fundamental human rights.
Romania’s electoral authority has rejected right-wing politician Diana Iovanovici-Sosoaca’s bid to run in the country’s upcoming presidential election. The decision, announced Saturday, marks the second time the politician has been barred from the race.
Sosoaca, a former lawyer and MEP for the nationalist S.O.S. Romania party, was disqualified from last year’s annulled election after the country’s Constitutional Court ruled that her anti-Western rhetoric and support for closer ties with Russia violated Romania’s democratic framework. The politician, however, filed a new bid with the Central Electoral Bureau on Thursday, arriving at the headquarters wearing boxing gloves and vowing to “fight the system,” which she has long accused of being undemocratic and dictatorial.
According to local media, the election bureau cited the Constitutional Court’s 2024 ruling in its decision to reject Sosoaca’s new bid, with ten members voting against her candidacy and only three in favor. Following the decision, Sosoaca declared that she had once again proven Romania “doesn’t have democracy” and vowed to continue her political fight.
Speaking to RT on Thursday, Sosoaca accused the European Commission and its president, Ursula von der Leyen, of orchestrating her previous removal from the race. “Ursula von der Leyen has Romanian politicians in her hand and orders them what decisions to make,” she stated, slamming the commission president as “the main opponent of sovereignty in Romania, as well as all other countries in Europe.”
Sosoaca, who calls herself a “souvereignist” fighting for Romania’s future, blames the economic problems in the country on Brussels’ policies, especially with regard to Russia, and calls the EU a “dictatorship.”
“Romania needs a negotiator who will take our country out of the EU’s losing logic,” she said, adding that EU policies, including sanctions against Russia, had “bankrupted its own economy” and caused unnecessary conflict, with “all European countries paying for this stupidity.”
Sosoaca has until midnight on Saturday to appeal the decision. The first round of the election, a rerun after last November’s vote was annulled, is scheduled for May 4. So far, 14 candidates have applied to run, four of whom – including the first-round winner in the annulled vote and another staunch NATO and EU critic, Calin Georgescu – have been rejected.
Georgescu won the first round of last November’s election, but the Constitutional Court overturned the result amid allegations of electoral violations and claims that Russia had run an online campaign to promote him. Moscow denied any involvement in Romania’s electoral process. An investigation earlier this year revealed that the irregularities may have stemmed from a consulting firm linked to the pro-Western National Liberal Party, which allegedly sought to derail another candidate but inadvertently boosted Georgescu instead.
Beyond the Ukrainian issue and the criticism of illegal immigration, the other main hallmark of Trumpism is the defense of protectionist economic measures as tools for reindustrialization, job creation, and the recovery of economic prosperity.
In concrete terms, since taking office, Donald Trump has made numerous promises to impose higher customs tariffs—and has indeed begun implementing some. The U.S. has imposed a 10% tariff on all Chinese imports (with exemptions for shipments under $800), as well as a 25% tariff on Canadian and Mexican imports.
It is well known that these tariffs will result in higher prices for American consumers—and the risk of shortages of certain products cannot be ignored—but in theory, these tariffs will serve as an incentive for American businesses to invest in the production of many goods that are currently imported. It is worth recalling that the U.S. was an industrial nation until the neoliberal era ushered in by Reagan, when the phenomenon of factories relocating to the Third World transformed American society into one centered on consumption and services.
In light of this scenario, many objections to American protectionism have been raised, particularly from the establishment of academic economists, staunch believers in “free markets.” However, despite the U.S. having established itself as the ideological pillar of liberalism, in the economic sphere, it has frequently resorted to protectionism as a tool to safeguard domestic industries.
One of the first protectionist measures in the country’s history, for example, was the Tariff of 1789, enacted during George Washington’s presidency. This tariff, which imposed duties on the importation of foreign goods, primarily aimed to generate revenue for the federal government but also served to protect nascent U.S. industries from British competition. Alexander Hamilton, the first U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, was one of the main advocates of protectionism during this period. Hamilton argued that the government should adopt policies to promote industrialization, including protective tariffs, subsidies, and investments in infrastructure.
This economic perspective came to be known as Hamiltonianism, and it was so successful that it influenced the German economist Friedrich List to develop his own nationalist economic theory, which in turn influenced Bismarckian industrialization.
Throughout the 19th century, protectionism became a central policy of the U.S., particularly during the period known as the “Era of American Systems.” Henry Clay, one of the leading political figures of the time, advocated for an economic system that combined protective tariffs, infrastructure investments, and a national bank to strengthen the U.S. economy.
The Tariff of 1816 was a significant milestone in this process. It established higher rates on imported manufactured goods, especially textiles and iron, to protect domestic industries. This tariff was followed by other protectionist measures, such as the Tariff of 1828, known as the “Tariff of Abominations,” which further increased import duties. Although controversial, this tariff reflected the growing support for protectionism in the industrialized North, in contrast to the opposition from the agricultural South, which relied on cheap imports and cotton exports.
During the Civil War (1861-1865), protectionism intensified. The federal government, dominated by Northern Republicans, passed a series of high tariffs to finance the war effort and protect Northern industries. After the war, protectionism remained a central policy, with tariffs such as the McKinley Tariff of 1890, which raised import duties to record levels.
In the early 20th century, protectionism continued to be a defining feature of U.S. economic policy. While the Payne-Aldrich Tariff maintained high rates, the Underwood-Simmons Tariff, passed during Woodrow Wilson’s presidency, reduced some tariffs, reflecting a temporary trend toward free trade.
However, protectionism returned with force after World War I. The Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922 raised import duties to protect U.S. industries from post-war European competition. This tariff was followed by the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930, one of the highest in U.S. history.
It was particularly from Roosevelt’s presidency onward, and even more so after World War II, that the discourse of free trade began to dominate unequivocally in the U.S. By then, however, U.S. industry was already in a sufficiently advantageous position compared to most of its competitors and could afford to lower trade barriers.
What this historical reflection demonstrates, however, is that Trump’s economic protectionism has roots in the very history of U.S. development and is not an invention, even if protectionism is dismissed as “heterodox” by the liberal economists who dominate this sector in the academic establishment.
Trump’s objective is twofold: 1) To convince foreign companies that depend on the U.S. market to relocate production units to the country to avoid dealing with import tariffs; 2) To create a favorable environment (by reducing competition with foreign companies) for the establishment of American businesses that can undertake import substitution in numerous sectors.
All these objectives are rational, and tariffs are a historically used tool to achieve them, but they rarely work alone. Typically, they are accompanied by other measures, such as subsidies for sectors that are intended to be promoted. Conversely, many state subsidies are under scrutiny in the Trump administration, including those directed at the strategic semiconductor sector. In this sense, it is possible that the results of Trump’s tariff policy will not be as significant as those achieved by 19th-century presidents.
From outside the U.S., however, where many countries will be targeted by higher tariffs, this new trend could be advantageous insofar as it will force various countries around the world to rely less on their trade relations with the U.S., reinforcing the multipolar transition. Simultaneously, the fact that the core of liberalism is now adopting protectionist economic measures also represents a significant ideological blow to the liberal elites of countries affected by imperialism and international capitalist exploitation.
A video showing a foreign military transport moving through Austria by train has ignited a heated debate, with the right-wing Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ) calling for an immediate ban on such transits.
The footage, filmed by a passerby at a train station and shared by the FPÖ, has fueled concerns about Austria’s neutrality and its role in European defense logistics.
FPÖ General Secretary Christian Hafenecker strongly condemned the transport, describing it as a blatant violation of Austria’s neutrality. “Foreign military and weapons transports across our territory are completely unacceptable,” he stated.
He further criticized the increasing use of Austrian infrastructure for military movements, warning, “It must not be the case that our railway lines and roads increasingly become the ‘number one NATO highway’ to the east.”
“That is precisely what we fear from the black-red-pink ‘loser traffic light’ coalition, whose subservience to the EU and NATO, coupled with betrayal of neutrality, is becoming ever more blatant,” the FPÖ added in a post on X.
Hafenecker placed direct responsibility on Defense Minister Klaudia Tanner of the Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP), arguing that the government’s permitting such actions is entirely at odds with the public. “The Austrians have no understanding of the fact that tanks, guns, and other heavy military equipment of foreign states roll through their country,” he said, insisting that public sentiment is firmly against such activities.
In response, the FPÖ has demanded an immediate halt to all NATO weapons transports through Austria and the creation of a “no-transport zone” for military equipment. The party is also calling for an end to Austrian financial contributions towards arms deliveries to Ukraine.
Hafenecker stressed the need for diplomatic efforts over military escalation, taking aim at European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s plans to mobilize €800 billion for European rearmament.
“What is needed now is de-escalation, diplomacy, and peace talks to end the suffering and dying in Ukraine,” he declared.
The EU elites kick and scream about countries like Hungary, but the very capital of the European Union is a crime-infested slum in many areas, featuring organized criminals and vast ghettoes. The German car-sharing service, Miles, has finally had enough, and is pulling operations in all of Belgium, citing Brussels as especially problematic.
“Despite a positive trend in figures in Belgium, operations have been increasingly affected by vandalism, misuse of vehicles and attempted theft, particularly in the Brussels region, over the past two years,” a company statement announced. “These external factors had a significant negative impact on the company’s financial results.”
The company has been in Brussels for three years, starting in October of 2022. It was already operating in German cities such as Berlin, Munich, and Hamburg, while in Belgium, Miles vehicles were also seen in Ghent and Antwerp.
In fact, just last year, the Miles general manager of Belgium, Raphaël Zacchello, described just how bad it was in Brussels. He urged the authorities to act, saying: “The rate of vandalism in Brussels is incomparable with what we see in all German cities, even in Berlin, which is a big metropolis.”
Of course, most of the publications writing about Miles shutting down are not naming the suspects, but most of them were “youths,” many who filmed themselves joy-riding in stolen Miles vehicles.
Some may think it is a stretch to claim this Miles car-sharing company leaving Belgium as anything more than an isolated incident involving one company complaining too much. However, there is reason to believe it speaks to the failures of not only diversity but also the fight against climate change.
Many of these car-sharing services are hailed as “green” solutions. The idea that you will “own nothing and be happy” is posited on the idea that not everyone will need to buy a car, for instance, but can instead rent one when needed and use that to get around, which will reduce consumption and help the environment.
Apparently, this model is not working in Belgium. A lot of it aligns with trends seen with other Green parties in Europe, which promote public transportation and then make public transportation extremely unsafe for people to use due to mass immigration. Foreigners, for example, commit 59 percent of all sexual violence on German public transport networks. Migrants have become so out of control on certain train lines that public unions are protesting and calling in sick out of stress. The German Green Party has been forced to propose “women-only” train cars in Berlin to deal with the soaring sexual violence.
It should also be noted that Belgium is one of the most diverse cities in Europe, with approximately half of its 1.1 million residents born outside the EU, most notably from Africa and Turkey. However, diversity is not proving a strength, and judging by where EU politicians live and work, they believe the same thing, as it is also one of the most segregated cities in Europe.
Miles is also far from the only vehicle-sharing service that has found operating in Belgium to be a minefield. In Brussels, nearly all GO Sharing electric scooters were stolen by “young” people who know how to circumvent security measures on the rental system. They even offered crash courses online to effectively steal the scooters, which were used for joyrides until all their batteries were empty in an incident that occurred in April of 2022.
The same trends are seen in other multicultural cities across Europe. Berlin, for instance, tries to promote itself as a green, progressive city, and many of the most powerful left-wing parties are focused on getting as many cars off the roads and as many bikes on the roads as possible. Yet, the city is continuously plagued with tens of thousands of bicycles being stolen every year. And only 4 percent of bike thefts are solved in the city every year.
The overwhelming amount of those arrested are foreigners, such as this Romanian gang operating in Berlin covered by Spiegel. In another report by Tagesspiegel, it found that “a total of 66 percent of the suspects (in organized crime) were of foreign nationality, the rest were German citizens.” As Berlin’s own data shows, nearly all clan criminals have German citizenship (71 percent), which skews the statistics. Many of these same networks are operating organized bicycle theft rings, but also cars, e-bikes, and scooters, on top of drug smuggling and other criminal operations.
Of course, car-sharing woes and bike thefts are insubstantial problems when compared to other issues plaguing Brussels, including ample issues with crime, drug mafias, a radical jihadist scene, and of course, its highly segregated neighborhoods. However, all of these issues are tied together to some degree. The fact also remains, Europeans should be able to ride a train, take a bus, or rent a car for car-sharing purposes without a problem. The end of Miles is just another canary in the coal mine.
The Dutch House of Representatives has voted against the European Union’s multi-hundred-billion euro militarization plan, citing financial risks and a lack of clear guidelines, the Volkskrant newspaper reported on Tuesday. The rejection comes as Brussels has been urging to spike the bloc’s military spending to address a perceived Russian threat.
The EU’s rearmament proposal, known as the REARM plan, was introduced by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen earlier this month and aims to strengthen the bloc’s military capabilities. The plan includes €150 billion in loans to EU governments for defense spending and fiscal exemptions, potentially mobilizing up to €800 billion ($870 billion) over the next four years.
However, critics in the Netherlands have warned that the plan lacks a concrete financial framework and could lead to an economic crisis. Despite Dutch Prime Minister Dick Schoof initially backing the initiative, a narrow parliamentary majority—including the Party for Freedom (PVV), New Social Contract (NSC), and the Farmer–Citizen Movement (BBB)—rejected the proposal in a vote on Tuesday.
Lawmakers argued that the plan’s reliance on joint EU loans would increase debt burdens for member states and expose them to financial risks. A representative of the NSC noted that while the party supports Ukraine aid and increased EU military budgets, it is opposed to any form of eurobonds or the expansion of budgetary standards, as proposed by the REARM plan.
The EU’s push to boost military spending has intensified after US President Donald Trump repeatedly criticized European NATO members for failing to meet defense spending commitments. Last month, Trump warned that the US would not automatically defend NATO allies if they did not increase their financial contributions, stating, “If they don’t pay, I’m not going to defend them.”
In response, European leaders have moved to expand their military budgets with some citing a supposed Russian threat as justification for the rush. French President Emmanuel Macron had recently publicly labeled Russia as a “threat to Europe” and has suggested extending France’s nuclear umbrella to other EU countries.
Moscow has repeatedly rejected having any intentions to attack NATO or EU countries and has dismissed such claims as “nonsense.” The Kremlin has also condemned the EU’s plans to increase defense spending, calling it “militarization” that is “primarily aimed at Russia” and stressing that such moves are a “matter of deep concern” for Moscow.
Nationalist MPs in Romania have launched a parliamentary strike in protest against the disqualification of frontrunner Călin Georgescu from the upcoming May presidential elections.
The move, led by the Alliance for the Union of Romanians (AUR), comes amid growing political unrest and public outcry over what critics are calling an attack on democracy.
George Simion, President of AUR, announced the strike on social media, declaring that all AUR MPs would cease attending parliamentary meetings.
“Starting today, all AUR MPs will go on parliamentary strike. They will no longer attend plenary or committee meetings. State institutions have committed an unimaginable abuse against Călin Georgescu. We stand by his side!” Simion wrote.
The Central Electoral Bureau (BEC) rejected Georgescu’s candidacy on Sunday evening with a 10-4 vote. The decision, met with immediate backlash, triggered widespread protests and sharp international criticism.
Following the announcement, demonstrators gathered outside BEC headquarters in Bucharest, waving national flags and chanting for a “revolution.” Some protesters clashed with police, leading to the use of tear gas as authorities attempted to disperse the crowd.
Georgescu appealed the BEC ruling to the Romanian Constitutional Court (CCR), but the court upheld the decision on Tuesday, barring him from running in the election. The ruling is final and binding, eliminating the frontrunner from the race.
Simion, who also serves as vice president of the European Conservatives and Reformist group in the European Parliament, denounced the decision as politically motivated.
“It was rejected without any reason. All the papers were in good order. We live in a dictatorship. Please help us. Please be on our side to restore democracy in Romania,” Simion pleaded.
“The Deep State wants to ban real opposition, rig the elections, and stay in power at any cost. But we are not afraid! We will fight until our country is free from corruption, censorship and political persecution,” he added on Tuesday.
Following the court ruling, Georgescu lamented the demise of democracy in his country.
“Today, the masters have decided: no equality, no liberty, no fraternity for Romanians,” Georgescu wrote on X. “Long live France and Brussels, long live their colony named Romania.
“While America is becoming great again, Europe and Romania have become petty, corrupt and under dictatorship,” he added.
Nationalists are now understood to be preparing a replacement candidate for the presidential elections and have until March 19 to file papers.
The first round re-run is scheduled for May 4, with a run-off set for May 18.
EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs Kaja Kallas’ claim that Russian civilians “are not dying” in the Ukraine conflict is erroneous, Russia’s envoy to the UN Vassily Nebenzia has said.
During a UN Security Council meeting on Tuesday, Nebenzia denounced Kallas’s remarks from February as “immoral assertions” from an official peddling “fantasies.” He said that in 2024 alone, Ukrainian military action resulted in the death of 809 Russian civilians, including 51 children.
Those killings constituted “real crimes” and not a “theatrical performance like Bucha that was staged by the Ukrainian authorities” to garner Western support, Nebenzia stated. Kiev has cited claims that Russian forces had committed a “massacre” in the town in 2022 to justify its decision to abandon peace talks, while Russia contends that the evidence was fabricated.
Speaking at a panel discussion during the Munich Security Conference, Kallas claimed that the two nations take radically different positions: “The difference is that Russian civilians are not dying. I mean Russian children and women are not dying, it’s soldiers on the ground” who do, she stated.
In response, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova labeled Kallas’s comments as evidence of the “degradation” of senior EU officials, asserting that the senior diplomat has reached a new low in “cynicism and immorality.”
“How can one seriously negotiate with people who have declared lies as their official position?” Zakharova questioned.
Kallas, known for her hawkish stance towards Russia, became the EU’s foreign policy and security chief last December after stepping down as Estonia’s prime minister under public pressure.
International Humanitarian Law prohibits the attack, destruction, or rendering useless of objects indispensable to civilian survival.
By Kurt Nimmo | Another Day in the Empire | June 10, 2026
… During the first Gulf War, the United States “deliberately bombed Iraq’s water system,” Thomas J. Nagy, a professor at George Washington University, wrote in September, 2001. The Bush administration, “with malice aforethought,” “destroyed, removed, or rendered useless” Iraq’s ‘drinking water installations and supplies’… They amount to a systematic effort to, in the DIA’s own words, ‘fully degrade’ Iraq’s water sources.”
Nagy found declassified documents at the website of the Office of the Special Assistant for Gulf War Illnesses that detailed the effort to degrade Iraq’s water supply and commit a serious violation of humanitarian law. The documents included “Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerability,” “Disease Information,” “Disease Outbreaks in Iraq,” “Medical Problems in Iraq,” “Status of Disease at Refugee Camps,” “Health Conditions in Iraq,” and “Iraq: Assessment of Current Health Threats and Capabilities.”
Then Representative Cynthia McKinney, a Democrat from Georgia (subsequently removed from Congress), referred to the Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities document, and said, “Attacking the Iraqi public drinking water supply flagrantly targets civilians and is a violation of the Geneva Convention and of the fundamental laws of civilized nations.” … Read full article
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News 