Why Would the US Stir Up Conflict in North Africa?
Photo credit: FAROUK BATICHE/AFP via Getty Images
By Vladimir Odintsov – New Eastern Outlook – 09.02.2021
The Trump administration, which left the US political Olympus, actively sought to sow contradictions in the unity of the Arab world in the Middle East, to divide these countries, to force the states that yield to the influence of Washington to lose even more identity and independence in their politics, to obey only the dictates of the American-Israeli elite. It was to this end that active steps were taken to build a new configuration of the region with forceful pressure on Muslim countries for diplomatic recognition of Israel. Although it was clear to everyone, including in the US itself, that without a solution of the Palestinian question by Tel Aviv, no Abraham Accords made between the leaders of individual Muslim states and the Jewish state would bring these countries peace and political stability.
Trump’s initiatives to involve North African countries in the game of chess, conceived by his administration, in which Israel was supposed to be the leading figure, brought no calm to the political situation either. And Donald Trump’s baiting of Morocco on “US support for the kingdom’s sovereignty over the territories of Western Sahara in Africa” for agreeing to recognize the Jewish state has only exacerbated the situation in the region. Political activists in countries such as Algeria and Libya, which for decades have supported the Polisario Front, which insists on the creation of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR), opposed Washington’s decision.
As a result, the Polisario Front declared the end of a 30-year truce and mobilized the population to fight the “Moroccan occupiers” and began preparing for hostilities with Morocco, whose army also said it would conduct an operation in Western Sahara to “restore the unity of the nation.” The military has already entered the buffer zone, ignoring its obligations to the UN, which, in fact, was the trigger for a new armed conflict in Africa. The military operations have already started, involving the use of artillery and MLRs, as well as peacekeepers, who fired APCs to repel the Polisario’s attack in the direction of the border town of Guerherat. The main hope of the Polisario rebels is Algeria, which was already considering stepping up its forces against the kingdom.
Mohammed Salem Ould Salek, one of the leaders of the Polisario Front, accused the Moroccan authorities of fomenting war in the region. In addition, he stated that his organization, as well as the SADR administration, had lost confidence in UN Secretary General António Guterres because his recent report did not comply with the letter and spirit of the joint UN-African Union (AU) plan to resolve the conflict in Western Sahara.
Another Polisario Front representative, Sidi Mohammed Omar, quoted by AFP, believes that the Guterres report gives a false impression of calm, when in reality there is chaos in the region. He claims that the Moroccan authorities have grossly violated human rights in the occupied territories by abducting, torturing and killing Polisario and SADR functionaries.
At the same time, in spite of the ongoing tension around the problem of Western Sahara, it should be noted that since the arrival of the new US President Joe Biden in the White House, despite the breakdown of the truce, the rebels are not trying to make a serious offensive in the lands controlled by Rabat. They are clearly hoping that the new US administration may renegotiate Trump’s agreement with Morocco on Western Sahara. Moreover, Polisario is well aware that, without the necessary support from the international community and with insufficient firepower, a prolonged war with Morocco is clearly untenable. Therefore, the recent loud statements of the Polisario fighters are more a desire to draw international attention to the situation in Western Sahara, to get the support of world powers to put pressure on Morocco to withdraw royal troops from the occupied territories.
The Moroccan authorities are already accusing the authorities of neighboring Algeria of covertly supporting the Polisario. Other countries, in particular the United Arab Emirates, which opened a diplomatic mission in Western Sahara 10 days before the start of the war, are involuntarily brought into the conflict. In addition, the situation escalated after the government of Côte d’Ivoire, followed by several other small African states, including Gabon, Comoros, and Sao Tome and Principe, decided to open their consulates in Laayoune, a small town claimed by the SADR. In Western Sahara, such steps were perceived as flagrant violations of international law, UN and General Assembly resolutions on the decolonization of Western Sahara. The SADR protest was supported by Algeria, Polisario’s traditional sponsor, Namibia, and several other African countries that have recognized SADR independence.
The danger of the current escalating conflict in Western Sahara is that a new war could not only scorch Morocco and the SADR, but also spill over into Algeria. In this situation, with African countries and the Arab world deeply concerned about the events in Western Sahara, Egypt has taken the initiative to play the role of mediator and peacemaker, calling on Morocco, Polisario and Algeria to refrain from further escalation.
To better understand the situation, it is necessary to recall that Western Sahara was under Spanish control until 1953. But when a new political-military organization, the Frente Popular para la Liberación de Saguia el-Hamra y Río de Oro (Polisario), appeared in the territory, it began to advocate the independence of the two regions, with Algerian support, without ruling out the possibility of armed struggle. As a result, Madrid abandoned its colony and withdrew its troops, to be replaced by soldiers from Morocco and Mauritania. The fighting continued until 1991, when representatives of Rabat and Polisario signed a UN-brokered ceasefire agreement.
The people of Western Sahara were given the opportunity to determine the fate of their land, including through a referendum in 1992, but due to disagreements over who could participate, the vote did not take place. Subsequently, Morocco refused to support the idea of calling a new referendum, agreeing only to grant autonomy within the state.
Today about 80% of Western Sahara is controlled by Rabat, the remaining 20%, which is mostly desert surface, has gone to the rebels.
On the issue of ownership of the disputed territories the international community has remained neutral for the last 30 years, 117 out of 194 UN member states still do not recognize the independence of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, in fact, as well as the sovereignty of Morocco over these lands. However, Algeria, Argentina and several other countries sided with the SADR, and France, along with 19 states, agreed to a plan for autonomy in the region. Forty-five states, including Russia, advocate a people’s right to self-determination.
As for Rabat’s resumption of diplomatic relations with Tel Aviv, one can hardly expect any active steps from the kingdom in the near future. First, they clearly intend to wait for the new US administration’s decision on Trump’s “initiatives,” especially with regard to support for “kingdom sovereignty over the Western Sahara territories in Africa.” In addition, the Supreme Court of the Kingdom has already received a lawsuit from a group of lawyers demanding the cancellation of the deal with Israel, and until the end of this lawsuit official Rabat is not willing to take any action against Israel.
As for the Biden administration, it had another urgent task to clean up Trump’s “Augean Stables,” only this time in relation to the situation in Morocco-Western Sahara-Algeria, and in the North African region as a whole.
Human Rights Watch denounces Cuba for human rights violations
By Lucas Leiroz | February 9, 2021
Denunciations of human rights violations against Cuba have become routine in the West. For decades, governments, NGOs and activists have denounced the Cuban government for various attitudes of abuse of universal rights, but the sources of such reports and evidence of crimes remain weak and vague. Once again, the NGO Human Rights Watch issued a report warning of an alleged “abusive” situation with regard to human rights on the island – and again the evidence is weak and reveals an ideologized action.
Every year, Human Rights Watch releases its global reports, covering all regions of the planet and warning against alleged human rights violations worldwide. In its 2021 edition, published on January 13, in the topic dedicated to Cuba, several crimes were reported, including alleged arbitrary arrests on the island, lack of freedom of expression, presence of political prisoners in Cuban penitentiaries, travel restrictions and several others acts that are presented to international society as frequent and structural in Cuba.
There are explanations for Human Rights Watch’s frontal opposition to Cuba, which are little publicized in the international media. In the past, the Cuban government has accused the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) of funding more than 20 organizations to promote complaints and defamations against the Latin country, including HRW. NED’s ties to the CIA prompted the Cuban government to veto agents from organizations linked to the NED into the country. In fact, regardless of whether or not there is a plot against the island organized by the NED and the CIA, it is clear that HRW’s annual reports are focused on denouncing and criticizing emerging countries, especially non-aligned nations, anticipating coercive measures taken by the US and other Western powers. This led Havana to endorse the narrative that HRW creates justifications for subsequent coercive measures with its allegations of human rights violations.
The central problem for the credibility of HRW reports is the authenticity of the organization’s sources. The reports are based on data provided by anti-government activists who are ideologically committed to the end of communism and the triumph of American interests on the island. To this end, such activists, who work inside and outside Cuba, adulterate, exaggerate or even create data that does not correspond to the reality of the country, as has been reported several times by Havana. The speech of anonymous activists follows a model predefined by American agencies interested in the fall of the Cuban government. This speech is disseminated by human rights NGOs and finally justifies coercive measures by the American government. For this reason, Havana sees HRW as a threat to its national security and this will not change, even if Washington strengthens its sanctions further, as there is a central ideological incompatibility between these countries that cannot be overcome with mere coercive maneuvers.
Exaggeration is certainly the greatest weapon of these agents. Surely, there are human rights violations in Cuba – just as there are in any nation. There is no country that has been successful in completely abolishing acts contrary to human rights. Many nations may have officially abolished such practices, but they certainly still exist unofficially and, equally, deserve investigation and criticisms. However, this persecution against “human rights violators” is generally applied when the charged state is an emerging nation geopolitically opposed to Washington, like Cuba. In this way, NGOs like HRW observe cases of violation and exaggerate them, claiming that there is a state policy to confront universal rights, when, in fact, they are only marginal practices that exist in any country.
Just as mistakes are exaggerated, merits are ignored. Cuba has some of the best social indicators on the American continent, being a global reference in education and with some of the most qualified medical professionals in the world. Havana is responsible for several humanitarian missions sending doctors and equipment to nations in need of medical care, including not only poor countries, but developed states in emergencies, such as Italy during the pandemic. Furthermore, Cuba seems to be advanced in many agendas exalted in the West. For example, women occupy 51% of the deputies in the National Assembly and are 62% of the country’s scientists – which are remarkably high numbers by Western standards. These indices show that, with or without structural disrespect, there is undeniable progress in terms of human rights, and this cannot be ignored.
However, Havana is right to think that HRW’s reports are not by chance. What we should expect for the future is the resurgence of a focus of tensions between Washington and Havana. Trump, in his last days in government, reversed a process of rapprochement between the countries when he considered Cuba again as a terrorist financing nation – a totally unreasonable accusation and without any material evidence, which Trump certainly did not believe, but made this decision as a strategic maneuver to harm Biden and transfer power to his successor with more international tensions. Biden promised to review Trump’s policy against Cuba but gave no details of exactly what points he will reform. However, a peaceful policy for Havana was never expected from the new American president. Biden’s reforms are likely to occur, more likely, to facilitate the flow of migration and to include “humanitarian” issues in relations, shifting the focus of tensions from a security and defense perspective to one of respect for human rights and democracy.
In practice, this means that Biden must try to harm Cubans even more by imposing international sanctions in order to force Havana to comply with humanitarian standards that are already respected but whose compliance will never be recognized by NGOs committed to the American government.
Lucas Leiroz is a research fellow in international law at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.
The (New Normal) War on Domestic Terror
Photo credit: Bryan Myhr/US Army National Guard
CJ Hopkins | Consent Factory | February 8, 2021
If you enjoyed the Global War on Terror, you’re going to love the new War on Domestic Terror! It’s just like the original Global War on Terror, except that this time the “Terrorists” are all “Domestic Violent Extremists” (“DVEs”), “Homegrown Violent Extremists” (“HVEs”), “Violent Conspiracy-Theorist Extremists” (“VCTEs”), “Violent Reality Denialist Extremists” (VRDEs”), “Insurrectionary Micro-Aggressionist Extremists” (“IMAEs”), “People Who Make Liberals Feel Uncomfortable” (“PWMLFUs”), and anyone else the Department of Homeland Security wants to label an “extremist” and slap a ridiculous acronym on.
According to a “National Terrorism Advisory System Bulletin” issued by the DHS on January 27, these DCEs, HVEs, VCTEs, VRDEs, IMAEs, and PWMLFUs are “ideologically-motivated violent extremists with objections to the exercise of governmental authority” and other “perceived grievances fueled by false narratives.” They are believed to be “motivated by a range of issues, including anger over Covid-19 restrictions, the 2020 election results, police use of force,” and other dangerous “false narratives” (e.g., the existence of the “deep state,” “herd immunity,” “biological sex,” “God,” and so on).
“Inspired by foreign terrorist groups” and “emboldened by the breach of the US Capitol Building,” this diabolical network of “domestic terrorists” is “plotting attacks against government facilities,” “threatening violence against critical infrastructure” and actively “citing misinformation and conspiracy theories about Covid-19.” For all we know, they might be huddled in the “Wolf’s Lair” at Mar-a-Lago right now, plotting a devastating terrorist attack with those WMDs we never found in Iraq, or generating population-adjusted death-rate charts going back 20 years, or posting pictures of “extremist frogs” on the Internet.
The Department of Homeland Security is “concerned,” as are its counterparts throughout the global capitalist empire. The (New Normal) War on Domestic Terror isn’t just a war on American “domestic terror.” The “domestic terror” threat is international. France has just passed a “Global Security Law” banning citizens from filming the police beating the living snot out of people (among other “anti-terrorist” provisions). In Germany, the government is preparing to install an anti-terror moat around the Reichstag. In the Netherlands, the police are cracking down on the VCTEs, VRDEs, and other “angry citizens who hate the system,” who have been protesting over nightly curfews. Suddenly, everywhere you look (or at least if you are looking in the corporate media), “global extremism networks are growing.” It’s time for Globocap to take the gloves off again, root the “terrorists” out of their hidey holes, and roll out a new official narrative.
Actually, there’s not much new about it. When you strip away all the silly new acronyms, the (New Normal) War on Domestic Terror is basically just a combination of the “War on Terror” narrative and the “New Normal” narrative, i.e., a militarization of the so-called “New Normal” and a pathologization of the “War on Terror.” Why would GloboCap want to do that, you ask?
I think you know, but I’ll go ahead and tell you.
See, the problem with the original “Global War on Terror” was that it wasn’t actually all that global. It was basically just a war on Islamic “terrorism” (i.e., resistance to global capitalism and its post-ideological ideology), which was fine as long as GloboCap was just destabilizing and restructuring the Greater Middle East. It was put on hold in 2016, so that GloboCap could focus on defeating “populism” (i.e., resistance to global capitalism and its post-ideological ideology), make an example of Donald Trump, and demonize everyone who voted for him (or just refused to take part in their free and fair elections), which they have just finished doing, in spectacular fashion. So, now it’s back to “War on Terror” business, except with a whole new cast of “terrorists,” or, technically, an expanded cast of “terrorists.” (I rattled off a list in my previous column.)
In short, GloboCap has simply expanded, recontextualized, and pathologized the “War on Terror” (i.e., the war on resistance to global capitalism and its post-ideological ideology). This was always inevitable, of course. A globally-hegemonic system (e.g., global capitalism) has no external enemies, as there is no territory “outside” the system. Its only enemies are within the system, and thus, by definition, are insurgents, also known as “terrorists” and “extremists.” These terms are utterly meaningless, obviously. They are purely strategic, deployed against anyone who deviates from GloboCap’s official ideology … which, in case you were wondering, is called “normality” (or, in our case, currently, “New Normality”).
In earlier times, these “terrorists” and “extremists” were known as “heretics,” “apostates,” and “blasphemers.” Today, they are also known as “deniers,” e.g., “science deniers,” “Covid deniers,” and recently, more disturbingly, “reality deniers.” This is an essential part of the pathologization of the “War on Terror” narrative. The new breed of “terrorists” do not just hate us for our freedom … they hate us because they hate “reality.” They are no longer our political or ideological opponents … they are suffering from a psychiatric disorder. They no longer need to be argued with or listened to … they need to be “treated,” “reeducated,” and “deprogrammed,” until they accept “Reality.” If you think I’m exaggerating the totalitarian nature of the “New Normal/War on Terror” narrative, read this op-ed in The New York Times exploring the concept of a “Reality Czar” to deal with our “Reality Crisis.”
And this is just the beginning, of course. The consensus (at least in GloboCap circles) is, the (New Normal) War on Domestic Terror will probably continue for the next 10 to 20 years, which should provide the global capitalist ruling classes with more than enough time to carry out the “Great Reset,” destroy what’s left of human society, and condition the public to get used to living like cringing, neo-feudal peasants who have to ask permission to leave their houses. We’re still in the initial “shock and awe” phase (which they will have to scale back a bit eventually), but just look at how much they’ve already accomplished.
The economic damage is literally incalculable … millions have been plunged into desperate poverty, countless independent businesses crushed, whole industries crippled, developing countries rendered economically dependent (i.e., compliant) for the foreseeable future, as billionaires amassed over $1 trillion in wealth and supranational corporate behemoths consolidated their dominance across the planet.
And that’s just the economic damage. The attack on society has been even more dramatic. GloboCap, in the space of a year, has transformed the majority of the global masses into an enormous, paranoid totalitarian cult that is no longer capable of even rudimentary reasoning. (I’m not going to go on about it here … at this point, you either recognize it or you’re in it.) They’re actually lining up in parking lots, the double-masked members of this Covidian cult, to be injected with an experimental “vaccine” that they believe will save the human species from a virus that causes mild to moderate symptoms in roughly 95% of those “infected,” and that over 99% of the “infected” survive.
So, it is no big surprise that these same mindless cultists are gung-ho for the (New Normal) War on Domestic Terror, and the upcoming globally-televised show trial of Donald Trump for “inciting insurrection,” and the ongoing corporate censorship of the Internet, and can’t wait to be issued their “Freedom Passports,” which will allow them to take part in “New Normal” life — double-masked and socially-distanced, naturally — while having their every movement and transaction, and every word they write on Facebook, or in an email, or say to someone on their smartphones, or in the vicinity of their 5G toasters, recorded by GloboCap’s Intelligence Services and their corporate partners, subsidiaries, and assigns. These people have nothing at all to worry about, as they would never dream of disobeying orders, and could not produce an original thought, much less one displeasing to GloboCap, if you held a fake apocalyptic plague to their heads.
As for the rest of us “extremists,” “domestic terrorists,” “heretics,” and “reality deniers,” (i.e., anyone criticizing global capitalism, or challenging its official narratives, and its increasingly totalitarian ideology, regardless of our specific DHS acronyms), I wish I had something hopeful to tell you, but, the truth is, things aren’t looking so good. I guess I’ll see you in a quarantine camp, or in the psych ward, or an offshore detention facility … or, I don’t know, maybe I’ll see you in the streets.
#
Firms CAN Insist That Staff Are Vaccinated Say Ministers
By Richie Allen | February 8, 2021
No jab no job is moving ever closer. Last night UK health ministers said that companies should be able to amend their existing health and safety policies to demand that employees are vaccinated against Covid-19. It has been suggested however, that it may be easier to enforce the policy when hiring staff. Firing existing employees who refuse to comply, may prove more difficult.
The government has been discussing the introduction of vaccine passports, which would allow employers to ask for proof of vaccination.
Yesterday, Vaccine Minister Nadhim Zahawi was dismissive of any such scheme calling it “discriminatory” and “not how we do things in the UK.” However, The Telegraph newspaper says that it understands that health ministers are arguing in favour of the scheme:
One government source said: “If someone is working in an environment where people haven’t been vaccinated, it becomes a public health risk. “Health and safety laws say you have to protect other people at work, and when it becomes about protecting other people the argument gets stronger. “If there is clear evidence that vaccines prevent transmission, the next stage is to make sure more and more people are taking up the vaccine. “If people have allergies or other reasons for not getting jabbed, then of course they should be exempt, but where it’s an unjustified fear, we have got to help people get into the right place.”
Other ministers argued that allowing firms to insist that staff be vaccinated is discriminatory and sets a dangerous precedent. Those voices are being drowned out though. Vaccine passports are here to stay. Back in November Nadhim Zahawi said that health passports would be driven by the private sector. Speaking to SKY News at the time, he acknowledged that businesses would want to know that customers had proof of a negative test or had been vaccinated. Soon, you will be unable to do anything or go anywhere without your health passport.
Lost in all of this of course, is the fact that none of the jabs prevent the recipient from contracting the virus. Equally, there’s no evidence that suggests they prevent against transmission. By definition, these medicines are not vaccines at all. All they have going for them is the claim that if you have been vaccinated and then you come down with Covid, your symptoms MIGHT be milder than if you hadn’t had the jab at all. I know that this is ridiculous, you know that this is ridiculous, but we are in a tiny minority.
Western pundits believed post-Maidan Ukraine would serve as an ‘example’ for Russia – in reality, it’s become a cautionary tale
By Paul Robinson | RT | February 6, 2021
Many Russian liberals and foreign pundits saw Ukraine’s 2014 ‘Maidan’ as an event that would inspire change in Moscow. Today, as an increasingly dysfunctional Kiev clamps down on free speech, it looks more like a cautionary tale.
In May 2014, newly elected Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko promised that he would rapidly bring peace to his country. “The anti-terrorist operation cannot and should not last two or three months. It should and will last hours,” he said.
Nearly 60,000 hours later, the war into which the badly named “anti-terrorist operation” morphed is still going on. Poroshenko’s successor Volodymyr Zelensky similarly promised to bring the fighting to an end. “My main goal… is that I want to end the war. This is my mission within these five years,” he told journalists. But he has been equally unsuccessful.
Zelensky resoundingly defeated Poroshenko in the 2019 presidential election, in which the incumbent won a plurality of votes only in the far west of the country. By portraying himself as a candidate not only of peace, but also of national unity, Zelensky was able to attract the votes of a large number of Russian-speaking Ukrainians in the south and east of the country who had been alienated by Poroshenko’s increasingly nationalistic tone.
Unfortunately, since then Zelensky has betrayed those voters time after time.
Not only has he failed to take any of the steps required to bring the war to an end – most notably, the concessions demanded in the 2015 Minsk II agreements – but his government has also further suppressed the language rights of Ukrainians and is now clamping down on the opposition media.
In January 2020, liberal Russian pundits lined up to praise Zelensky’s new year’s speech. Zelensky was said to have promoted an image of national unity, seeking to overcome linguistic and other differences which had been accentuated by his predecessor’s nationalist policies. “It doesn’t matter what your street is called as long as it is clean and asphalted,” said Zelensky, in a line which seemed to suggest that his government would bring an end to the habit of changing street names from those of communist heroes to those of nationalist icons like Stepan Bandera.
In fact, it hasn’t. Not only has Zelensky failed to provide clean and asphalted streets, but it’s since become clear that what he really meant was not that he would bring an end to forcible Ukrainization, but that Russian speakers should just shut up and stop complaining about it, since, after all, none of that stuff actually “matters.”
Thus, Zelensky has done nothing to reverse the 2019 law on official languages, which sharply restricts the use of Russian. Most notably, on January 16 a new rule came into effect which obliges all service providers (shops, restaurants, etc.) to offer their services in Ukrainian by default. Meanwhile, censorship in Ukraine has reached new levels of silliness, prohibiting for instance a book about the Vikings by an American author because it referred to ancient Kievan Rus’ as “Russia.”
Now Zelensky has gone even further, banning three television stations owned by opposition politician Taras Kozak, on the grounds that they are spreading Russian disinformation. Zelensky claims that he supports freedom of speech but not “propaganda financed by the aggressors.” “These media have become one of the tools in the war against Ukraine, so they are blocked in order to protect national security,” said Zelensky’s spokesperson Yuliia Mendel.
The fact that the ban comes at a moment when Zelensky’s popularity is plummeting, and when Kozak’s party Opposition Platform – For Life is leading in national opinion polls may be entirely coincidental. But then again it may not. The move smacks of political desperation.
It is also, of course, deeply undemocratic in character. Had former president Viktor Yanukovich, who was overthrown in the February 2014 Maidan revolution, ever attempted such a thing, Ukrainian liberals and their Western allies would have cried huge screams of outrage. Now, however, they are silent, or even supportive. The US Embassy in Kiev, for instance, issued a statement that it backed the measure as designed “to counter Russia’s malign influence.”
The US response reveals the shallowness of Western assertions that in backing the Maidan revolution and subsequent governments they are supporting democracy, human rights, and a liberal order. In reality, geopolitics seems to be the primary concern. As long as Ukraine remains resolutely anti-Russia, a blind eye will be turned to nearly any and all abuses of democratic principles.
And here’s where the situation becomes rather sad. In the immediate aftermath of the Maidan revolution, it was said that Vladimir Putin’s response was driven by fears that Western-style democracy in Ukraine would provide a positive model which would incite a similar revolution in Russia.
A typical analysis was that of Paul D’Anieri, professor of public policy at the University of California, Riverside, who wrote in 2015 that “the prospect was that Ukraine would, with the aid of the EU, begin turning itself around. If so, it could become an attractive model for Russians, and a very different model than the one Putin has been insisting is the only one available.”
This line continues to find supporters. For instance, in a gushing article for Al Jazeera, journalist Leonid Ragozin remarked that Zelensky’s 2020 new year’s speech showed that “Ukraine may finally be moving towards fulfilling the Kremlin‘s biggest nightmare – becoming a role model for progressive politics and democracy for Russians to look up to.”
Ragozin has it back to front, for the very opposite would appear to be the case. Commenting on recent protests in Moscow, Ollie Carroll, Moscow correspondent of the British newspaper, the Independent, asked why Russians weren’t reacting with the same sense of indignation as Ukrainians had when Yanukovich’s police attacked demonstrators in Kiev six-and-a-half years ago. Carroll implied that this meant that there was something defective about Russians’ moral values.
In reality, the answer could simply be that they’ve looked at Ukraine and decided that it isn’t a good example to follow.
Paul Robinson is a professor at the University of Ottawa. He writes about Russian and Soviet history, military history, and military ethics, and is author of the Irrussianality blog.
Refuse A Vaccine? You’re Likely To Be Visited By A “Persuader”
By Richie Allen | February 5, 2021
Vaccine Minister Nadhim Zahawi said yesterday, that folks who haven’t taken up the offer of a vaccine, could get a knock on the door from council staff to “persuade” them to have it. He told MPs that he wanted to use local authority’s to find those who had refused the jab and determine what might then convince them. If that sounds sinister, it’s because it is. Very.
Zahawi went on to say that the NHS was already trying to “identify to individual level the people that we need to reach” to ensure that all over-70s had a chance to be vaccinated by February 15th. During a phone-in last Thursday, The Richie Allen Show spoke to 79 year old Ron, who said that he had received a phone call inviting him to come and be jabbed. When he politely said “no thanks”, he was told that he would be put on “the decline list.” Now that’s creepy. Why the need for a decline list unless you planned to use it to sanction those who have refused the vaccine? What might sanctions look like?
Zahawi’s comments came on the same day that Conservative MP Mark Harper, a member of The Covid Recovery Group, said that health care workers who refused the jab should not be allowed to work with vulnerable people. You are undoubtedly going to hear more of this in the days and weeks to come. “No Jab, No Job” is a catchphrase that rolls off the tongue. It’s everywhere now. And according to The Times this morning:
British officials have started work on a “vaccine passport” as Greece prepares to waive quarantine rules for tourists who can prove that they have been inoculated against coronavirus. A certification system is being planned, The Times has learnt. The Foreign Office, Department for Transport and Department of Health and Social Care are working on options for travellers to countries that may demand it as a condition of entry.
The gloves are off now and things are moving very quickly. We’re at peak lockdown fatigue. People have had enough and are beyond desperate to return to some semblance of a normal life. The government is dangling the vaccines and the health passports. It’s classic carrot and stick. No amount of money on earth could persuade me to have one of their vaccines. I’ll take my pleasure where I can find it and look forward to the knock on the door from “the persuaders.” That’ll be fun.
Richie Allen is the host of The Richie Allen Radio show, Europe’s most listened to independent radio show and is a passionate supporter of free speech.
Russian Foreign Ministry Is Concerned About Political Persecution in the United States
The Saker | February 4, 2021
Moscow intends to hold a ‘serious conversation’ with Washington about the stars and stripes allegations of unauthorized actions in Russia.
The official representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry Maria Zakharova spoke about this at a briefing.
The American authorities, according to their words, will not be able to “divert public views, public opinion from their own problems” with their unbridled attacks on the Russian Federation: “We mean to keep this topic in sight and have a serious conversation with Washington. I assure you, the news won’t keep you waiting.”
“I would like to appeal to Washington. I predict: their protest will not dissipate by itself. Discontent will not work under the carpet. the authorities and the media obedient to them declare, a direct quote: ‘domestic terrorists.’ Doubts about the objectivity of the US law enforcement agencies are also raised by the fact that they are essentially acting in accordance with the political order and guidelines of the current administration, which declared the events of January 6 as a mutiny, and all who were near the congress that day are almost depicted as marauders. However, most of them are ordinary US citizens who are worried about the situation in their own country. And you know how many there are? 74 million voters. They voted for their president, as they believed necessary, they defended their beliefs,” – Zakharova emphasized.
“The United States has already announced so much lately that I want to remind them of what is happening in their country … An endless, unceasing increase in the degree of violence. This is what our partners need to pay attention to, the situation in their own countries, and not try to help rock the situation in our country,” she added.
An official representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry stated that human rights with the United States “are constantly and very hypocritically taken care of in relation to other countries, but they do not hesitate to ignore them at home.”
Zakharova is sure the United States will continue at attempts to interfere in the affairs of Russia. “But if the United States of America chooses the tactics of constant intervention in our internal affairs, which we are talking about and bringing facts, and these facts are not hard to find, they are on the surface, – we will be interested to see how they end up doing.”
Maria Zakharova – on the criminal prosecution of participants in the storming of the Capitol:
“It is of serious concern of the ongoing campaign in the United States of persecution of the participants in the so-called storming of the Capitol on January 6 and, in general, all those who disagree with the results of the last presidential elections, which the authorities and the media obedient to them, have declared ‘domestic terrorists.’
According to available informaiton, the FBI has opened over 400 criminal cases, requested more than 500 permits in the courts to search and summon suspects, and also brought charges and has already arrested about 200 people. Severe pressure is carried out, including the treatment of relatives, acquaintances, coercion to give the necessary testimony. Moreover, people who have not even been formally charged are fired from their jobs, expelled from social networks, blocked or harassed.”
Bill Would Force Social Media Users To Secretly Report Suspicious People To Law Enforcement
MassPrivateI | February 4, 2021
Senator Joe Manchin wants to bring DHS’s spy on your neighbors “If You See, Something Say Something” program to social media, blogs, websites, and much more. Manchin’s bill, the “See Something, Say Something Online Act” would essentially turn social media users into Federal spies by forcing them to report suspicious people to law enforcement.
Just how bad is this bill?
This bill would essentially force anyone on social media to report suspicious “transmissions” to law enforcement.
“Known Suspicious Transmission.—The term ‘‘known suspicious transmission’’ is any suspicious transmission that an interactive computer service should have reasonably known to have occurred or have been notified of by a director, officer, employ, agent, interactive computer service user, or State or Federal law enforcement agency.”
Major Crime —The term ‘‘major crime’’ means a Federal criminal offense that is a crime of violence (as defined 13 in section 16 of title 18, United States Code); relating to domestic or international terrorism (as those terms are defined in section 16 2331 of title 18, United States Code)
What exactly is a known suspicious transmission or major crime?
“Suspicious Transmission is defined as any post, private message, comment, tag, transaction, or any other user-generated content or transmission that government officials later determine commits, facilitates, incites, promotes, or otherwise assists the commission of a major crime. Major crimes are defined as anything involving violence, domestic, or international terrorism, or a serious drug offense.”
How could social media users, bloggers, web forum moderators, web conferencing users etc., know that a comment left or uttered by someone would later lead to them committing a major crime?
The See Something, Say Something Online Act would force social media users into red flagging every person’s comments just in case someone commits a major crime in the future.
This bill would effectively destroy the First Amendment as we know it, dispelling any vestiges of America still being a free country.
Social media users would be forced to submit a Suspicious Transmission Activity Report (STAR) on suspicious individuals within 30 days.
“In General.—If a provider of an interactive computer service detects a suspicious transmission, the interactive computer service, including any director, officer, employee, agent, or representative of such provider, shall submit to the Department a STAR describing the suspicious transmission in accordance with this section.”
As Reason warned, the See Something, Say Something Online Act would put reporting on your fellow American on steroids. It would create a glut of frivolous reports, including many that are politically motivated, or otherwise disingenuous.
Social media users and law enforcement would keep detailed personal information, including metadata of suspicious people for five years.
“Each STAR submitted under this section shall contain, at a minimum— (1) the name, location, and other such identification information as submitted by the user to the provider of the interactive computer service; (2) the date and nature of the post, message, comment, tag, transaction, or other user-generated content or transmission detected for suspicious activity such as time, origin, and destination; and (3) any relevant text, information, and metadata related to the suspicious transmission.”
“Retention Of Records —Each provider of an interactive computer service shall— (A) maintain a copy of any STAR submitted under this section and the original record equivalent of any supporting documentation for the 5-year period beginning on the date on which the STAR was submitted. (B) make all supporting documentation available to the Department and any appropriate law enforcement agencies upon request.”
No one can tell a person that they have been flagged as suspicious
“Non-Disclosure—Except as otherwise prescribed by the Attorney General, no provider of an interactive computer service, or officer, director, employee, or agent of such a provider, subject to an order under subsection (a) may disclose the existence of, or terms of, the order to any person.”
Social media users could face prosecution for not reporting suspicious people
Imagine someone leaving a comment on social media like the police suck or calling someone a bitch, twit or twat and then they go on to commit a crime in the future. Would anyone like to guess what might happen next?
Every social media user who refused to file a STAR report on a suspicious person would open themselves up to prosecution or a lawsuit.
“Compliance—Any provider of an interactive computer service that fails to report a known suspicious transmission shall not be immune from civil or criminal liability for such transmission under section 230(c) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230(c)).”
Where does one begin when it comes to describing just how bad this bill is?
Forcing social media users to essentially submit STAR reports on people they deem as suspicious opens up a Pandora’s box of problems.
Social media users who are forced into reporting on people could flag everyone’s comments to guard against being prosecuted or sued. This bill, if passed as it is written, would have a devastating effect on the civil rights and freedoms of every American.
Featured Video
Trita Parsi: Iran War Ends Today? Threats of Deporting Trita Parsi
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Iran UN ambassador calls for destruction of all nuclear weapons
Iran’s ambassador to the UN Gholamali Khoshroo
Press TV – March 29, 2017
Iran’s ambassador to the UN Gholamali Khoshroo has called for the total eradication of nuclear weapons.
Khoshroo reiterated Iran’s call during a UN conference aimed at creating a nuclear weapons ban treaty in New York on Tuesday.
“Iran, as a victim of chemical weapons, strongly feels the danger posed by the existence of weapons of mass destruction and is determined to engage actively in international diplomatic efforts to save humanity from the menace of nuclear weapons,” he said.
Khoshroo stressed that Iran is committed to its Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) obligations, which include negotiations based on effective nuclear disarmament measures.
He added that several countries continue to ignore international calls and treaties for nuclear disarmament and even continue to increase their nuclear stockpiles. “They do not have political determination to abandon doctrines of nuclear deterrence and nuclear terror,” he went on to say.
Iran’s UN ambassador noted that boycotting the talks by many countries, including the US, shows that the world’s nuclear powers are by no means committed to the eradication of nuclear arms. Britain and France were also among the some 40 countries that did not join the talks.
“We note that prohibition of nuclear weapons must be accompanied by the elimination of such weapons. There can be no doubt that without complete abolition of nuclear weapons, there will be no absolute guarantee against the danger of nuclear war and the use of such weapons,” Khoshroo added.
Blog Roll
Aletho News- The Crusades – colliding narratives
- Trita Parsi: Iran War Ends Today? Threats of Deporting Trita Parsi
- What Is SIDS?
- DHS docs: Govt bracing for nationwide anti-AI riots, preparing to crack down on dissent
- India signals rethink over West Asia
- Israeli Ex-Navy Chief admits massive damage from Iran missiles
- The strategic arsenal US lost in war against Iran – and why replenishment will take years
- Documents Suggest Fauci Knew COVID Was Created in Wuhan Lab, and mRNA Vaccines Wouldn’t Work
- No return to pre-war status for Strait of Hormuz – Iran’s top diplomat
- Ex-South Korean President sentenced for trying to provoke conflict with Pyongyang
- If Americans Knew
- Israeli Firm Accused of Launching Smear Campaigns During US, European Elections
- As World Cup kicks off, Gaza amputee girls chase football dreams
- Oxfam: More Palestinians killed by Israel across West Bank in last 3 years than previous 17 years combined
- US-Iran ceasefire may be imminent, but will Israel blow it up? – Daily Update
- The Issue of Israel Is Ending Democracy In Michigan
- Israel is stealing homes, livelihoods, and lives in West Bank
- Gaza is not an aberration – Israel planned this genocide decades ago
- Israel is changing the face of Lebanon, mainstream media is normalizing it – 3 articles
- Genocide lobby benefits from EU anti-racist fund
- Watching the World Cup from Gaza
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: Significant CO2 Fluxes From Non-Volcanic Sources Are Largely Neglected In Carbon Budgets
- Women Climate Scientists Being Harassed, Insulted By Skeptics, Claims Berkeley Earth Researcher
- Germany’s Longterm Spring Climate Data Show “No Climate Trend”
- New Study: Solar Photovoltaic, Wind Power Fail To Meet Annual Energy Demands 62% Of The Time
- Germany’s Die Welt: “Too Much Is Too Much” … Green Energies Are Cannabalizing Each Other!
- Germany’s Ecological Holocaust… Once Fairy Tale Forests Getting Cleared For Wind Turbines
- A Grand Solar Minimum Has Arrived…Global Cooling Of At Least 1°C Is Expected By The 2030s, 2040s
- European “Expert Commission” Urges COVID-19-Like Global Climate State Of Energency!
- Real-World Observations Do Not Support The Position That Climate Change Is Human-Caused
- Germany’s AfD Party Calls Debunked Climate Scenarios “Greatest Fraud In Human History”
Aletho News 