US Research Doctors Stole Liver Tissue From Sick Veterans, Special Council Report Reveals
By Jason Dunn – Sputnik – 10.02.2021
A Veterans Affairs study, headed by Dr. Samuel Ho from 2013 to 2016, involved liver tissue, blood, stool, and urine samples collected from patients with alcoholism and liver disease without their consent.
Sick US veterans had liver tissue harvested by doctors involved in a military research operation, in breach of department regulations and putting patients “at serious risk”, according to a report from the government’s whistleblower watchdog service to the White House.
In a document issued to US President Joe Biden this week, the Office of Special Counsel announced that its investigation into the Veterans Affairs (VA) research project revealed a conversation within the VA as to whether liver biopsies are considered standard care.
The project claimed that the operations were valid, but admitted that they sometimes conducted the procedure without the consent of the patient.
According to the special counsel in a memo to President Joe Biden on Tuesday, whistleblowers who revealed the information had made serious arguments that the VA is incorrect about their degree of care being misreported and veterans could be harmed and possibly killed as a result of unnecessary operations.
“The overall picture of alleged malfeasance painted by the whistleblowers is compelling”, said Special Counsel Henry J. Kerner in the communication to Biden. “The whistleblowers also provided extensive information to support their assertion that patients were, in fact, harmed by their participation in this study”.
In the final report, Kerner said that he appreciated the enthusiasm by the VA to conduct another investigation, but noted that the VA’s conclusions in its own evaluation were not consistent with whistleblower testimony.
He highlighted “several egregious flaws” in research protocols, and questioned the “integrity” of the VA self-review.
Despite claims by the VA that the research was vindicated as valid, it was reportedly unable to explain how the biopsies took place prior to the initiation of the study.
“The agency’s determination that the standard of care was met, in light of the whistleblowers’ evidence, remains unconvincing, as do the agency’s continued assertions regarding the meaning of ‘archival tissue'”, Kerner said.
He said that the VA should carry out another analysis and urged researchers to reconsider their standards of care for veterans that undergo the procedures.
A 2019 VA letter stated that doctors involved in the project had taken samples for research “without effectively verifying whether this was approved by the Institutional Review Board”, the Washington Times reported.
The project later said, following a review of the procedures, that a re-review had ruled that the operations in question – known as a transjugular biopsy – were justified.
Whistleblowers said there was one doctor in the VA San Diego Healthcare System who claimed that the surgery had been done to veterans who were “seriously ill”.
The OSC began looking into the project in 2017 following concerns raised by whistleblowers about the practices taking place in San Diego – one of seven sites where the research was being conducted.
The VA research began in 2013.
Trump’s show trial is just the next step in a very American coup
As Biden consolidates his power, the war on populism becomes a fully fledged assault on reality itself.
By Kit Knightly | OffGuardian | February 10, 2021
Donald Trump is no longer President, but the battle to overcome his “fascism” still rages on. Armed with nothing but the Presidency, both houses of Congress, the military, the entirety of the mainstream media, and all the richest and most powerful corporations in the world, The Resistance is gearing up for one last battle.
Despite leaving office without a whiff of the fascist coup everyone was talking up for so long, Trump is now being impeached. Again. And facing a trial in front of the senate. Again.
The “trial” itself is a joke of a process.
Firstly, we should note that it is absolutely and completely unprecedented to have a private citizen impeached. It could even be argued (and has been, prominently) that it is entirely unconstitutional to do so.
Secondly, there’s the very idea that what Trump did could ever be considered any grounds for impeachment, let alone a crime. He never incited violence at all, and one use of the word “fight” doesn’t change that.
He clearly and distinctly called for peaceful protests in a series of tweets which twitter removed in an attempt to expunge evidence of his innocence:
I’m asking everyone at the U.S. Captiol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the party of law and order – respect our men and women in blue! Thank you.” [link]
Please support our Capitol Police and Law enforcement, they are truly on the side of our country. Stay peaceful!” [link]
And thirdly, there’s the fact the entire “Capitol Hill riot” was a created and stage-managed event, obviously designed to disrupt the congressional session on whether or not there was voter fraud. Police opened barriers and waved rioters inside, where they posed for pictures. The presence of Army psychological operations officers has been confirmed. It was a complete set up. I’ve gone into that at length before.
At the end of the day, Donald Trump is being tried for something he didn’t do: “inciting” a riot that never really happened. But, of course, it’s not really about Donald Trump. It’s about what he represents, and further about sending a message.
Donald Trump was never what so many millions of Americans clearly believed him to be – he was never going to destroy the system from the inside and restore the America-that-was. He was never going to drain the swamp. But millions of people thought he could, and should, and would. And that’s a very dangerous idea.
That is millions of people realising the system is broken and attempting to do something about it.
In headlines and academic institutions and enlightened twitter circles they call it “populism”. Which is to say, the radical idea that the writhing mass of useless eaters possesses even the slightest capacity to understand their situation at all, or should have any say in what is done about it.
That idea needs to be squashed. And the best way to do that is to demonstrate to people just how little power they have.
And the best way to do that, is to force people to live in a reality you make up as you go along. Make the rules, break the rules, change the rules. Tie people in knots until they can believe totally contradictory ideas. It is the ultimate display of power and control.
Masks don’t do anything. Oh, actually they do. And you should wear one. Or two. Or three. Unless you’re a “person of colour”, then you don’t have to wear one at all, because it’s racist.
The “deadly virus” will spread if we gather in large groups. People protesting the lockdowns are selfish idiots who spread diseases, BUT black lives matter protests are different because they’re so important they won’t spread viruses.
This would be “fiery but mostly peaceful” protest that only burns down a few buildings and loots and few stores and kills a few dozen people. Nothing like the “violent fascist coup” in which people queued up inside velvet ropes and posed for photographs.
Obviously, we can all agree that vaccine passports are just a conspiracy theory, but freedom papers are a good idea right?
Nobody wants an Orwellian “ministry of truth” deciding what thoughts are allowable, but maybe we should have a “reality czar” to deal with our “reality crisis”.
The irony being we really do have a “reality crisis”, we really DO live in a “post truth age”, but it was deliberately created and is incredibly useful to the people in charge.
If “Go home in peace and love”, “I’m asking everyone to stay peaceful” and “Stay peaceful!!” is inciting violence, then literally anything can be forced to mean…literally anything.
It is an all-out assault on the idea that words have meaning, or veridical reality exists at all. And it culminates in having a full-on coup in the name of “saving democracy”.
Yes, a coup. Call it what it was. It was, and is, a coup. If it were happening anywhere else in the world, it would already be being recognised as such.
Ignore what the part of your mind that has been subconsciously conditioned to American exceptionalism says. Ignore the brainwashing that associates the words “America” and “democracy” and the idea of “rule of law”. Reject all that programming we’ve all been subjected too since we first watched television that tells us this kind of thing just doesn’t happen here. It does, and it is.
Just look at the plain reality of the situation.
As of right now, this very moment, the President of the United States is sitting in a building surrounded by razor wire, with 20,000 troops on the streets of the capital city. He’s ruling by decree, signing dozens and dozens of executive orders. His election was contentious, to say the least, and almost certainly fraudulent.
Reporting on these facts is being censored on social media, and gets no play at all in the mainstream. The news networks literally refused to broadcast the speech of the incumbent President accusing the other side of wrong-doing and he was immediately purged from all social media and internet companies. His campaign wasn’t even allowed to email their public supporters.
Meanwhile, Trump’s few political supporters left are being dragged through the mud, stripped of their responsibilities and powers or pressured into resigning.
And, having removed his opponent from power, Biden’s administration is now putting on a televised show trial to make sure he’s barred from ever running for office again.
It can only be described as a coup.
They are even admitting it themselves, even if they don’t call it that. In this long, ecstatically smug TIME article they detail how all the lobbying groups, and the Chamber of Commerce, and Facebook and many, many others came together to “fortify the election” and “save democracy”.
As CJ Hopkins wrote reently:
GloboCap is teaching us a lesson. The name of the lesson is ‘Look What We Can Do to You Any Time We Fucking Want.’”
Is this really even a pretence of democracy anymore? Do they have even the slightest veneer of the “will of the people” left?
No, it’s gone. American “democracy” is dead. They killed it. What’s more, they did it in front our eyes. A sacrifice. They tied it to the stone table, shaved of its mane and cut out its heart… and dared us to say anything.
Most people didn’t. But they got the message, even if they didn’t realise it.
The troops. The censorship. The razorwire.
They’re telling us that “voting” was a game they were only willing to play as long as they got to win, and now it’s done. They’re picking up their ball and taking it home. Democracy is over, they cheated and they won.
Now we play a new game. It’s called “Simon says”, and they are always Simon. So you better get fucking used to it.
Kivalina: A Case Study of How Media & Politics Mangle Objective Climate Science!
The town of Kivalina bordered by the Chukchi Sea to the left and a lagoon to the right. The lagoon side experiences the most erosion.
By Jim Steele | Watts Up With That? | February 9, 2021
What appears to be more failed alarmist predictions, the BBC’s 2013 headlines read Alaskan Village Set to Disappear Under Water in A Decade. “Gone, forever. Remembered – if at all – as the birthplace of America’s first climate change refugees. ” (see Willis on “first refugees”) The assumed cause? “Temperature records show the Arctic region of Alaska is warming twice as fast as the rest of the United States. Retreating ice, slowly rising sea levels and increased coastal erosion have left three Inuit settlements facing imminent destruction.” Similarly, in 2017 Huffington Post wrote, “It is disappearing. Fast. As one of the most apparent and shocking examples of coastal erosion, Kivalina could be uninhabitable by 2025, all thanks to climate change.” The Guardian and Mother Jones wrote, “31 Alaskan communities face “imminent” existential threats from coastline erosion, flooding and other consequences of temperatures that are rising twice as quickly in the state as the global average.” Sadly, media outlets and politicians ignored the objective science, but the truth is still out there.
The real problem for Alaska’s native communities has been past governments’ mis-guided attempts to enforce “permanence” in an everchanging landscape. The “settlements facing imminent destruction” are not places native people had freely chosen to settle. With their survival on the line, indigenous people were intimately aware of Alaska’s everchanging environments long before the theory of CO2‑induced‑climate‑change would be proposed. And so, they chose to be semi-nomadic. Kivalina was a good seasonal hunting camp, but never hosted a permanent settlement. Nonetheless the US Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) made it permanent in 1905.
As reported by REVEAL, “The Inupiaq used to spend summers in tents along Kivalina’s beach. When winter set in, they’d move inland to hunt caribou for food. They were semi-nomadic but in 1905 the federal government built a school on the island. Parents were threatened with jail time or losing their kids all together if they didn’t send them to school.” Just 6 years after its creation, Kivalina’s schoolteacher Clinton Replogle warned in 1911, Kivalina should be relocated due to flooding from ocean storms.
Consider the way most barrier islands get formed. Kivalina island was formed from a loosely consolidated sand bar and maintained by ample sediments supplied by local rivers. Ocean waves push eroded sand and gravel back towards the coast where it accumulates into a sand bar in shallow waters. On the sand bar’s landward side, river currents erode the sand, maintaining a lagoon and the islands’ narrow width. Islands are then formed where miles-long sand bars are cut into pieces by coastal rivers seeking an outlet to the ocean. The Singauk Entrance (see below) is where the Wulik River flows past Kivalina into the Chukchi Sea and it exemplifies the island’s unstable dynamics. Some years Singauk Entrance is blocked by sand piled up by winter storm waves, but then re-opened later by river erosion. As Tribal Administrator Millie Hawley recently stated, Kivalina was always eroding. We’re on a small spit of land that has diminished in size over the last century.”
Barrier island formation also requires a shallow‑sloping ocean floor that minimizes the irretrievable loss of sand that might wash away into the deeper ocean. However, such shallow ocean floors also amplify wave heights of approaching storms. A barrier island’s ultimate height is determined by the amount of sediments dropped from a storm’s overtopping waves. Kivalina’s highest point is a mere 13 feet, and decades ago the high tide mark came within 1 to 2 feet of the town. But the storms of late summer and ice‑free fall can bring waves 10 feet or higher. No wonder the threat of storm surge flooding was so clear to Clinton Replogle. Indeed, geological surveys have now revealed flooding from waves that had overtopped Kivalina happened at least twice between1905 and 1990.
The island’s sands don’t hold fresh water. So, the town’s water tank must be fed by a 3-mile-long fire hose stretching from the Wulik River. Kivalina’s sewage system consists of individual “honey-buckets” emptied by each resident into two specified “bunkers”. Poor sanitation and overcrowding have always been a problem, causing an extremely high instance of communicable diseases in the City of Kivalina has. In 2021 it suffered a large outbreak of COVID.
With negatives outweighing positives and an annual threat of destruction by storm surge, Inupiaq residents initiated a study in 1994 to relocate, despite a decade of few large storms. Using photographs dating back to 1952, the study surprisingly found no conclusive proof of any erosion occurring on the ocean-side of the island. However, the study did reveal substantial erosion on Kivalina’s lagoon side by the Wulik and Kivalina Rivers. Still the researchers warned, “Although there is very limited information available, it is our opinion that it is only a matter of time until the right combination of natural events occur which will result in over-topping of the City. When this occurs, the wave action will result in damage to the structures and if ice is associated with the storm surge the consequences could be disastrous.”
Still Kivalina’s population grew from 188 to over 400 since 1970. Despite residents voting 5 times to relocate to safety in the past 3 decades, an airplane runway that brings needed supplies and a medical clinic operated by the non-profit Maniilaq Association remained an attraction. Additionally, funding for relocation was scant with an economy based primarily on subsistence harvesting of seals, walrus, whale, salmon, and caribou. Furthermore, state and federal governments offered little support. So, when government reports began blaming global warming, in 2011 the residents opted to file a lawsuit against the major oil companies arguing “Kivalina must be relocated due to global warming” and sought funds to cover an estimated cost of $95 million to $400 million. Although their lawsuit failed, Kivalina’s “David vs Goliath” lawsuit was championed by proponents of catastrophic climate change and opponents of Big Oil, thrusting previously little‑cared‑about Kivalina into the limelight as an icon of the “climate crisis”.
Ignored has been the forcing of the Inupiaq into a permanent settlement on a dynamically changing barrier island. That was the real problem. Similarly, the Bureau of Indian Affairs reprogrammed the seasonally migrating Yupik into residents of a permanent community. Worse, the BIA chose a Ninglick River location in the Yukon Delta to build their school and create the permanent village of Newtok. But river deltas are notoriously unstable (as New Orleans has painfully realized throughout its 300‑year existence). Newtok’s school was built in 1958, but the BIA’s environmental ignorance was again quickly exposed. By the 1980s the US Army Corp of Engineers was spending over a million dollars trying to prevent natural river erosion from destroying Newtok. Just 26 years after its creation, Newtok residents commissioned its first study for re-locating. Costs of Newtok’s ongoing relocation will exceed $100 million. Nonetheless, it’s remained easier to blame climate change, natural or human caused, to cover for the government’s badly conceived “forced permanence”.
In 2005 the Guardian was hyping the United Nation’s outrageous failed prediction there would be “50 million environmental refugees by the end of the decade” and the plight of Kivalina was an opportunity to put a face on those imaginary “climate refugees”. If you tell a big lie often enough, the naïve will uncritically believe it. So like-minded media outlets formed “Climate Desk” to push more alarmism (affiliates are shown below). By 2019, the Guardian again amplified the climate hype telling their journalists to no longer refer to weather events as global warming or climate change. Instead, they should weaponize harsh weather as a “climate crisis” or “climate emergency”. Now an unholy alliance (between “if it bleeds it leads” media outlets, scientists from the “chicken little school of thought”, and politicians who use every crisis to gain political control) repeats daily that we are all threatened by an “existential climate crisis.” But for those of us who study the actual science, there is an army of objective climate scientists providing evidence that makes us doubt such climate fearmongering.
Climate Desk major affiliates
In 2013, Climate Desk’s Weather Channel wrote The Sea is Slowly Swallowing Alaskan Towns stating” the cost of climate change is becoming a painful reality for towns in coastal Alaska, as rising sea levels overtake acres and acres of once-dry land. The threat appears immediate in Kivalina.” But objective science shows otherwise. As determined in the peer-reviewed paper Arctic Ocean Sea Level Record from the Complete Radar Altimetry Era: 1991–2018 , sea level across the Arctic varies because winds remove water from one region and pile it up in another. Along the Siberian-Russian coasts and the southern Chukchi Sea bordering Kivalina (green arrow), sea level has not risen, despite sea level strongly rising along the Beaufort Sea (red).
From Rose (2019) Arctic Ocean Sea Level Record from the Complete Radar Altimetry Era: 1991–2018
The government’s US Climate Tool Kit-Relocating Kivalina claimed a climate crisis writing, ”temperatures in the Arctic are rising at more than twice the rate of the global average, resulting in violent ocean storms, flooding, and erosion beneath the homes of Kivalina—impacts that have been traumatic to the barrier island’s Alaskan Inupiaq community.” But they didn’t inform the public of all the science involved. For example, many permanent homes, built on permafrost, were sinking into the ground because heating their homes also melted the foundational permafrost below.
Furthermore, it’s summer winds that push warmer Pacific waters through the Bering Strait and initiates sea ice melt and the warming in the frozen Chukchi Sea. During the last few decades, the amount of warm Pacific water passing through the Bering Strait has nearly doubled, melting more sea ice and expanding open waters. Nearly half of that intruding ocean heat gets released to the atmosphere, raising air temperatures. Although more open waters have also enhanced photosynthesis and increased Arctic marine food web by 30%, bewilderingly, the associated rise in temperature is trumpeted as a crisis. It’ true expanding open waters absorb more sunlight, and this feedback raises temperatures even higher, dubbed “Arctic Amplification”. It has indeed raised Arctic air temperatures twice as fast as those in the US lower 48 states. But that rise is misleadingly increasing the global average temperature and has been incorrectly blamed on CO2. But most climate models now agree, it is intruding warm Pacific water pushing through the Bering Strait that forces Arctic Amplification.
Studies show the greatest Chukchi sea ice loss is associated with the 3 major pathways of the intruding warm water. The warmest pathway hugs the coast of western Alaska, affecting Kivalina as illustrated below by Itoh (2015). Importantly, it’s the volume of Bering Strait throughflow that determines the extent of annual open waters, and that throughflow volume is modulated by natural variations in atmospheric circulation. Using the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s general circulation model, researchers determined inflows of warm water through the Bering Strait are controlled primarily by wind stress, with shifting winds explaining 90% or more of the changes. Other factors (precipitation, radiative fluxes [solar or greenhouse], water vapor, and air temperature) had negligible influence. Unfortunately, increased thinning and loss of sea ice has shortened the Inupiaq’s season for hunting seals and whales, forcing them to hunt and fish elsewhere.
The three major paths and temperatures of warmer Pacific water flowing through the Bering Strait into the Arctic. From Itoh 2015
The 2020 scientific study, Mechanisms Driving the Interannual Variability of the Bering Strait Throughflow detailed the causes of those changing winds. On the Arctic Ocean side of the Bering Strait, when the Beaufort High pressure system is stronger, winds transport ocean water offshore and lower sea level along the coast which allows greater Bering Strait throughflow. On the Pacific side of the strait, when the semi‑permanent Aleutian Low‑pressure system is located over the Aleutian Basin, winds pile up water along the eastern Bering Sea shelf. The resulting higher sea level pushes more warm water through the Bering Strait. Conversely, when the Aleutian Low shifts southward over the Gulf of Alaska northeasterly winds prevail, lowering sea level and weakening Bering Strait throughflow. Significantly, the Aleutian Low is affected by natural El Nino events and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). Several studies have shown that a switch to the negative PDO phase also causes the Aleutian Low to pump more warm air from the south into Alaska.
Changing winds and warm water inflows will increase open waters in the Chukchi Sea even during colder climates. Marine geologists examining Chukchi sediments have determined that over the past millennia, an ice‑free Chukchi Sea happened independently of global climate, with ice‑free conditions happening even during the recent Little Ice Age. Based on our current state of scientific knowledge, the changing conditions in the Arctic are best explained by naturally oscillating winds and ocean currents.
In 2015 the Obama/Biden administration sent U.S. Interior Secretary Sally Jewell to Kivalina who, without apologizing for Kivalina’s forced settlement, vowed to work on solutions for the climate‑threatened village. Repeating the Climate Desk “climate refugee” trope Jewell grandstanded her empathy, “Hundreds of villagers in Kivalina face the terrible prospect of losing their land and homes to rising sea levels and coastal erosion, threatening their personal safety and putting them at risk of becoming climate change refugees within a decade”. But it was little more than political posturing.
Kivalina and Newtok don’t exemplify climate crises. Kivalina and Newtok are iconic examples of how the media and governments have ignored the injustices suffered by native peoples, then use their troubles only when it promotes their crises agenda. Kivalina and Newtok are clear examples of government inappropriateness that forced “permanence” on a native culture well adapted to an everchanging natural environment; an environment where regional climates are always changing. I suggest defunding the BIA for its horrible decisions and use the BIA’s 1.9‑billion‑dollar annual budget to safely relocate the people of Kivalina, Newtok and others to a place of their choosing.
Jim Steele is Director emeritus of San Francisco State University’s Sierra Nevada Field Campus, authored Landscapes and Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism, and a member of the CO2 Coalition
Jolani gets a make-over in Idlib
By Steven Sahiounie | Mideast Discourse | February 9, 2021
The administration of [proclaimed] President Joe Biden may use a new tactic to bring Damascus to its knees. The ‘regime-change’ policy of Obama, which spawned ‘forever-wars’ in Libya and Syria, has a new twist.
Biden could choose to solve the Syrian conflict through diplomacy, but he may have tasked Secretary of State Anthony Blinken with re-inventing a terrorist following Radical Islam, and with a $10 million bounty on his head, as the new leader of Syria.
Abu Mohammed Al-Jolani, the leader of Syria’s Hayat Tahrir Al-Sham (HTS), which had been previously named Jibhat al-Nusra, and where the Al Qaeda affiliate in Syria, had changed their name in a previous bout of re-branding their image.
The US is now in the process of changing the mask on HTS in Syria, as the group is listed by the US, EU, Russia, the UN, and Turkey as a terrorist group. Jolani took off his guerrilla warfare uniform and switched to a business suit recently in a PBS “Frontline” interview with journalist Martin Smith. Western audiences may be fooled by the new look, but the residents of Syria know the true Jolani. Washing away the gallons of blood on his hands will take a much deeper sanitizing than a new suit. Biden may have a hard time explaining the support of Jolani to French President Macron, who has officially declared war on Radical Islam.
The US had justified their illegal occupation of Syria as necessary to fight Islamic State (IS) terrorist group. The group was successfully dislodged from the territory they had held in northeast Syria.
The sole remaining territory held by an armed group following Radical Islam is Idlib, in the northwest, an area which US officials once described as “the largest al-Qaeda safe haven since 9/11”. Western media describes Idlib as ‘a last stronghold of Syrian rebel groups’. The US and its media outlets have used the terms ‘terrorists’ and ‘rebels’ interchangeably, which has effectively re-branded blood-thirsty criminals into freedom fighters.
Trump had inherited the Syrian conflict from Obama, and he did not work toward any solution but held the status-quo, which saw US troops illegally stationed in Syria to steal the oil. Trump allowed Saudi Arabia to write the US foreign policy on Syria, due to his tight relationship with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.
The US refused to beat HTS, instead, they protected them in Idlib, and have denounced Syrian and Russian attacks on the group. Now, the US has joined with HTS leader Jolani as their new man to lead Syria, still committed to the US policy of ‘regime change’.
The names change, but the essence is the same. In Syria, there were many armed groups, from the Free Syrian Army to Al Qaeda, and IS. Each had a leader, and a name, but in essence, all were the same: men killing people in the name of God. Their goal is ‘regime change’ and the regime they seek to install in Damascus is an Islamic government, with Sharia as the constitution and rule of law.
Turkey invaded Idlib and has 20,000 troops there, but has been reluctant to publically support HTS, because of the ‘terrorist’ listing. The US may begin a process to remove HTS from the terrorist label, which would open up greater aid and western investment in Idlib. At the same time, this close cooperation in Idlib between the US and Turkey could strengthen a fragile relationship between the two NATO partners. However, Turkey is ruled by a Muslim Brotherhood party, AKP, and there are calls by many in the US and the Arab Gulf states, to designate the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist group.
The sizable Christian population in Idlib has suffered greatly at the hands of HTS and other Radical Islamic terrorist groups. Not only physical suffering but their properties were seized and they were made destitute and homeless.
The Russian-Turkish ceasefire remains fragile, while joint patrols along the M4 highway have essentially halted since August from terrorist attacks on trucks and civilians. The March 2020 agreement between Russia and Turkey explicitly calls for both sides to “combat all forms of terrorism, and to eliminate all terrorist groups in Syria as designated by the UN Security Council, which includes HTS.
Jolani fought in the post-2003 Iraq war as a member of the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI, which later became ISIS), and in 2011 brought ISIS to Syria. He left ISIS in 2013, and declared allegiance to Al Qaeda, and established their affiliate in Syria, Jibhat al-Nusra.
Al-Nusra became known for being more brutal than all others and was feared and loathed by the Syrian civilians who were their victims. The group carried out war crimes and massacres of unarmed civilians sleeping in their own homes near Latakia in 2013. Killing, maiming, raping, and kidnapping was their calling card.
Jolani has been recast as the local Syrian leader capable of governing Idlib. However, Syria is a much bigger place than Idlib, which is a small agricultural area, only known for its olives. What about the biggest city, Aleppo, or the capital Damascus: what would the residents there think of an ex-ISIS member being in charge of Syria? The Syrian people have lived under a secular form of government for 40 years, and have fought against Radical Islam for ten years. Morphing a terrorist into a leader is a fantasy conjured up in Washington, DC. but will not play well to a Syrian audience.
Steven Sahiounie is an award-winning journalist.
Another Zionist Joins the Biden Team
Neuberger will make our cyber secure?
By PHILIP GIRALDI • Unz Review • February 9, 2021
It does not require any particularly perspicacity to realize that the [proclaimed] President Joe Biden Administration has been loaded with Zionists who not only believe in their own vision for Greater Israel but also in some cases have strong and enduring ties to the Israeli government itself. The new Secretary of State Tony Blinken comes from an American Jewish family that has well established ties to Israel. Blinken’s paternal grandfather was one of the founders of an organization that eventually evolved into the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Blinken said at his Senate confirmation hearing that the new administration would “consult with Israel” before any possible return to the 2015 nuclear deal and he also made clear that there will be “additional conditions for Iran,” an odd position to take since it was the U.S. that withdrew from the agreement and introduced a harsh sanctions regime even though Iran was in compliance. More recently, Blinken claimed that Iran is weeks away from having the enriched uranium needed to make a nuclear weapon. Strangely enough, or perhaps not, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been making the same claim since the 1980s.
Joe Biden himself proclaims proudly that he is a Zionist and Vice President Kamala Harris has spoken at AIPAC gatherings, pledging her unconditional support for the Jewish state. Senate Majority leader Chuck Schumer has proclaimed himself “shomer” or protector of Israel in the Senate while House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said that the “If this Capitol crumbled to the ground, the one thing that would remain would be our commitment to our aid, I don’t even call it our aid, our cooperation with Israel. That’s fundamental to who we are.” The House Majority Leader, the second ranking Democrat, Steny Hoyer has proudly led numerous Congressional delegations to Israel.
One has to suspect that many White House and Congressional friends of Israel are opportunists, knowledgeable of the fact that Zionism is career enhancing and equally aware that getting on the wrong side of “The Lobby” is a political death wish. Many politically astute senior officials meanwhile wind up by design in positions in the Department of State, CIA and National Security Council where they will be able to narrow foreign policy options in favor of the Jewish state. Under George W. Bush, folks like Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Doug Feith and Scooter Libby worked hard to infiltrate the Pentagon and White House and, having succeeded, the disastrous Iraq War was the result.
One might also recall the concurrent purge of the so-called “Arabists” in the State Department in the 1950s which has led to a domination of key foreign and national security positions relating to the Middle East by American Jews ever since. Indeed, the shift in priorities at State Department has been dramatic, with Foggy Bottom now housing an office of the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism, allegedly because anti-Semitism is surging worldwide, apparently having nothing to do with how Israel and its supporters behave. The incumbent, Elan Carr, has recently been elevated to the rank of Ambassador-at-large and his office, as well as the Biden Administration, now insists that criticism of Israel is ipso facto anti-Semitism. So much for free speech in the new world order.
Once upon a time it was considered unwise to appoint senior officials who had personal ties to other countries lest it create a conflict of interest that would not ultimately be beneficial to either nation. In his often-cited Farewell Address of 1796, George Washington famously warned that “… permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular Nations, and passionate attachments for others should be excluded; and that in place of them just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The Nation, which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest.”
If Washington were to see the foreign policy ruined by the Israel-centric federal government that has prevailed since the time of Ronald Reagan he would surely be at a loss to understand how that could possibly have developed. Donald Trump even intensified the pander by giving the Israelis gifts that they had not asked for and Joe Biden looks like he will do more of the same. When it comes to Israel, no concession or gift is ever enough.
The FBI, in the past, routinely denied security clearances to appointed officials who had close and enduring ties to other countries that were not part of NATO. Under Donald Trump, it was reported that his son-in-law Jared Kushner had been denied a top-level clearance in part due to his family’s close personal connection with Israel, to include its Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is regarded as a family friend. Donald Trump ignored the recommendation and used his own authority to grant Kushner the clearance anyway.
The latest friend of Israel to rise to the top as Biden completes his appointments is one Anne Neuberger, who recently was named senior director for cyber policy on the National Security Council. Neuberger has spent the last decade at the National Security Agency, the Pentagon’s cyber spying arm, where she was recently appointed head of the newly created cybersecurity directorate. Her husband Yehuda meanwhile is chair of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) Baltimore executive council. He reportedly lobbied ardent Zionist Senator Ben Cardin to oppose the 2015 Iran nuclear deal the Obama White House had negotiated. Cardin did vote against it in spite of it being strongly supported by his party leader President Barack Obama.
There is, not surprisingly, an additional back story to the tale. It goes something like this: NBC news published on January 27th an article claiming that a family foundation connected to Neuberger has donated $500,000 to AIPAC, which is the largest of the hundreds of Jewish organizations that are dedicated to advancing Israeli interests in the United States. AIPAC had in 2019 an annual budget of $133 million, assets of $157 million and 476 employees. It lobbies Congress heavily and is successful to the point where it actually writes legislation favorable to the Jewish State.
The NBC article stated that: “The daughter of billionaire investor George Karfunkel, Neuberger is an officer of a foundation named for her and her husband, the Yehuda and Anne Neuberger Foundation. The foundation was created 12 years ago to ‘carry out the charitable and religious purposes of the Associated Jewish Community Federation of Baltimore,’ according to its tax records… From 2012 through 2018 — the last year for which tax records for the foundation are available — the Neuberger foundation donated $559,000 to AIPAC, tax record show. In a separate part of the forms, the foundation reports spending that exact amounts of its AIPAC donations under the category of spending for lobbying ‘to influence a legislative body’ or ‘to influence public opinion…’”
The article also observes that “[Israel] operates in its own interest and aggressively spies on the U.S., including using cyber capabilities.” It also cites “A cross section of current and former intelligence officials and foreign policy experts — none of whom were willing to be named — [who] said the donations created an appearance problem. They noted that Israel, whose companies build and sell spying gear to regimes abroad and whose intelligence agencies hack foreign governments around the world, has a big stake in American cyber policy.”
The Neuberger foundation also contributes money to the neocon dominated Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), which, like AIPAC, colludes directly with the Israeli Embassy in Washington. FDD should be registered as a foreign agent, but no Israel connected entity has ever been forced to comply. To be sure, Neuberger’s involvement with the foundation and her participation in the money contribution to AIPAC should have been an element in her security clearance process, but that process may have been either modified for political reasons or the information was not made available. The NBC report observes that “A spokeswoman for the National Security Council declined to answer detailed questions about the matter, saying, ‘As a senior NSC employee, Ms. Neuberger will abide by the Executive Order on Ethics Commitments By Executive Branch Personnel.’ It’s not clear Neuberger would have been required to disclose contributions by her family foundation as part of her ethics or security clearance reviews — so it’s not known whether the Biden team vetted the donations. Although the donations are listed in public tax filings available on the web, some effort is required to find them.”
The supporters of Neuberger are incorrect in that the contributions made in her name to AIPAC, which most in Washington regard as a front for the Israeli government, would have most definitely been relevant to her clearance process. Under normal rules, it would disqualify her from having a top level clearance, but, as should be noted, we are dealing here with Israel. Neuberger’s appointment as head of U.S. cybersecurity while donating hundreds of thousands to the lobbying arm of a foreign government that recently welcomed to great fanfare a citizen of theirs, Jonathan Pollard, who spied on the U.S., as a hero is unacceptable. One might also add that Israel is regarded as the most active “friendly” government in respect to its spying on the United States, often using sayanim American Jews as their “agents,” and its well documented history of stealing U.S. high technology is extensive. It also has highly developed cyber capabilities of its own which it has recently used against American government targets, to include the White House.
The final twist to the Neuberger story is that complaints from Jewish groups and individuals began to pour into NBC after it released the story, some concerned that a wonderful organization like AIPAC was being impugned. AIPAC denounced the piece directly, claiming that its “Charges of dual loyalty are anti-Semitic and insult millions of Americans—Jewish & non-Jewish—who stand by our ally Israel.” The news network then surrendered, pulling and archiving the story after claiming that it had not met its usual standards due to its use of anonymous sources and failure to give Neuberger adequate time to respond. NBC did not contest the AIPAC claim that Israel is an actual American ally, which is itself a lie, nor to the compelling evidence that some American Jews certainly do demonstrate either dual or singular loyalty that favors Israel.
But my favorite contribution in support of Neuberger comes from President Barack Obama’s U.S. Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro, who appears to be in line for a Biden senior foreign policy appointment. He tweeted: “I don’t know Anne Neuberger, but the ‘charge’ against her — that she’s not fit for national security work because her family foundation supported political work that is fully protected under the Constitution — is offensive and belied by her stellar career. Glad she is serving.”
Shapiro’s claim that a senior national security official’s supporting a lobby that exists to obtain favors for a foreign country is a “free speech” issue is curious. One also wonders about Shapiro’s ultimate loyalty, recalling how he left his ambassadorial post to live in Israel, where he presumably now holds dual-citizenship. He subsequently told an American Jewish audience that Israel is “this miracle, this gift, this jewel” and worked as a senior officer in an Israeli national security think tank, representing it in testimony before Congress, which should have required him to register as a foreign agent. But he didn’t do so and got away with it because it was Israel, of course. And now he is giving advice on a critical United States national security issue in which he is dead wrong. That is the fundamental problem. We Americans are, at our peril, never allowed to challenge the extent of someone’s devotion to a foreign country if that country just happens to be Israel.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.org address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org
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.
US poised for Russia sanctions as Washington claims ‘millions’ support jailed Navalny, hope for regime change
RT | February 9, 2021
America’s top diplomat says the US is mulling how to best penalize Russia over the alleged poisoning of opposition figure Alexey Navalny, but he simultaneously claims Washington is not seeking to influence the situation.
Speaking to CNN on Monday, Secretary of State Antony Blinken told viewers “it seems apparent that a chemical weapon was used to try to kill Mr Navalny.”
“That violates the chemical weapons convention and other obligations that Russia has,” he said. “We’re looking at the situation very carefully and when we have the results we’ll look at that in the appropriate way.”
Blinken added that “the fact that Russia feels compelled – that Mr Putin feels compelled – to try to silence one voice, speaks volumes about how important that voice is and how it is representative of so many millions of Russians who want to be heard and who are fed up with the corruption and the kleptocracy.”
Thousands took to the streets of cities across the country to demonstrate for the release of the jailed anti-corruption campaigner over the past fortnight. However, further rallies that had been expected were called off amid lower numbers and an insistence from organizers that the movement should “end on a high note.” Unexpectedly, on Tuesday, Navalny associate Leonid Volkov, who is based in Lithuania, announced a new form of protest for the coming days, asking people to shine flashlights in their neighborhood gardens.
Research published last week found that only one in 20 of 1,600 Russians surveyed came up with Navalny’s name as a political figure that they trust. The fieldwork was conducted by the Levada Center, which is registered as a ‘foreign agent’ by the Ministry of Justice over links to funding from abroad.
While former President Donald Trump was said to have been ambivalent about international blocs like NATO and organizations like the UN, analysts have said that Biden’s team is far more preoccupied with seeing the US play a leading role in them. Blinken appeared to confirm that view, claiming that “the world doesn’t organize itself. If we’re not in there every day helping to do some of that organizing – to write the rules and shape the norms that sort of govern the ways that countries relate to each other, then either someone else is going to do it in our place or maybe, just as bad, nobody does it and then you have chaos.”
However, while he expressed hope that the momentum from previous protests would have a profound effect on the country, Blinken denied that the US was stoking tensions. “I think the Russian government would make a mistake in attributing to outside actors, whether it is the United States, European partners or others, responsibility for what is happening,” he said. “This is fundamentally about Russia, about Russia’s future and hopefully about a more democratic system going forward.”
Navalny was educated in the US and was appointed to Yale University’s World Fellow’s program, set up to “create a global network of emerging leaders.” This has led some in the country to suggest that he is more closely aligned to Western governments than many other domestic opposition figures.
Moscow has expressed cynicism over the nature of the US’ interest in the Navalny case. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said last week that Washington didn’t need a genuine reason for sanctions. “They will always find one or make one up,” she said.
Merck statement against ivermectin exposing ‘big pharma’ lobbyists
Swiss Policy Research | February 7, 2021
A positive aspect of the recent anti-ivermectin statement by Merck is that dozens of ‘big pharma’ lobbyists, who immediately shared the statement on Twitter, are now getting exposed, among them many journalists, a US NIH representative, some industry-linked professors, and one of the most influential German government ‘covid science communicators’.
Keep in mind that Merck provided no evidence, whatsoever, for any of its claims, did not refute any of the existing evidence, studies and meta-studies, and falsely claimed ‘unproven safety’. The entire statement is a desperate appeal to (supposed) authority, and anyone pushing it is simply exposing themselves as a lobbyist not interested in actual evidence-based medicine.
What Merck could have done, but didn’t do, since April 2020, is running and publishing its own ivermectin trial. What Merck also could have done, but didn’t do, is disclosing in its statement that it recently signed a $356 million deal to supply the US with a much more expensive, newly developed experimental anti-covid drug. But doing this may not have been in Merck’s interest, of course.
Update 1: FLCCC Alliance Response to Merck
See also: The fight against ivermectin has begun.
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.
Featured Video
Elijah Magnier: Yemen’s strikes are shattering Saudi Arabia’s long-term strategy
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
British weapons and personnel doing much of the killing in Yemen
Press TV – June 18, 2019
A detailed report published by the Guardian newspaper has shown how Britain is massively contributing to Saudi Arabia’s devastating war on Yemen as it suggests that London is not only supplying the bombs that fall on Yemenis, but it provides the personnel and expertise that keep the war going.
The comprehensive report by Arron Merat published on Tuesday showed that Britain was doing much of the killing in Yemen as the country continues to provide Saudi Arabia with everything it needs to turn its southern impoverished neighbor into a graveyard.
“Every day Yemen is hit by British bombs – dropped by British planes that are flown by British-trained pilots and maintained and prepared inside Saudi Arabia by thousands of British contractors,” said Merat in the report. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Netizens condemn Japanese drama for projecting Japan’s wartime atrocities onto Chinese characters
- Racist Seinfeld Dances for Joy as Bibi Unveils His New Map
- A West Bank War for Netanyahu’s Election Campaign, Could It Backfire?
- Yemen denounces European Parliament’s ‘hypocritical’ push to blacklist Ansarullah
- Qalibaf: UAE’s UN bid aims to ‘clear the runway’ for ‘Greater Israel’, whitewash genocide
- Pakistan reopens Iran border after boosting security: Report
- Why are so many Brazilians voting for Flávio Bolsonaro?
- Democrats Put Anti-Russia Agenda Ahead of American Workers
- Elijah Magnier: Yemen’s Strikes Are Shattering Saudi Arabia’s Long-Term Strategy
- Pentagon designates Chinese cultural centers national security threat
- If Americans Knew
- Latest updates from Israeli assault on West Bank
- Tourism Ministry launches free food truck tour in US
- “So Much Worse Than People Realize”: Never-Before-Seen Images Reveal Damage at U.S. Bases as Troops Describe Being Abandoned
- UK Bell Review Confirms Only Anti-Israel Attitudes Are Rising, Not Antisemitism
- DAILY UPDATE: Latest essential news on Palestine, Israel, & region
- DAILY UPDATE: Latest essential news on Palestine, Israel, & region
- Damning report shows the media must confront its failures on Gaza
- BBC senior broadcaster speaks out on Gaza coverage
- Netanyahu vows vast West Bank invasion in response to 20-minute skirmish that left 2 Israeli soldiers and 2 Palestinian fighters dead
- Tied up and tortured: Israel using US-made electroshock weapons on Palestinian detainees
- No Tricks Zone
- Sudden Stratospheric Warming, Powerful El Niño Combination May Lead To Extreme Europe Cold, Energy Crisis!
- Two New Studies Find Thwaites Glacier Melt Cannot Be Driven By Human Activity Or A Warming Ocean
- E-Cars Reduce CO2 Emissions By Only 41% Compared To Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles
- Predictions Made By Renowned Climate Professor Over Past Decades Have Been Proven To Be Poor
- New Study Suggests Large Regions Of The Pacific Ocean Have Been Cooling For The Last 80 Years
- Germany’s Green Energy Debacle: High Energy Costs Force Kahla Porzellan to Close After 182 Years!
- New Study: 50 Years Of The Most Aggressive ‘Net Zero’ Policies Can Only Affect The Global Climate By 0.03°C
- US September “Heat” Was No Record…Many Records Set Decades Ago
- Latest European Green Energy Debacle; Portugal’s Largest Flagship Solar Park Insolvent!
- Green Energy Debacle: German Expert Professor Fritz Vahrenholt Warns Of Severe Economic And Social Consequences
