Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Americans criticize US Middle Eastern policies

By Viktor Mikhin – New Eastern Outlook – 18.10.2022

The USA never misses an opportunity to present itself as an open and democratic society and a state in which the government authorities respect the will of the majority of the people and tailor their policies accordingly. That may have been the case in the past, but the facts no longer support this view – the President and his team are pushing through policies which favor their own interests and which are quite different from what they promised in their election campaigns.

There is a great deal of evidence to support this claim, but one particularly striking example is a new wide-ranging survey of Americans’ views on Washington’s foreign policy in the Middle East. The survey revealed that the majority of young Americans oppose their country’s policy in relation to Israel and, specifically against its sale of arms to the Israeli regime. The survey also shows that there is a great deal of support in American society for the Iran nuclear deal.

The survey, conducted by the Eurasia Group Foundation (EGF), shows that young Americans are more politically aware than older generations in relation to Israel’s aggressive policies against the Palestinians and its Arab neighbors. Most respondents aged between 18 and 29 were not in favor of continuing to supply arms to Israel. Older Americans (over sixty years old), on the other hand, tend to be in favor of the US providing military support to Israel.

The US supplies Israel with military aid worth some $4 billion a year. As a result, Israel is the biggest recipient of American military support in the world. But this support is being paid for by American taxpayers, many of whom are unaware that their taxes are being used to support the genocide and ethnic cleansing of the native Palestinians. Similarly, more than 80% of Americans support the Biden administration’s policy of negotiating in order to revive the Iran nuclear deal, as they consider that this will help improve the situation in the Middle East. Both in the region and at the international level there is a great deal of debate about how ready ordinary Americans are to criticize their government’s military support for dictatorships and authoritarian regimes enforcing policies of territorial occupation and ethnic segregation. Washington, in a bid to justify its actions, frequently claims that its support is made necessary by so-called security concerns, but many are skeptical of these arguments, dismissing them as cheap populism.

Mark Hannah, senior fellow at the Eurasia Group Foundation, describes the motivation behind the survey, “We began this survey five years ago because we believed lawmakers and foreign policy leaders conducting foreign policy on behalf of the American people would benefit from a window into their opinions and priorities.” He also expressed the hope that the survey results would be used by decision makers responsible for foreign policy in relation to the Middle East would study the survey “to make the activities they pursue more sensitive to – and informed by – the opinions of their constituents, and to bridge the gap between the concerns of policymakers and those of ordinary Americans.”

Unfortunately, the above hope is very naive: officials in Washington and in the Biden administration do not take the interests of ordinary Americans into account when making foreign policy decisions. It would suffice to cite Washington’s involvement supporting neo-Nazi groups in the war in Ukraine, thus threatening the world with nuclear war.

Or one could cite its offer to supply Israel – completely free of charge – with four Boeing military refueling aircraft over the next four years. Boeing signed a contract with the US Defense Department for the supply of four Boeing KC-46 Pegasus aircraft at a cost of $927 million. In effect, this means that the purchase price of $927 million will be paid by the US taxpayer, and Boeing will make a handsome profit from the transaction. According to Israeli media reports and also official government sources, Israel is already planning to use these state-of-the art aircraft to attack Iranian territory. It is obvious that the revival of the so-called Iran nuclear deal is in the interests both of the USA and of ordinary Americans, and that it would have a very positive effect on the highly tense situation in the Middle East.

In a formal statement on the decision to supply Israel with the refueling planes, Benny Gantz, Israel’s Minister of Defense, said, “This is further proof of the alliance and the strategic relations of the Israeli and American defense establishments.” In line with their standard practice, the Minister of Defense and other Israeli officials, along with their counterparts in Washington, all falsely name Iran as the justification for their huge military aid budget. This military aid has support from both parties in Congress, and is approved each year by a majority of lawmakers, even though this support goes against the interests of ordinary Americans.

According to a study by Maryland University, less than 1% of respondents consider Israel to be one of Washington’s two main allies. Many other surveys conducted over a number of years confirm the findings of the Eurasia Group Foundation. Earlier this year a survey by Pew Research also found that Americans under 30 tended to have a negative view of Israel. 61% of respondents in that age group felt sympathy towards the Palestinians. Maryland University also found that only a small proportion were in favor of stronger links with Israel, and that Israel is able to manipulate these links to favor its own interests.

In an interview with Middle East Eye, Dr. Zuri Linetsky, a Research Fellow at the Eurasia Group Foundation, explained that many American respondents who stated that they were against arms sales to Israel explained that they saw Israel’s long-term occupation of Palestinian territory as a violation of human rights. That last survey also found that many Americans are against their government’s continuing arms sales to Saudi Arabia, with 70% of respondents critical of Washington’s policy in relation to Riyadh.

That is despite the fact that rights groups are deeply concerned about the Biden administration’s continuing approvals of new arms sales to countries such as Israel, which have a record of invading other Arab nations. In August President Biden approved a $5 billion sale of rocket technology to Saudi Arabia and the UAE. The survey also shows that respondents are in favor of reining in US military involvement abroad, and, conversely, want to see the US administration make more efforts in the field of diplomacy, especially in relation to US rivals.

One of the key findings of the survey conducted by the Eurasia Group Foundation is that respondents attach a lot of importance to the Iran nuclear deal. It revealed that, irrespective of whether they vote Democrat or Republican, most Americans are in favor of talks with Tehran. Almost 80% of them support Joe Biden’s administration engaging in talks to revive the nuclear deal. To a great extent, support for the talks cuts across party divisions, with more than 70% of Republicans believing that the USA should continue with the talks.

However, approximately 80% of respondents also feel that Congress should more strictly control the President’s powers and authority in military matters, and that such decisions should be made by Congress. The USA has invaded many countries, most notably Afghanistan and Iraq, and its military continues to be involved in combat operations in Syria. Washington is also still illegally “occupying” a number of Arab countries, and has military bases in Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. And the Pentagon does all this without consulting Congress – it prefers to take action and present the legislature with a fait accompli.

When asked about Afghanistan, almost two thirds of respondents consider that the most important lesson to be learned from the Afghan war is that the USA should not be involved in nation-building, or that it should only send troops into harm’s way if its vital national interests are threatened.

As for nuclear weapons, almost 75% of respondents said that they were concerned about this problem. Those respondents who have served or currently serve in the armed forces were less concerned than those with no military experience. “For the vast majority of the 21st century, the United States has been involved in conflicts in far-flung parts of the world. So the question is, is this what the American people want? Does this represent their interests?”, asked Zuri Linetsky, in his interview with Middle East Eye.

In conclusion, the author can confidently state that the survey is a good test to determine the areas in which respondents are dissatisfied with American policies in relation to the Middle East, and what they consider should be their leaders’ priorities, whether concerning international or domestic matters. The survey shows that in relation to many questions, the White House’s policies are inconsistent with the views of the majority of respondents. The survey sample was made up of a highly diverse group of Americans from all parts of the country, with different religions, political affiliations, drawn from every age group and representing all income levels.

What kind of democracy is that?

October 18, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

EU to escalate conflict by training Ukrainian soldiers

By Lucas Leiroz | October 18, 2022

Despite the fact that involvement in the conflict is not strategically interesting for Europe, EU leaders seem convinced that they must continue to support Kiev. In a new package of coercive measures against Moscow, the bloc’s ministers approved the creation of a military program to train Ukrainian soldiers. This kind of attitude reveals that the West is indeed willing to escalate the conflict, regardless of the disastrous economic and social consequences it will bring to Europe.

At a recent meeting in Luxembourg, the EU’s foreign ministers gave permission to start a military training program for 15,000 Ukrainian soldiers. The move is the main point of the so-called “Military Assistance Mission to Ukraine”, which is a European comprehensive package of aid to Kiev. In addition to the training, it was also promised to create a fund valued at 500 million euros to finance European aid to Ukraine. The objective is to make resources available so that no European State is financially harmed with the assistance it has provided to Kiev, thus enabling the extension of the support. More money is expected to be added to the fund in the future.

The exercises will take place within the territories of the European countries themselves. Vice Admiral Herve Blejean, Director of Military Planning Capability and Conduct (MPCC), has been designated as the Mission Commander. The training costs have been estimated at more than 100 million euros and will be funded entirely by the EU, although the project is open to participation by voluntary states outside Europe.

There is still no concrete data about the precise moment the instruction will start to be conducted. Some sources claim that this may start in November. The center of the operation is expected to be in Poland, considering the viability for the deployment of Ukrainian troops. However, a military post will also be allocated in Germany. The project has an initial term to last around two years, but it may be extended while the conflict in Ukraine remains active.

“The aim of the mission is to contribute to enhancing the military capability of Ukraine’s Armed Forces to effectively conduct military operations (…) In response to Ukraine’s request for military support, EUMAM (European Union Military Assistance Mission) Ukraine will provide individual, collective and specialised training to Ukraine’s Armed Forces, including to their Territorial Defence Forces, and coordination and synchronisation of member states’ activities supporting the delivery of training”, European Council’s spokespersons said during a press conference about the measure.

Also, Josep Borrell himself, who recently made threats about “annihilating the Russian Army”, as well commented on the case, stating: “The EU Military Assistance Mission is not just a training mission, it is [a] clear proof that the EU will stand by Ukraine for as long as is needed”. It is important to remember that Borrell, in addition to threatening Russia, recently made racist pronouncements, saying that Europe would be a “garden”, while the rest of the world was compared to a “jungle”. This kind of aggressive and xenophobic behavior has become commonplace among European leaders – and has been used as rhetoric to endorse the West’s proxy war against Russia.

As expected, the only country to criticize the measure and take a stand against EU involvement in such program was Hungary. Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto was clear in his opinion against this kind of escalation in European participation. He stated that the Hungarian government did not vote in favor of the project and therefore will not participate in the mission in any way. Szijjarto also said that Hungary is in favor of new peace talks, not advocating for actions that worsen the conflict.

“It was decided today that … EU countries’ representatives will carry out training of Ukrainian military. I would like to say that Hungary did not vote for the initiative … We will not participate in the mission”, he said.

In fact, the Hungarian attitude should serve as an example for all European leaders. There is no strategic interest on the part of the EU to make this conflict last even longer, considering the numerous social and economic damages that Europeans are suffering. In this sense, increasing aid to Kiev sounds like a willingness by the EU to meet the interests of the US and NATO instead of the demands of the European people itself who are gradually intensifying the wave of mass protests for the end of anti-Russian sanctions.

In addition, it is necessary to take into account how outrageous it is to initiate military aid focused on training. This characterizes a much more direct military involvement in the conflict, which puts the EU in an even more troubled diplomatic situation with Russia. Directly training troops of the Ukrainian neo-Nazi regime sounds like a real provocation to Moscow and this will certainly contribute to further worsening the distance between Russia and the EU.

Indeed, apart from Kiev, the only side benefiting from this measure is Washington, which has an advantage in case of breaking ties between Russians and Europeans.

Lucas Leiroz is a researcher in Social Sciences at the Rural Federal University of Rio de Janeiro; geopolitical consultant.

October 18, 2022 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

ExxonMobil exits Sakhalin-1 oil and gas project

Samizdat – October 18, 2022

US energy giant ExxonMobil announced on Monday that it has left Russia completely, discontinuing operations in the Sakhalin-1 project in the country’s Far East, after it was transferred to a local entity.

“With two decrees, the Russian government has unilaterally terminated our interests in Sakhalin-1 and the project has been transferred to a Russian operator,” the company said in a statement, adding, “We have safely exited Russia following the expropriation.”

Exxon did not elaborate on whether it received compensation for the assets, which it had valued at more than $4 billion.

Last month, ExxonMobil reportedly threatened the Russian government with a lawsuit unless Moscow allowed the company to exit the oil and gas project. The company reportedly said in a statement that it had been trying to leave the Russian project since March but was prevented from doing so by a presidential order.

Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a decree earlier this month preventing investors from ‘unfriendly states’ from selling their shares in certain strategic enterprises, including the Sakhalin ventures.

The decree mandated the Russian government to form a new legal entity to take over the rights and responsibilities of the Sakhalin-1 project, its investor rights, and its operator, Exxon Mobil subsidiary Exxon Neftegas Limited, which held a 30% stake in the project.

Foreign stakeholders were given one month to declare whether they wished to maintain their stakes in the new company. The decree stated that those who choose not to would be offered compensation, adjusted for the potential losses brought on by the halt in production at Sakhalin-1 earlier in the year.

Russian oil major Rosneft, India’s ONGC Videsh, and Japan’s SODECO also have stakes in the venture.

Earlier in March, ExxonMobil announced its intention to exit oil and gas operations in Russia due to Western sanctions.

October 18, 2022 Posted by | Economics | , | Leave a comment

US scientists create new lethal Covid variant

Samizdat | October 17, 2022

Scientists at Boston University claim to have created a new variant of Covid-19 with an 80% mortality rate, by combining the highly-transmissible Omicron variant of the coronavirus with the original Wuhan strain. The research, which echoes experiments thought to have created the virus in the first place, has caused outrage.

In a research paper published last week, the scientists explained that they isolated the spike protein of the Omicron variant and combined it with the “backbone” of the original strain that circulated in early 2020. This created a virus that “robustly escapes vaccine-induced… immunity” and inflicts “serious disease” on laboratory mice, 80% of whom died during testing, the paper stated.

While the team admitted that their mutant strain would likely be less deadly in humans than mice, they found that it produced five times as many virus particles in lab-grown human lung cells when compared to the Omicron variant.

The paper has yet to be peer reviewed.

News of the research caused outrage online, as it is widely believed that similar ‘gain-of-function’ research – a term describing the alteration of a pathogen to enhance its potency – at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China led to the global Covid-19 pandemic. The US funded such research at the Wuhan Institute, although it is still unclear whether the specific coronavirus that caused the pandemic originated in the lab.

“This should be totally forbidden, it’s playing with fire,” former Israel Institute for Biological Research head Shmuel Shapira said of the Boston experiments. “How many times did virologists say they were not making chimeric SARS viruses more deadly? How many???” reporter Paul Thaker tweeted.

The Boston team aren’t the only scientists returning to potentially dangerous research in the aftermath of the pandemic. EcoHealth Alliance, the private company responsible for much of the Wuhan Institute’s pre-2020 gain-of-function research, was awarded a $650,000 grant by the US last month to study “the potential for future bat coronavirus emergence in Myanmar, Laos, and Vietnam.”

October 17, 2022 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

Arab oil giants endorse OPEC+ production cut, shoot down US claims of ‘Saudi pressure’

The Cradle | October 17, 2022

Members of the OPEC+ group of countries issued a slew of statements on 16 October to endorse a major oil production cut that was announced earlier this month.

These statements were released in response to the accusations of irate US officials, who said Saudi Arabia “coerced” their OPEC partners into supporting the cut, allegedly to “increase Russian revenues and blunt the effectiveness of [western] sanctions.”

Washington went on to claim that several Gulf nations contacted them “privately” to say they disagreed with the OPEC+ decision.

“I would like to clarify that the latest OPEC+ decision, which was unanimously approved was a pure technical decision, with NO political intentions whatsoever,” the UAE Energy Minister, Mohamed al-Mazrouei, Tweeted on Sunday.

Kuwait Petroleum Corporation Chief Executive Officer, Nawaf Saud al-Sabah, also welcomed the decision by OPEC+ and said the country was “keen to maintain a balanced oil market.”

Similarly, Iraq’s Oil Marketing Company (SOMO) said via a statement on Sunday that OPEC+ decisions are “based on economic indicators and are taken unanimously.”

“There is complete consensus among OPEC+ countries that the best approach in dealing with the oil market conditions during the current period of uncertainty and lack of clarity is a pre-emptive approach that supports market stability and provides the future the guidance it needs,” the SOMO statement reads.

Algerian Energy minister Mohamed Arkab called the recent production cut “historic” and expressed his full confidence in the organization’s decision during a meeting on Sunday with OPEC Secretary General Haitham al-Ghais, who said that “these statements … are proof that the decision was correct.”

Oman’s energy ministry also released a statement endorsing the decision, saying via Twitter: “The recent decision of OPEC+ to cut production is in line with its previous decisions in terms of its reliance on market data and its variables, which was important and necessary to reassure the market and support its stability.”

A day earlier, the Oil Minister of Bahrain, Dr. Mohamed Bin Daina, said in a statement that the decision to cut production “was taken unanimously and after a thorough technical study of the global market.”

On 5 October, OPEC+ – a bloc of over 20 OPEC and non-OPEC nations, including Russia – announced an oil production cut of two million barrels per day (bpd) for November, their largest cut since the start of the COVID pandemic.

The decision was made despite intense lobbying by the White House, which had hoped to keep fuel prices down ahead of upcoming midterm elections, as Joe Biden’s democratic party is facing an uphill battle.

After yet again failing to coerce their Gulf partners into boosting production levels in order to keep fuel prices down, US officials have been scrambling for an appropriate response, even reviving a piece of legislation that would allow for sovereign states to be sued in federal court.

Moreover, Washington has accused Saudi Arabia of orchestrating the cut to “benefit Russia” after the kingdom responded to the US pleas with a “resounding no.”

October 17, 2022 Posted by | Economics | , , , , , | Leave a comment

A war Russia is set to win

The Europeans have been nicely played by the Americans

By MK Bhadrakumar | The Tribune | October 17, 2022

Two massive terrorist strikes misfired spectacularly and a terrible beauty is born in the Ukraine war. These two carefully planned attacks in quick succession — on Nord Stream gas pipelines and Crimean Bridge — were intended as a knockout blow to Russia. According to President Vladimir Putin, people ‘who want to finally sever ties between Russia and the EU, weaken Europe’ are behind the Nord Stream blasts. He named the US, Ukraine and Poland as ‘beneficiaries’.

Last Wednesday, Russia’s domestic intelligence service FSB identified Ukraine’s military intelligence chief, Kyrylo Budanov, as the mastermind behind the Crimean attack. The New York Times and Washington Post also pointed fingers at Kiev, quoting ‘sources’. While Nord Stream-1 has been crippled, one of the strings of Nord Stream-2 remains intact. Putin said last week that the pipeline could be restored and Russia could deliver about 27 billion cubic metres of gas. ‘The ball is on the side of the European Union, if they want — let’s turn on the tap,’ he said.

But mum’s the word from Brussels. It is a profoundly embarrassing moment for the EU. The triumphalism has vanished as Europe is threatened by years of recession caused by the blowback from sanctions against Russia, where the US insisted on the cut off of energy ties with Moscow. The EU has now become a captive market for Big Oil and is left to buy LNG from the US at the asking price, which is six to seven times higher than the domestic price in the US. (Contracted price for long-term Russian supply for Germany used to be about $280 per 1,000 cubic metres as against the current market price hovering around $2,000.)

Plainly put, the Europeans have been nicely played by the Americans. India should take note of the US’ sense of entitlement. Basically, the Biden administration created a contrived energy crisis whose real aim is war profiteering.

The Crimean Bridge attack of October 8 is much more serious. Zelenskyy has crossed a red line that Moscow had repeatedly warned him against. Putin has disclosed that there have also been three terrorist attacks against the Kursk NPP. Russians will settle for nothing less than the ouster of the Zelensky regime.

Russia’s retaliation against Ukraine’s ‘critical infrastructure’, something Moscow refrained from so far, has serious implications. Since October 9, Russia has begun systematically targeting Ukraine’s power system and railways. Noted Russian military expert Vladislav Shurygin told Izvestia that if this tempo was kept up for a week or so, it ‘will disrupt the entire logistics of the Ukrainian military — system for transporting personnel, military equipment, ammunition, related cargo, as well as the functioning of military and repair plants.’

The Americans are cocooned in a surreal world of their self-serving narrative that Russia ‘lost’ the war. In the real world, though, Ivan Tertel, KGB chief in Belarus, who has an insider view of Moscow, said last Tuesday that with Russia boosting its troop strength in the war zone — 300,000 troops who have been mobilised plus 70,000 volunteers — and the deployment of advanced weaponry, ‘the military operation will enter a key phase. According to our estimates, a turning point will come in the period from November of this year to February of next year.’

Policy-makers and strategists in Delhi should make a careful note of the timeline. The bottom line is, Russia is looking for an all-out victory and will not settle for anything less than a friendly government in Kiev. Western politicians, including Biden, understand that there is nothing stopping the Russians now. The US’ weapon kitty is running dry as Kiev keeps asking for more.

When asked whether he’d meet Biden at the G20 in Bali, Putin derisively remarked on Friday, ‘He (Biden) should be asked whether he is ready to hold such negotiations with me or not. To be honest, I don’t see any need, by and large. There is no platform for any negotiations for the time being.’

However, Washington has not yet thrown in the towel and the Biden administration remains obsessed with exhausting the Russian military — even at the cost of Ukraine’s destruction. And, for the Russians too, there is still much to be worked out on the battlefield: the oppressed Russian populations in Odessa (which suffered unspeakable atrocities from the neo-Nazis), Mykolaiv, Zaporizhya, Dnipropetrovsk, Kharkov are expecting ‘liberation’. It’s a highly emotive issue for Russia. Again, the overarching agenda of ‘demilitarisation’ and ‘denazification’ of Ukraine must be taken to its logical conclusion.

When all that is over, Putin knows Biden will not even want to meet him. Hungarian PM Viktor Orban said last week:

‘Anyone who seriously believes that the war can be ended through Russian-Ukrainian negotiations lives in another world. Reality looks different. In reality, such issues can only be discussed between Washington and Moscow. Today, Ukraine is able to fight only because it receives military assistance from the United States…

‘At the same time, I do not see President Biden as the person who would really be suitable for such serious negotiations. President Biden has gone too far. Suffice it to recall his statements to Russian President Putin.’

India should expect the defeat of the US and NATO, which completes the transition to a multipolar world order. Sadly, Indian elites are yet to purge their ‘unipolar predicament’. Europe, including Britain, is devastated and there is palpable discontent over the US’s ‘transatlantic leadership’. Indo-Pacific strategy is hopelessly adrift. New power centres are emerging in India’s extended neighbourhood, as the OPEC’s rebuff to Washington shows. A profound adjustment is needed in the Indian strategic calculus.

October 17, 2022 Posted by | Economics | , , , | Leave a comment

Court: Facebook “fact-check’ label does not mean that the assessment is “objective fact”

By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | October 15, 2022

US TV host and journalist John Stossel sued Facebook (Meta) and its third-party “fact-checkers” – specifically, Science Feedback, as several of these groups’ parent companies, and its site Climate Feedback – for defamation.

But the US District Court, Northern District of  has granted both ’s motion to dismiss the defamation complaint with prejudice (meaning that it cannot be refiled), as well as Meta’s and Science Feedback’s anti-SLAPP motions.

We obtained a copy of the decision for you here.

One of Stossel’s videos, “Government Fueled Fires,” got labeled as “missing context,” and then deliberately downranked by ’s algorithms, resulting in traffic and revenue loss from his account with more than a million followers.

The video was seen as “downplaying” climate change as the decisive factor and primary cause of the 2020 California wildfires, asserting instead that although the phenomenon plays a role, it was bad policies that contributed the most to the scale of that natural disaster.

In April 2021, Stossel published another video, “Are We Doomed?”, that discusses what the journalist calls environmental alarmists and their claims. This one received the “partly false information” from Facebook’s “fact-checking partner.”

Stossel’s failed lawsuit sought to prove that Facebook and the “fact-checker” in question defamed him in the first instance by falsely inferring that he made a statement he says he never did, and in the other, by accusing him of making false statements.

The court explained its decision by saying that, although called a “fact-check program” what Facebook is actually doing – and has the right to do – is “reflect a subjective judgment about the accuracy and reliability of assertions made.”

Therefore, the use of the term “fact” isn’t to say that Facebook is under an obligation to establish actual facts, and apply its censorship accordingly. “Simply because the process by which content is assessed and a label applied is called a ‘fact-check’ does not mean that the assessment itself is an actionable statement of objective fact.”

The defamation complaint was dismissed based on CDA’s Section 230 and the protections it affords Facebook in crafting (and wording) its policies.

Facebook’s and “fact-checker’s” motions to dismiss based on anti-SLAPP (Anti-Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) rules were granted because Facebook is a public forum, the court said.

October 16, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

PayPal is acting like a feudal overlord

By Josie Appleton | Notes On Freedom | October 13, 2022

In the past, if a government wanted a bank to close or freeze a customer’s account it would have to come banging on the door with a court order. Now, governments have shown that they can close private accounts at the drop of a hat. During the Freedom Convoy protests, the Canadian government drew up a list of individuals – on grounds that were never made clear, although the Justice Minister said that Trump supporters should be ‘worried’ – and banks immediately froze their customers’ accounts, no questions asked.

Indeed, payment companies are taking the lead and freezing their own customers’ accounts, because of vague offences such as perceived ‘misinformation’. PayPal recently closed the accounts of lockdown sceptics, doctors for informed consent, critics of trans ideology, even the Free Speech Union (perhaps for defending trans critical feminists). Other companies such as GoFundMe, MasterCard, Stripe, Etsy, and Patreon have closed the accounts of gender campaigners, right-wing campaigners and critics of vaccine mandates.

PayPal’s recent threat to fine its customers up to $2500 for ‘misinformation’ was a new step. Now they are not only closing accounts but also potentially seizing funds. Although PayPal implausibly claimed that the new ‘acceptable use policy’ was published in error – it was up for several days as a link from its Policy Updates page – the principle of PayPal potentially seizing customers’ funds had already been established. When it closed recent accounts, PayPal stated that it would be holding funds for 180 days to see if any ‘damages’ were due. The idea of holding and perhaps seizing customers’ money was already established in practice.

Similarly, during the truckers’ protests in Canada, GoFundMe decided that it was not going to pass on 9 million Canadian dollars of donations to the Freedom Convoy, since the protests had violated its ‘terms of service’. Instead, it would pass the money to ‘credible and established charities verified by GoFundMe’ (donors could get a refund if they filled in a form). Millions of dollars that had been donated by the public for a particular cause were reappropriated and used for some other cause.

Companies are violating the rules of their own market system. Private property rights are supposed to be sacred, protected with a single-minded obsession that outweighs almost everything else. The sociologist Max Weber said that the operation of the market requires that all authorities work according to ‘calculable rules’ and ‘without regard for persons’ (1). When you put money in an account you need to know that it is safe; when you make a payment you need to know that it will go to its intended beneficiary and not someone else.

Now, governments and companies are randomly freezing people’s accounts and they often won’t even tell you why they have done it. They are lording it over private interests. This has something of the Middle Ages about it, when all lands were nominally held from the king and could be seized at any time if a vassal was not sufficiently loyal; the lands would then be given to a more loyal follower. Now, the bureaucratic-corporate elite nominally holds the wealth of the world; we are graciously allowed to use it, so long as we do not use it for misinformation, in which case it will be taken back and reappropriated to a cause of its choice.

Here is another form of that nefarious principle that your ability to take part in public life is a privilege dependent upon good behaviour. With vaccine passports, you could only take part in society if you had obediently received the correct sequence of vaccines and boosters. If you didn’t get a booster on time, your QR code was deactivated and when you tried to buy a cup of coffee it would not work: ‘This code is no longer valid.’ Now, companies are taking it upon themselves to police the marketplace, so that you can only receive funds and make donations if you express the correct opinions on their flagship issues.

Public life is increasingly becoming subject to an ‘acceptable use policy’. If digital currencies go ahead, the potential for authorities to close accounts, freeze and reclaim funds and refuse purchases will be taken to a new level.

The public backlash against PayPal’s latest account freezes was phenomenal. Thousands of people sent complaints to Paypal and cancelled their PayPal accounts in solidarity, a pressure that led to some of these frozen accounts to be reinstated. The lordly presumption of the new corporate elite is terrifying; we must be prepared to fight it every step of the way.

(1) Max Weber, Economy and Society, Vol 2, Uni California Press, p975

October 16, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , | Leave a comment

Americans should know if US pressured Middle East ally – congressman

Samizdat – October 16, 2022

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi should look into whether the White House pressured Saudi Arabia to delay OPEC+’s promised oil production cut, Republican Tom Tiffany demanded in a letter to the congresswoman on Thursday.

The Saudi government had claimed earlier that day that the US government had requested a one-month delay in the 2 million barrels per day production cut announced earlier this month. Putting off the cut, it implied, would postpone the surge in energy prices expected to accompany the move until after the US midterm elections. However, “postponing the OPEC+ decision by a month… would have had negative economic consequences” for Riyadh, a statement from the Kingdom read.

The administration of US President Joe Biden responded by accusing its sometime Arab ally of attempting to “spin and deflect.” The Saudis “knew [the production cut] would increase Russian revenues and blunt the effectiveness of sanctions,” White House spokesman John Kirby reminded Americans.

However, Kirby did not deny their claim outright. He suggested that “other OPEC nations” had “privately” approached the US to support its bid to postpone the reduction, implying that it could not have been solely motivated by the desire to keep control of Congress in November.

“If the Biden administration did attempt to pressure a foreign government to influence the outcome of the US election, that’s something Americans deserve to know,” Tiffany tweeted on Thursday alongside his letter to Pelosi.

If the Saudis’ claims are to be believed, he wrote, the administration’s efforts to postpone the cut amounted to an “illegal solicitation of a foreign in-kind contribution by the White House on behalf of Democrats’ midterm campaign efforts.”

In addition to investigating whether calls took place between the Biden administration and the Saudis about potentially delaying the production cut, Tiffany urged Pelosi to obtain the transcripts of those calls. He also insisted that US administration officials who may have asked Saudi officials to delay the cut be identified.

Biden’s national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, confirmed on Sunday that the president would act “methodically” to re-evaluate the US relationship with Saudi Arabia. The administration has been threatening to “reassess” the partnership ever since the price cut was announced. However, while the president warned there would be “some consequences” for the Saudis, their nature has yet to be publicly revealed.

Inflation and the high cost of living are the chief issues on voters’ minds heading into the midterms next month, casting the Democrats’ ability to hold onto both the House and Senate into doubt as polls indicate few voters trust Biden to effectively manage the economy.

October 16, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Deception, Economics | , | Leave a comment

The other Russia-West war: Why some African countries are abandoning Paris and joining Moscow

By Ramzy Baroud | MEMO | October 15, 2022

The moment that Lieutenant-Colonel Paul-Henri Sandaogo Damiba was ousted by his former military colleague, Captain Ibrahim Traore, pro-coup crowds filled the streets. Some burned French flags; others carried Russian flags. This scene alone represents the current tussle underway throughout the African continent.

A few years ago, the discussion regarding the geopolitical shifts in Africa was not exactly concerned with France and Russia per se. It focused mostly on China’s growing economic role and political partnerships on the African continent. For example, Beijing’s decision to establish its first overseas military base in Djibouti in 2017 signalled China’s major geopolitical move by translating its economic influence in the region to political influence, backed by military presence.

China remains committed to its Africa strategy. Beijing has been Africa’s largest trading partner for 12 years, consecutively, with total bilateral trade between China and Africa reaching $254.3 billion in 2021, according to recent data released by the General Administration of Customs of China.

The US and its Western allies have been aware of and are warning against China’s growing clout in Africa. The establishment of US AFRICOM in 2007 was rightly understood to be a countering measure to China’s influence. Since then, and arguably before, talks of a new “Scramble for Africa” abounded, with new players including China, Russia and even Turkiye entering the fray.

The Russia-Ukraine war, however, has altered geopolitical dynamics in Africa, as it highlighted the Russian-French rivalry on the continent, as opposed to the Chinese-American competition there.

Though Russia has been present in African politics for years, the war – thus the need for stable allies at the United Nations (UN) and elsewhere – accelerated Moscow’s charm offensive. In July, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov visited Egypt, Ethiopia, Uganda and the Republic of Congo, fortifying Russia’s diplomatic relations with African leaders.

“We know that the African colleagues do not approve of the undisguised attempts of the US and their European satellites. . . to impose a unipolar world order to the international community,” Lavrov said. His words were met with agreement.

Russian efforts have been paying dividends, as early as the first votes to condemn Moscow at the UN General Assembly in March and April. Many African nations remained either neutral or voted against measures targeting Russia at the UN.

South Africa’s position, in particular, was problematic from Washington’s perspective, not only because of the size of the country’s economy, but also because of Pretoria’s political influence and moral authority throughout Africa. Moreover, South Africa is the only African member of the G20.

In his visit to the US in September, South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa defended his country’s neutrality and raised objections to a draft US bill – the Countering Malign Russian Activities in Africa Act – that is set to monitor and punish African governments who do not conform to the American line in the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

The West fails to understand, however, that Africa’s slow but determined shift toward Moscow is not haphazard nor accidental.

The history of the continent’s past and current struggle against Western colonialism and neocolonialism is well known. While the West continues to define its relationship with Africa based on exploitation, Russia constantly reminds African countries of the Soviet’s legacy on the continent. This is not only apparent in official political discourses by Russian leaders and diplomats, but also in Russian media coverage, which is prioritising Africa and reminding African nations of their historical solidarity with Moscow.

Burning French flags and raising Russian ones, however, cannot simply be blamed on Russian supposed economic bribes, clever diplomacy or growing military influence. The readiness of African nations – Mali, Central African Republic and now, possibly, Burkina Faso – has much more to do with mistrust and resentment of France’s self-serving legacy in Africa, West Africa in particular.

France has military bases in many parts of Africa and remains an active participant in various military conflicts, which has earned it the reputation of being the continent’s main destabilising force. Equally important is Paris’s stronghold over the economies of 14 African countries, which are forced to use French currency, the CFA franc, and, according to Frederic Ange Toure writing in Le Journal de l’Afrique, to: “Centralise 50% of their reserves in the French public treasury.”

Though many African countries remain neutral in the case of the Russia-Ukraine war, a massive geopolitical shift is underway, especially in militarily fragile, impoverished and politically unstable countries that are eager to seek alternatives to French and other Western powers. For a country like Mali, shifting allegiances from Paris to Moscow was not exactly a great gamble. Bamako had very little to lose, but much to gain. The same logic applies to other African countries fighting extreme poverty, political instability and the threat of militancy, all of which are intrinsically linked.

Though China remains a powerful newcomer to Africa – a reality that continues to frustrate US policymakers – the more urgent battle, for now, is between Russia and France – the latter experiencing a palpable retreat.

In a speech last July, French President Emmanuel Macron declared that he wanted a: “Rethink of all our (military) postures on the African continent.” France’s military and foreign policy shift in Africa, however, was not compelled by strategy or vision, but by changing realities over which France has little control.

October 16, 2022 Posted by | Economics | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Cuban Missile Crisis 60 Years On: Nuke Risk Higher Today Amid Diplomatic Deficits

Samizdat – 16.10.2022

Sunday marks sixty years since the outbreak of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, a thirteen-day nuclear standoff between the United States and Soviet Union that was ultimately resolved through skillful diplomacy, the type of which some fear may be lacking to defuse current superpower tensions.

On October 16, 1962, US President John Kennedy was shown surveillance photos of what he called “unmistakable evidence” the Soviets were building installations for medium-range nuclear-tipped missiles in Cuba, 90 miles off Florida’s coast. In consultations with senior officials, Kennedy was presented with two alternatives: a military invasion or a naval blockade.

The missile buildup came after Cuban President Fidel Castro asked Moscow for deterrence assistance in the wake of the US failed Bay of Pigs invasion in April of 1961.

October 22, the seventh day of the crisis, Kennedy announced the imposition of a naval “quarantine,” choosing to avoid the word “blockade” which could be considered an act of war. Blockades prevent all trade and travel whereas the quarantine only prohibited offensive military equipment.

This came after hours of difficult meetings between Kennedy and US security officials, many of whom pressed for more aggressive options.

Nevertheless, in the ensuing days, Castro mobilized Cuba’s army, the Soviet missiles were placed on ready to launch, and their ships were soon at the so-called quarantine line.
Meanwhile, American military forces were put on defense readiness condition 2, the highest in US history – just one away from DEFCON 1 – which signaled the outbreak of nuclear warfare.

Lack of Leadership & Critical Thinking

It was not until day eleven that back-channel talks began between presidential adviser Robert Kennedy and Soviet ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin, which culminated in a deal that publicly called for the US to vow not to invade Cuba in exchange for Moscow dismantling the nuclear sites. However, the negotiators also struck a private agreement that the US would remove missiles from Turkey.

The crisis ended on October 28, when Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev announced the dismantling of Soviet missile installations, while keeping the deal on Turkish missiles a secret. The solution allowed both sides to “save face,” and exhibited sophisticated diplomatic acumen on the part of both Kennedy and Khrushchev, the type of which experts fear is sorely lacking today in the face of rising nuclear tensions between the US and Russia.

Not to mention, the size and nature of present day arsenals are much different than they were sixty years ago, when the US had 3,500 nuclear warheads and the Soviets about 500. According to the Federation of American Scientists, the US currently has 5,428 nuclear warheads and Russia 5,977.

During a recent interview with CNN, President Joe Biden warned that miscalculations over the Ukraine conflict “could end in Armageddon,” just a week after suggesting the world was facing another Cuban Missile Crisis and wondered aloud about finding an “off ramp,” for Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Historian Dan Lazare described the stark difference between the current approach with 1962.

“The maturity of people like Kennedy and Khrushchev can’t help but contrast with the recklessness, arrogance, and sheer stupidity of people like Biden,” Lazare told Sputnik. “Thanks to NATO’s drang nach osten, we are closer to nuclear war than we probably were in 1962. Yet negotiations are nowhere in sight. How the world has regressed in a mere 60 years.”

Unlike Biden’s declaration to find an “off-ramp,” for Putin, Lazare noted that Khrushchev and Kennedy were savvy enough to make the “behind-the-scenes” deal to remove missiles from Turkey in exchange for the Soviets doing the same in Cuba.

Historian and political commentator Anton Chaitkin feels the existence of human civilization is now endangered due to Western power structures and intellectual deficits that have made a shift away from war escalation very difficult. A situation miles away from Kennedy’s quality of “truth-seeking” that he believes “saved humanity.”

“There is no thinking at the top,” Chaitkin said. “Any critical thought, like Kennedy’s process, could have wonderful consequences.”

Former UK ambassador Peter Ford fears the Cuban missile crisis will be seen as a reason not to panic, which is dangerous because the “hubristic” West does not have the same type of leadership, not to mention it is much easier to launch a nuclear war in the 21st century.

“Biden is no Kennedy,” Ford told Sputnik. “And in the 1960s tactical nukes did not exist. The potential threshold for going nuclear today is much lower.”

American University in Moscow President Professor Edward Lozansky said the current situation is much worse than in 1962 partly because Washington wrongly believes the worst-case scenario is that Russia would only use tactical nuclear weapons and only against Ukraine and other targets in Europe.

“This is a gross miscalculation since, according to Russian military doctrine, in case of the existential threat to [the] homeland Moscow will use the strategic nuclear weapons that will reach the US,” Lozansky warned. “It looks like Washington is totally ignoring this scenario and therefore does not even want to think about compromise with Putin, looking only for his total defeat.”

No Desire to Talk or De-Escalate

University of Louvain Professor of Philosophy Jean Bricmont is also worried about signs Washington does not even want a settlement.

“During the Cuban missile crisis, there was a desire on both sides to de-escalate. I see no such sign now, at least on the American side,” Bricmont told Sputnik. “They have been provoking Russia since the 1990’s by extending NATO eastwards and profiting from Yeltsin’s weakness to ‘loot’ Russia.”

Hence, he added, the situation seems totally blocked or rather drifting towards the apocalypse.

“Is there anybody to stop that madness?” Bricmont said. “We will see or die.”

University of Illinois Professor of Law Francis Boyle, who also observed the lack of Kennedy-style diplomatic skill in the White House, is concerned that so far the Biden administration has publicly ruled out direct negotiations with Moscow over Ukraine.

“Though there could be back-channel negotiations going on right now that I am not aware of,” Boyle added. “Let’s hope there are.”

Stephen Schlesinger, one of the premier historians of the UN, said a major difference in today’s crisis has been the failure of either side to leverage third parties, like the US and Soviets did with then-UN Secretary-General U Thant.

“In the Cuban missile crisis, the leaders of the USA and USSR were sober enough to use intermediaries – including U Thant – to communicate a desire for a settlement – while in today’s hostilities, Biden and Putin are simply not talking,” he said.

Meanwhile, the lack of opposition to the US support for Ukraine has been conspicuous other than disgruntlement expressed in a few polls, while antiwar progressives in Congress have even backed billions in military aid to Kiev.

“There are a few brave folks warning of the looming disaster but their voices are drowning in the ocean of ignorance,” Lozansky said.

Boyle said the situation is unlikely to get resolved unless the antiwar movement mobilizes.

“It is really up to the American peace movement to pressure the Biden administration to open direct negotiations over the Ukraine war with the Russian government before the war degenerates out of control as almost happened during the original Cuban Missile Crisis,” Boyle concluded.

October 16, 2022 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »