De grote Potentiële Albanese Ontdekking van de Olie en van het Gas onderstreept het Belang van Kosovo

Door Stephen Lendman
Alternatief Nieuws RINF

Op 10 Januari, brak het Zwitsers-Gebaseerde Bedrijf van de Aardolie Manas het nieuws. De Evaluatie van het Middel van de Vennoten LLC van Gustavson identificeerde grote perspectieven op olie en gasreserves in Albanië, dicht bij Kosovo. Zij zijn op gebieden genoemd blokken A, B, C, D en E, dat ongeveer 780.000 acres langs het noordwesten omvatten aan zuidoosten „neigende (geologische) vouwenriem van noordwestelijk Albanië.“

De toegewezen ramingen van de unproved vondst (tot dusver) zijn tot 2.987 miljard vaten olie en 3.014 triljoen kubieke voet aardgas. Nochtans, wegens hun diepte, kunnen de oliestortingen met een laag van gas worden afgedekt. Als zo, berekent Gustavson het potentieel 1.4 miljard vaten lichte olie en tot 15 triljoen kubieke voet aardgas te zijn. Verder, als slechts het gas aanwezig is, kan de ontdekking zijn zo veel zoals 28 triljoen kubieke voet. In elk geval, als de ramingen uit blijken, is het een aanzienlijke vondst.

In zijn verklaring, rapporteerde Gustavson: De „waarschijnlijkheid van succes voor een wilde staking goed op een structureel complex gebied zoals dit is vrij hoog (omdat) het in een structureel bron is gunstige van de gebieds (en) bewezen koolwaterstof en er analoge productie slechts 20 tot 30 kilometers.“ weg bestaat

Momenteel, heeft het gebied van de Balkan kleine bewezen oliereserves van ongeveer 345 miljoen vaten, waarvan geschatte 198 miljoen vaten in Albanië zijn. De bewezen aardgasreserves zijn veel groter om ongeveer 2.7 triljoen kubieke voet.

In December 2007, stond de Raad van Ministers van Albanië DWM Aardolie, AG, een dochteronderneming Manas toe, om in de exploratie, de ontwikkeling en de productie van de olie en het gasreserves van Albanië samen met het Agentschap van de overheid van Natuurlijke rijkdommen bij te wonen.

Deze ontwikkeling onderstreept verder het belang van Kosovo en de kosten die voor Servië worden bedoeld. Sinds de 1999 ons-Geleide oorlog van de NAVO, is het allen bergaf voor de natie, het gebied en zijn mensen geweest:

– Kosovo maakt deel uit van Servië; minstens was het; sinds 1999 is het een Washington-NAVO bezette kolonie gestript van zijn soevereiniteit in schending van internationale wet geweest;

– it’s been run by three successive US-installed puppet Prime Ministers with known ties to organized crime and drugs trafficking;

– it’s the home of one of America’s largest military bases in the world, Camp Bondsteel; the province/country is more a US military base than a legitimate political entity;

– its part of Washington’s regional strategic objective to control and transport Central Asia’s vast oil and gas reserves to selected markets, primarily in the West;

– on February 17 during a special parliamentary session, Kosovo unilaterally declared its independence; the action violates international law; Kosovo is as much part of Serbia as Illinois is one of America’s 50 states; to no surprise, Washington and dominant western countries support it; opposed are Serbia, Russia, Spain, Greece, Portugal, Slovakia, Malta, Bulgaria, Romania and Cyprus;

– might makes right; the issue is a fait accompli; the February 17 declaration ignores EU division pitting one-third of its 27 members in opposition; and

– unilateral western-supported independence mocks the 1999 UN Security Council Resolution 1244; it only permits Kosovo’s self-government as a Serbian province; the resolution recognizes the “sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia;” only a new UN resolution in compliance with international law can change that legally; nonetheless, it happened anyway on another historic day of infamy when Washington again trashed international law and the rules and norms of civil society.

By Stephen Lendman
RINF Alternative News

F. William Engdahl is a leading researcher, economist and analyst of the New World Order who’s written on issues of energy, politics and economics for over 30 years. He contributes regularly to publications like Japan’s Nihon Keizai Shimbun, Foresight magazine, Grant’s Investor.com, European Banker and Business Banker International. He’s also a frequent speaker at geopolitical, economic and energy related international conferences and is a distinguished Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization where he’s a regular contributor.

Engdahl wrote two important books. This writer reviewed his latest one in three parts called “Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation.” It’s the diabolical story of how Washington and four Anglo-American agribusiness giants plan world domination by patenting animal and vegetable life forms. They aim to control food worldwide, make it all genetically engineered, and use it as a weapon to reward friends and punish enemies.

The book is a sequel to Engdahl’s first one and subject of this review - “A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order.” It’s breathtaking in scope and content, and a shocking and essential history of geopolitics and strategic importance of oil. The book is reviewed in-depth so readers will know the type future Henry Kissinger had in mind in 1970 when he said: “Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control people.” Engdahl recounts the story in his two masterful books, both critically essential reading.

The story line in his first one began late in the 19th century when oil’s advantage was first realized, and First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill told Parliament in 1919:

“We must become the owners, or at any rate the controllers at the source, of at least a proportion of the supply (of oil) which we require….and obtain our oil supply, so far as possible, from sources under British control, or British influence.”

After defeating Napoleon in 1815, Britain was supreme until America emerged predominant during WW II. Engdahl explains how: through two pillars and one commodity - unchallengeable military power and the dollar as the world’s reserve currency combined with the quest to control global oil and other energy resources.

Engdahl calls his book “no ordinary history of oil” because what he recounts is suppressed in the mainstream and what passes for education in America. It settles for mediocrity, ignorance, and a barely literate public by design. As a result, people don’t know that US manipulators arranged “the greatest confidence game the world had ever seen” - a “special hegemony” to:

– print limitless dollar paper certificates to buy every imaginable product;

– accumulate endless trade deficits;

– “inflate (the) currency beyond imagination;”

– have the government pay interest on its own money; and

– create an unprecedented public and private debt to enrich an elite few at the expense of the greater good.

So far it’s worked because people haven’t caught on, other nations need our markets, fear our might, and countries like China, Japan and petrodollar recyclers remain lenders of last resort. Combined, it let America rule the world, control its energy, and crush all upstart competition. Washington had a good role model, and that’s where the story begins.

The Three Pillars of the British Empire

Geopolitical history for the last 100 years was shaped around the quest for what Big Oil acolyte Daniel Yergin called “The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power” with two countries at its epicenter - first Britain and now America with its UK junior partner that built its rule on three essential pillars:

– controlling the seas and setting the terms of trade;

– dominating world banking and manipulating the world’s largest gold supply; and

– controlling world raw materials with oil the key one at the turn of the century; with these working, it devised an “informal empire” to loot world wealth and maintain a balance of power on the continent.

Britain’s “genius” was being able to shift alliances without letting sentiment interfere with its interests. Post-Waterloo, it operated “on an extremely sophisticated marriage between top (London) bankers and financiers, government cabinet ministers,” key industrialists and espionage chiefs. By keeping everything secret, it “wielded immense power over credulous and unsuspecting foreign economies.” By the late 19th century, however, things began to change, and a new strategy was needed. Key to it was oil geopolitics as a vital naval supremacy ingredient.

The Lines are Drawn: Germany and the Geopolitics of the Great War

The importance of oil and emergence of continental economies (especially in Germany) provided the backdrop to WW I. By the late 19th century, British bankers and political elites were alarmed that German industrial and technological development began surpassing its own that was in decline. Included was a modern German merchant and naval fleet and an ambitious railway project linking Berlin with Baghdad, then part of the Ottoman empire. At stake was British hegemony, and preserving it led to war.

Prior to its outbreak, coal was king, German output was impressive and so was its growth:

– its steel production increased 1000% in 20 years, leaving Britain far behind by 1900;

– its state-backed rail infrastructure doubled in track kilometers from 1870 to 1913;

– with the advent of centralized electric power generation and long-distance transmission, its electrical industry exploded to dominate half the world’s trade by 1913;

– impressive research built the country’s chemical industry and made Germany the world leader in analine dye production, pharmaceuticals and chemical fertilizers;

– German agriculture thrived; it made “astonishing” gains from the introduction of “scientific agriculture chemistry” and produced an 80% grain harvest increase from 1887 to 1914;

– population growth was dramatic - 75% to 67 million between 1870 and 1914;

– Germany’s merchant fleet rocketed to second place in the world behind Britain and at a pace to overtake it;

– steel and engineering advances were achieved; and consider another British concern:

– early in the century, British Dreadnought battleship leadership was surpassed; Germany’s super model was superior and that spelled trouble for UK sea power supremacy; by 1910, “dramatic remedies” were needed; Germany’s economic emergence had to be confronted, its growing naval strength as well, and for the first time oil was a factor.

A Global Fight for Control of Petroleum Begins

By 1882, British Admiral Lord Fisher saw oil’s potential as qualitatively superior to coal. It required one-quarter the tonnage, one-third the engine weight, and expanded a fleet’s “radius of action” fourfold. It was first used in 1885 after Gottlieb Daimler developed the internal combustion engine. Another 20 years passed, however, before its importance was realized, and that created a problem. Britain had no oil and needed a supply.

Up to then, its Middle East presence was limited, but that changed after oil was discovered in Masjed Soleiman, Persia (now Iran) in 1908. It secured Britain an “extraordinarily significant exclusive right (to potential) vast untapped petroleum deposits” for the country’s newly formed Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC).

Earlier in 1899, German industrialists and bankers got Ottoman approval for a Berlin-Baghdad railway. The aim - to establish strong economic ties to Turkey and develop new markets in the East. Once extended to Kuwait, it would be the fastest, cheapest rail link to the Indian subcontinent, and that spelled trouble for Britain. It would challenge UK supremacy and had to be confronted.

The project was costly and needed help to complete, so Germany turned to Britain. London, for its part however, used “every device known to delay and obstruct progress. The game lasted” until war began in 1914 and after Britain secured an exclusive oil development “lease in perpetuity” in what today is Iraq and Kuwait. Yet competition remained because Germany got the Ottoman emperor to grant its Baghdad Railway Company full rights to all oil and minerals on a parallel 20 kilometers of land on either side of the rail line. By 1912, oil’s importance was apparent, and geologists discovered it between Mosul and Baghdad.

WW I stalled efforts for a German-owned oil company, independent of Rockefeller interests. At a time, the US produced over 63% of world supply, Russia’s Baku 19% and Mexico 5%. Britain’s new APOC was barely a player when First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill convinced the government to buy a majority interest in what today is British Petroleum (BP). “From that point, oil was at the core of British strategic interests,” and the game was this - secure its own supplies, deny them to key rivals like Germany, and do it if necessary by war.

That became London’s scheme early in the century when Britain, France and Russia allied in a Triple Entente against Germany and the Austro-Hungarian powers. By 1907, it was solidified, effectively encircled Germany, and it laid the foundation for the coming showdown with Kaiser Wilhelm II. From then until 1914, preparations were made for the “final elimination of the German threat.” Included was a “series of continuous crises and regional (Balkans) wars (in) the ’soft underbelly’ of Central Europe.” Three months after the alliance, Austria’s heir to the throne was assassinated in Sarajavo, and it “detonated the Great War.”

Oil Becomes the Weapon, the Near East the Battleground

WW I was no different from other wars. Imperial, territorial and economic rivalries were at its root. It lasted from July 28, 1914 to November 11, 1918 and at a time Britain was effectively bankrupt, had big plans along with other combatants, plus a “secret weapon” that later emerged: the special relationship of “His Majesty’s Treasury” with The House of Morgan.

The conflict matched the Allied powers of Britain, France, Russia, Belgium, Serbia, Greece, Romania, Montenegro, Italy, Portugal, Japan and for its last seven months the US against the Central Powers of Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria and Ottoman Turkey. The timeline was as follows:

– on June 28, Archduke Ferdinand and his wife were assassinated;

– on July 28, Austria declared war on Serbia;

– on August 1, Germany declared war on Russia;

– on August 3, Germany declared war on France and invaded Belgium on August 4; and

– on August 4, Britain declared war on Germany, and the world was at war. Four years later, its toll was horrific, and four empires were destroyed - Ottoman Turkey, Austria-Hungary, Germany and Russia. Later on, so would Britain’s, but in 1914 schemes and intrigue drove the winners to reallocate the spoils, especially where it was thought large oil deposits lay.

Well before 1914, Britain’s geostrategy was threefold:

– create and preserve an unchallengeable global empire;

– defeat its main rival Germany; and

– secure and control the most strategically important resource - oil that was crucial to winning the war.

At its end, Britain’s Foreign Secretary Lord Curzon commented: “The Allies were carried to victory on a flood of oil.” Germany ran short and lost because it couldn’t mount a decisive offensive in 1918. In 1915, however, Britain gambled and lost. It failed to defeat Turkey in the Battle of Gallipoli, and the stakes involved were high - to secure Russia’s rich Baku oil fields at a time they supplied almost a fifth of world production. It was early in the war, Britain ultimately prevailed, and in no small measure by preemptively occupying Baku in August, 1918 to deny Germany its vital resources.

Throughout the war, oil’s importance was key and the reason for the Allies’ secret 1916 Sykes-Picot agreement. It spelled “betrayal and Britain’s intent to….control….the undeveloped petroleum reserves of the Arabian Gulf after the war.” Britain was devious. While France and Germany clashed along the Western Front, London moved 1.4 million troops to the Gulf and eastern Mediterranean on the pretext of bolstering Russia. After 1918, a million forces remained on what became a “British Lake” by 1919 with access to the region’s oil. Its potential was later learned, France was cheated out of its share, Saudi Arabia’s value was unknown, and turned out to be a major British blunder that didn’t elude America in the 1930s.

Partitioning the Ottoman Empire proceeded post-war and included an “extraordinary new element.” Now known as the Balfour Declaration, it was a classified British policy statement supporting a Jewish homeland in Palestine at a time Jews comprised 1% of the population. It came on November 2, 1917, a year of conflict remained, and it was the basis for the post-1919 British mandate over Palestine that gave London “strategic possibilities of enormous importance.” British elites and its principal think tank (the Royal Institute for International Affairs or Chatham House) supported a “Jewish-dominated Palestine, beholden to England for its survival (and) surrounded by a balkanized group of squabbling Arab states.”

The scheme was to link England’s colonial possessions from South Africa’s gold and diamond mines, north to Egypt and the Suez canal, through Mesopotamia (Iraq and Kuwait), Persia (Iran) and East into India and what today is Pakistan and Bangladesh. Controlling this territory became crucial. It meant dominating the world’s most strategically valuable resources before their vast potential was realized.

Combined and Conflicting Goals: The United States Rivals Britain

Britain was the world’s major post-WW I power, its territorial winner, and borrowed Wall Street money secured the victory, but with a problem. The country was deeply in debt, mired in depression, and the US now loomed as the world’s economic power. In the 1920s, a rivalry ensued pitting America against Britain’s three imperial pillars: control of world sea lanes, its banking and finance, and its strategic raw materials. At stake was whether London or Washington would be the world’s new capital, with no assured winner at the time. Later, it was very clear that WW II’s seeds were planted in a place called Versailles and a 1919 treaty in its name.

Its terms were outrageous and onerous. They made unimaginable demands, and therein lay the problem. In May 1921, Germany got an ultimatum with six days to accept or the industrial Ruhr Valley would be militarily occupied. Even worse, the country lost its colonial possessions and all their raw material resources. In the end, all combatants were losers. Their combined debt overwhelmed world finance and monetary policy from 1919 to the 1929 Wall Street crash. The entire pyramid was built on punitive war debts with Morgan and other major New York banks uncompromising on the terms. They was so burdensome that yearly payments exceeded America’s annual 1920s foreign trade. In addition, paying it took precedence over rebuilding and modernizing war-torn European economies.

At the same time, oil’s importance grew as Britain exploited the spoils at France and America’s expense. In March 1921, Winston Churchill was UK secretary of state for colonial affairs, the British Colonial Office Middle East Department was established, and Mesopotamia was renamed Iraq and became a British colony. Anglo-Persian Oil officials got administrative control, American companies gained no British Middle East concessions, and a fierce battle raged over the region’s oil throughout the 1920s. Then it moved to Latin America.

In the 19th century, US Senator Henry Cabot Lodge stated “commerce follows the flag” and by it meant economic progress requires expansion. In 1912, it got Mexico targeted after oil was discovered in Tampico in 1910. Woodrow Wilson sent in troops to seize control from Britain and the UK-connected Mexican Eagle Oil Company that had concessions for half the country’s oil at the time. As war in Europe loomed, Britain backed off, and America secured Tampico’s enormous potential.

Britain, nonetheless, pressed on, and by the early 1920s controlled “a formidable arsenal of apparently private companies” that, in fact, let His Majesty’s government “dominate and ultimately control all” major world oil-containing regions. Four companies were empowered that were also an “integral part of British secret intelligence activities:”

– Royal Dutch Shell that rivaled Rockefeller’s Standard Oil, even in America through California Oil Fields and Oklahoma-based Roxana Petroleum;

– the Anglo-Persian Oil Company that became the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company and is now British Petroleum;

– the little-known d’Arcy Exploitation Company; it was tied to the Foreign Office and British intelligence, and its agents showed up wherever there was oil development potential; and

– the nominally Canadian company called British Controlled Oilfields (BCO); it was secretly government- owned as were Shell and the others.

In 1912, British companies controlled about 12% of world oil production. By 1925, it was most of it, America noticed, but in 1922, London and Washington united against a common threat and called a truce to their post-Versailles conflict.

The Anglo-Americans Close Ranks

In April 1922, Germany and Russia stunned the West by their bilateral Rapello Treaty. Under it, Russia waived its war reparations claims in return for Germany’s industrial technology. The news shocked the continent, especially as it emerged from a British-organized Genoa meeting with other strategic aims in mind.

While secretly financing an anti-Soviet counterrevolution, London approached Russia regarding Baku’s oil fields, hoping to arrange lucrative deals for Royal Dutch Shell and other UK oil companies. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil also eyed them, but was disadvantaged by Britain’s favored position and its own unsavory reputation. Yet it proceeded through Harry Sinclair of Sinclair Petroleum as a perceived independent middleman with no Rockefeller taint.

Moscow was interested because Sinclair had ties to President Harding, and a deal meant US diplomatic recognition and an end to Russia’s international isolation post-1917. Sinclair agreed, Harding approved, but events then intervened.

It was scandal in Wyoming in a place called Teapot Dome. It involved political influence and the awarding of no-bid oil leases to Sinclair Oil (then called Mammoth Oil) and a whole lot more with illegal payoffs and no-interest loans as part of the deal. Harding, though not directly involved, was implicated, a year later he was dead (”under strange circumstances”), Coolidge became President, dropped the Baku project, and ended plans to recognize Russia. At the time, it was thought British intelligence was involved, blocked the bid to give UK oil companies an edge, but Germany’s deal with Russia intervened.

It was Germany’s second option at a time its onerous debt made dealing with Britain preferable. Efforts failed because London was hard-line, stuck to its punitive repayment process, and imposed stiff tariffs to make things worse with Germany already on its knees.

The looting ruined the country’s economy and forced the Reichsbank to print enormous amounts of money to survive. Inevitable inflation followed and by 1923 was catastrophic. In January, the mark dropped to 18,000 to the dollar. By July, it was at 353,000, by August 4,620,000, and by November an astonishing 4,200,000,000,000. It was effectively worthless in the greatest ever (before or since) inflation that destroyed the country’s savings and made further calamitous events inevitable.

The misery was compounded when Germany lost its assets. Britain took its colonies, and also seized was Alsace-Lorraine and Silesia with its rich mineral and agricultural resources. Gone was 75% of the country’s iron ore, 68% of zinc ore, 26% of coal as well as Alsatian textile industries and potash mines. In addition, Germany’s entire merchant fleet was taken, a portion of its transport and fishing fleet plus locomotives, railroad cars and trucks - all justified as war debts that were fixed at an impossible to pay 132 billion gold marks at 6% annual interest, and with it an ultimatum. Agree in six days or Allied troops would occupy the Ruhr. Unsurprisingly, the Reichstag approved.

It made dealing with Russia essential as Germany sought practical ways to survive. It proved impossible, France objected to a minor treaty obligation and occupied the Ruhr anyway. In the meantime, inflation soared, German industrial activity was erased, Reichsbank and other German bank assets were seized, and the currency became worthless.

In 1923, a so-called Dawes Plan (named for US banker Charles Dawes) was adopted. It was the Anglo-American banking community’s way to reassert fiscal control over Germany, assure reparations were paid, and continue the state-sponsored looting. It continued until 1929 when the debt pyramid collapsed, an ensuing banking crisis followed, capital flowed out of the country, its economy crashed, the world headed into depression, and radical political elements gained prominence.

Reichbank president, Hjalmar Schacht, was a key figure. He resigned his post to organize financial support for the man he and Bank of England governor Montagu Norman wanted as chancellor. From 1926, Schacht secretly backed the radical National Socialist German workers party, the NSDAP Nazis. Britain also favored the “Hitler Project,” support for it went right to the top and included figures like Prime Minister Chamberlain and the Prince of Wales (later King Edward VIII in 1936 until he abdication later in the year).

Throughout the period, Wall Street and Washington were comfortable with the Nazis, and a key government official met Hitler in 1922. He came away saying he “was deeply impressed by his personality and thought it likely he would play an important part in German politics.”

By this time, the Anglo-American power struggle was resolved. So, too, the oil wars with the creation of an “enormously powerful Anglo-American oil cartel,” later called the “Seven Sisters.” British and American companies struck a deal. They ended competition, kept existing market shares, and secretly set prices with governments of both countries arranging a Red Line agreement. From then to now, Big Oil ruled the energy world and devised how to deal with “outsiders.”

Later, the consequences from Baron Kurt von Schroeder’s January 4, 1932 meeting would have to be faced after he, Heinrich von Papen and Hitler secretly arranged a Nazi takeover. A year later, another meeting followed preparatory to acting. The Weimar government was weak, the scheme was to topple it, and it made Hitler Reichschancellor on January 30, 1933. On August 2, 1934 he seized absolute power as Fuhrer. British interests backed him, Royal Dutch Shell financed him, and the Bank of England “moved with indecent haste to reward” him with a vital line of credit. The rest, as they say, is history, and from it would emerge a new world order.

Oil and the New World Order of Bretton Woods

In 1945, the world had changed. Post-WW I, Britain was preeminent with an empire spanning one-fourth the globe. Thirty years later, it was disintegrating and “in the throes of the largest upheaval of perhaps any empire in history” (although it happened most prominently to Rome, but it took longer). It wasn’t from “beneficence” or a matter of principle. It was unavoidable because the war took its toll. It shattered Britain’s financial power, its industry was decaying, its housing stock was dilapidated, and its people exhausted. Britain was “utterly dependent on America,” so the baton passed to the only major power left standing in a ravaged post-war world.

A “special relationship” between them emerged post-Versailles. Britain led it then, it hoped post-1945 to continue indirectly, and a new element was added - the post-war CIA that worked with Britain in the war as the OSS (Office of Strategic Services). The relationship continued as the two countries have mutual interests and jointly share intelligence, except that Britain now is junior in a US-dominated world.

Post-war, Anglo-American oil interests had enormous power. It was assured by the 1944 Bretton Woods system that was built around three dominant pillars - the IMF, World Bank and managed “free trade” from GATT. Clauses were built into each to ensure Anglo and especially American dominance over monetary and trade issues. Both countries have voting control, and the arrangement created a “gold exchange system.” Under it, each member country’s currency was pegged to the dollar that, in turn, was set at a fixed $35 an ounce gold price. It suited Big Oil fine as America by then had the bulk of world gold reserves.

They also benefitted from the Marshall Plan as more than 10% of it went for American oil, and five US companies supplied over half of western Europe’s supply at a dear price (that was pennies on the dollar compared to today). They profited enormously, nonetheless, as oil became the key commodity fueling world growth that without which would halt.

Partnered with Big Oil and its trade were Wall Street and New York international banks. They profited hugely from its capital inflows, and it ensured their advantage that was built into the Bretton Woods system. They also had cartel power by having consolidated to hold disproportionate control over world finance.

Britain, as well, had its post-war priorities in the wake of its lost empire. Its leadership regrouped around the power and profits of oil and other strategic raw materials with US help. It made Iran a target, Britain humiliated its nationalist elements, occupied the country, and demanded concessions for its government-linked Royal Dutch Shell. Finally in December, 1944, nationalist leader Mohammed Mossadegh introduced a bill to bar foreign country oil negotiations. A bitter fight ensued, by 1948 foreign troops were withdrawn, but the country remained under UK control through its Anglo-Iranian Oil Company at a time Iran’s southern region had the world’s richest known reserves.

In late 1947, the Iranian government demanded an increase in its oil revenue share (meager at the time) and cited Venezuela where Standard Oil had a 50 - 50 arrangement. London wasn’t pleased, talks dragged on, and the strategy was to stall and delay. In late 1949, Mossadegh headed a parliamentary commission, a 50 - 50 split was demanded, Britain refused, and by 1951 Mossadegh was Prime Minister. Around the same time, Iran’s parliament nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company and paid fair compensation for it. Britain, nonetheless, was outraged and reacted.

Full economic sanctions and an oil embargo followed. In addition, Iranian assets in British banks were frozen, and major Anglo-American oil companies supported London. Iran’s economy was devastated. Its oil revenues plummeted from $400 million in 1950 to less than $2 million from July 1951 to August 1953 when Mossadegh was ousted by a CIA-British SIS coup. Shah Reza Pahlevi returned to power, sanctions were lifted, and America and Britain regained their client state until 1979 when the same Anglo-American interests turned on the Shah and deposed him. More on that below.

An Italian company defied the sanctions at the time - Azienda Generale Italiana Petroli (AGIP). Its founder and head was Enrico Mattei, a man to be reckoned with. He sought indigenous energy resources for Italy that Anglo-American oil interests wouldn’t co-opt. It was no simple task, yet he got a new law passed that established a central semi-autonomous state energy company called Ente Nazionale Idrocarburi (ENI). AGIP became a subsidiary.

As its leader in 1957, he negotiated an unprecedented deal with Iran - 75% of profits to the National Iranian Oil Company and 25% to ENI. Washington, London and Big Oil weren’t pleased. If unchecked, this type arrangement would upset their entire world oil order benefitting them at the expense of host countries. Mattei had to be stopped, and the US and Britain pressured the Shah to opt out - to no avail.

Mattei became a major irritant. He challenged Big Oil with low gasoline prices. He also offered deals with former colonies on more favorable terms than the majors, including the prospect of local refineries so supplier countries could be more than just raw material sources.

Finally, in October 1960 he went too far and enraged Washington and London. He negotiated a deal with Moscow they opposed. In 1958, he contracted to buy one million annual tons of Soviet crude. He then signed an exchange agreement for 2.4 million tons for five years but not to be paid in cash. Instead it would be in large-diameter oil pipe that Russia badly needed to construct a huge pipeline network bringing Volga-Urals oil to Czechoslovakia, Poland and Hungary - 15 million tons annually when completed. The deal helped both sides with Mattei getting Russian oil at below market price and the Soviets getting a pipe works plant completed for them in September, 1962.

A month later, Mattei was dead. His private plane crashed on takeoff killing him and two others on board. To this day, deliberate sabotage was suspected, and why not. Mattei was at the peak of his powers, he’d already signed deals with Iran, Russia, Morocco, Sudan, Tanzania, Ghana, India and Argentina and upset the established order. He also planned to meet President Kennedy who, at the time, was pressing Big Oil to reach accommodation with him. A year later, Kennedy was also dead, and the finger pointed to “US intelligence, through a complex web of organized crime cutouts.”

A Sterling Crisis and the Adenauer-De Gaulle Threat

In 1957, western European countries headed by France, West Germany and Italy signed the Treaty of Rome. It established the European Economic Community (EEC) that came into force on January 1, 1959. Germany was recovering from the war, and Charles De Gaulle regained power in France with vigorous restructuring plans - to rebuild the country’s infrastructure, expand its devastated industrial and agricultural economy, and restore fiscal stability.

It was already under way in continental Europe, the result of unprecedented EEC trade-driven growth. De Gaulle and Germany’s Konrad Adenauer led the effort with the French President exerting a strong independent voice. The two leaders bonded, and the Treaty Between and French Republic and Federal Republic of Germany was concluded on January 22, 1963. It assured close cooperation and coordination of economic and industrial policy. Washington and London were alarmed at the prospect of an independent alliance that included Italy under Aldo Moro.

An Anglo-American alliance was hatched to counter it. It targeted Europe and took the form of pushing the EEC to open to US imports and be firmly part of a Washington-London-dominated NATO. Britain also demanded inclusion in the six nation Common Market. De Gaulle strongly opposed it, but was denied when Atlanticist Ludwig Erhard became Germany’s Chancellor in April 1963. He favored admitting Britain and agreed to support London’s 19th century “balance of power” strategy against continental Europe. Though formally ratified, the Franco-German accord was lifeless, and the culmination of Adenauer’s work was lost - stolen by the America and Britain at the last moment.

Washington supported the EEC but not as an independent alliance. It might have become that in 1957 at a time recession hit America and lasted into the 1960s. It led to debate in the US with the New York Council of Foreign Relations and Rockefeller Brothers Fund drafting options at a time Henry Kissinger emerged. It was also when Big Oil and New York banks (the East Coast establishment) were dominant and viewed the world as their market. They also controlled the media and used it to promote their interests over what was best for the nation and greater good.

Rebuilding US infrastructure, investing in modern factories, improving the national economy and developing a skilled labor force were ignored. Instead, investment flowed abroad for greater returns. Cheating on quality also became fashionable, and productive pride lost out to bottom line priorities to please Wall Street.

It came with a cost, however, and part of it was the state’s financial health. As dollars flowed abroad, US gold reserves plunged enough to threaten the Bretton Woods system. The problem was a “fatal flaw” in its design. Its rules established a “gold exchange standard” requiring IMF countries to fix the value of their currencies to the US dollar and indirectly to gold at $35 an ounce.

By the 1960s, European growth outpaced the US, and domestic investment sought to take advantage of double the returns it could get domestically. It was the beginning of the Eurodollar market, and the start of a decade of “ever worsening international monetary crises.” By the late 1970s, it became a cancer that “threatened to destroy its entire host - the world monetary system.” It also influenced the Johnson administration to believe that a full-scale southeast Asian conflict could stimulate a stagnant economy and show the world who was still boss.

In the 1960s, New York bankers, Big Oil and the defense establishment advocated war and a homeland garrison state to boost profits, but consider the strategy. DOD Secretary Robert McNamara and Pentagon planners obliged. They designed a protracted “no-win war from the outset” to rev up spending and secure the defense component of the economy. Deficits resulted, the dollar inflated, and Washington forced its trading partners to accept war costs in the form of cheapened greenbacks.

It led to European central banks accumulating large Eurodollars reserves they then earned interest on from US treasuries. The net effect was continental bankers funded US deficits the way they do now, along with China and Japan. Engdahl quoted futurist Herman Kahn saying: “We’ve pulled off the biggest ripoff in history (running) rings around the British empire.” Nonetheless, London planned a comeback with “expatriate American dollars.” More on that below.

Lyndon Johnson waged war on two fronts, and failed at both. Vietnam cost him his presidency while his War on Poverty and Great Society barely made a difference but amassed huge European-financed deficits. At the same time, industrial and scientific investment declined, financial speculation grew, a service-oriented economy was favored, and America headed down the same “road to ruin” Britain followed earlier.

Few understood that Johnson’s domestic policy had little to do with alleviating poverty. It was a corporate scheme to exploit economic decay, curb wage growth and back a 19th century colonial-style looting. Inciting “race war” was part of the plan. Engdahl described it as a domestic Vietnam pitting blacks against whites, unemployed against employed, and high wage earners against lower paid ones in a “new Great Society, while Wall Street bankers benefited from slashed union wages and cuts in infrastructure investment.” They, in turn, recycled their profits into cheap Asian and South American labor markets for still greater profits. It’s the same scheme writ large today.

By 1967, trouble was evident. The Bretton Woods system was threatened as US external debt soared and the nation’s gold reserves plummeted to one-third their liability. At the same time, Britain’s economy was “a rotting mess and getting worse.” Faith in the pound sterling was eroding because the UK, like America, neglected its industrial base, amassed large trade deficits, and was a net currency exporter. Something had to give, and it was the pound.

At this time, De Gaulle withdrew from the gold pool, and “the entire Bretton Woods edifice (shook) at its weakest link, the pound sterling.” The crisis highlighted the core vulnerability of the international monetary system, the US dollar. Things came to a head on November 18, 1967. Britain devalued the pound by 14% for the first time since 1949. It abated the sterling crisis, but the dollar one was just beginning as international holders of the currency demanded gold in exchange.

Crisis built in 1968, and Business Week magazine devoted an astonishing nine articles and feature editorial to it in its March 23 issue headlined “Gold crisis jolts the West” on its front cover. A publisher’s memo also addressed it and quoted Virgil’s Aeneid, Book III: “Oh cursed lust for gold, to what dost thou not drive the hearts of men!” It affected Charles De Gaulle as well. His independence made him a target for removal that succeeded. It got him voted out of office a year later. For Washington and London, however, it was a Pyrrhic victory.

“A Century of War” will continue in Part II of this review to complete the story to the present era under George Bush.
 

By Stephen Lendman
RINF Alternative News

For Big Media, truth is a scare commodity and in times of war it’s the first casualty, or as esteemed journalist John Pilger noted: “Journalism (not truth) is the first casualty (of war). Not only that: it(’s)….a weapon of war (by its) virulent censorship….by omission (and its) power….can mean….life and death for people in faraway countries, such as Iraq.”

Famed journalist George Seldes put it another way by condemning the “prostitution of the press” in an earlier era when he covered WW I, the rise of fascism, and most major world and national events until his death in 1995 at age 104. He also confronted the media in books like “Lords of the Press.” In it and others, he condemned their corruption, suppression of the truth, and news censorship before the television age, and said “The most sacred cow of the press is the press itself, (and the press is) the most powerful force against the general welfare of the majority of the people.”

Orwell also knew a thing or two about truth and said telling it is a “revolutionary act in times of universal deceit.” Much else he said applies to the man this article addresses and the state of today’s media. He was at his allegorical best in “Animal Farm” where power overwhelms freedom, and “All animals are equal but some….are more equal than others.” And he observed in “Nineteen Eighty-Four” that “Those who control the present control the future (and) Those who control the future control the past.”

Today’s media barons control the world as opinion makers. Like in Orwell’s world, they’re our national thought control police gatekeepers sanitizing news so only the cleansed residue portion gets through with everything people want most left out - the full truth all the time. They manipulate our minds and beliefs, program our thoughts, divert our attention, and effectively destroy the free marketplace of ideas essential to a healthy democracy they won’t tolerate.

None more ruthlessly than Murdoch and the infoentertainment empire he controls. Its flagship US operation is Fox News that Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) calls “the most biased name in news….with its extraordinary right-wing tilt.” In response, Murdock defiantly “challenge(s) anybody to show me an example of bias in Fox News Channel” because in his world the entire political spectrum begins and ends with his views. For him and his staff, “fair and balanced,” we report, you decide” means supporting the boss. Alternative views are biased, verboten and rarely aired. But they’re hammered when they are as the “liberal” mainstream that’s code language for CNN and other rivals at a time all media giants match the worst of Fox and are often as crude, confrontational and unprofessional.

Distinguished Australian-raised journalist Bruce Page wrote the book on Murdock called “The Murdock Archigelago.” It’s about a man he calls “one of the world’s leading villains (and) global pirate(s)” who rampages the mediasphere putting world leaders on notice what he expects from them and what he’ll offer in return. It’s “let’s make a deal,” Murdock-style that’s uncompromisingly hardball. Acquiesce or get hammered in print and on-air with scathing innuendo, misinformation and outright lies. Few politicians risk it. Others with alternative views have no choice, and world leaders like Hugo Chavez are used to this type character assassination.

He mostly worries about the other kind and with good reason as long-time Latin American expert James Petras reported November 28. Four days before a crucially important constitutional reform referendum, he published an article headlined: “Venezuela’s D-Day - The December 2, 2007 Constituent Referendum: Democratic Socialism or Imperial Counter-Revolution.”

In it, he reported that the Venezuelan government “broadcast and circulated a confidential (US embassy) memo to the CIA” revealing “clandestine operations….to destabilize (the referendum) and coordinate the civil military overthrow of the elected Chavez government.” It’s because independent polls predicted the referendum would pass even though they proved wrong. The dominant media readied to pounce on the results but instead went into gloat mode on a win Chavez called a “phyrric victory” but Murdock headlines trumpeted “Chavez’s president-for-life-bid defeated.” This is the type vintage copy Page covers with reams of examples in his book.

Its central theme is that the media baron wants to privatize “a state propaganda service (and manipulate it) without scruple (or) regard for the truth.” In return he wants “vast government favors such as tax breaks, regulatory relief, and monopoly” market control free from competitors having too much of what he wants solely for himself and apparently feels it’s owed to him.

Because of his size and media clout, he usually gets his way and mostly in places mattering most - in the biggest markets with greatest profit potential in a business where truth is off the table and partnering with government for a growing revenue stream and greater influence is all that counts.

The Murdock Empire from Inception

Murdock’s empire is vast and is part of his News Corporation that was incorporated in Australia in 1979 (Murdock’s home). It was then reincorporated in 2004 in the US in the corporate-friendly state of Delaware with its headquarters in New York. The company was huge when media experts Robert McChesney and Edward Herman wrote about it in their 1997 book, “The Global Media Giants.” Back then, it ranked fifth in size among the giants (it’s now third after Time Warner and Disney) with $10 billion in 1996 sales when the authors called the company “the archetype for the twenty-first century media firm….and the best case study (example) for understanding global media firm behavior.”

Gross revenue today tops $28 billion, operating income is nearly $4.5 billion, the company has over 47,000 employees, it operates on six continents, 75% of its business is in the US, and one industry analyst told McChesney and Herman 10 years ago “Murdock seems to have Washington in his back pocket” as he keeps getting favorable rulings to do what he wants. And that was under Bill Clinton who signed the outrageous 1996 Telecommunications (giveaway) Act for Big Media and Big Telecom that let them consolidate further through mergers and acquisitions and be able to squash competition and diversity.

In those days and earlier, Murdock aimed high to control “multiple forms of programming - news, sports, films and children’s shows–and beam them via satellite or TV stations to homes (around the world with) Viacom CEO Sumner Redstone (once saying) Murdock ‘want(ed) to conquer the world.’ ” Other media chiefs said he was doing it, and he’s “the one media executive they most respect and fear, and the one whose moves they study.”

Murdock inherited his father’s Australian News Limited newspapers in 1952. He had no journalistic background but compensated by cultivating political influence through favorable electoral coverage. He became managing director of News Limited in 1953 and then took over running Adelaide News in 1954. He founded News Corporation in 1979 but years earlier concentrated on acquisitions and expansion to build his business. In 1964, he launched Australia’s first national daily, The Australian, later acquired The Daily Telegraph in Sydney, and in the late 1960s entered the UK market by snaring The News of the World. In 1950, it was the world’s most popular English language newspaper with a peak circulation of around 8.4 million. It was about six million when Murdock got it in 1968.

More acquisitions followed. They included The (London) Times and The Sunday Times in 1981, and by the 1980s he was a dominant force in the US. He bought the film studio, Twentieth Century Fox, that launched Fox Television and now notorious Fox News.

Today, the company is in everything media-related (except music) and describes itself on its web site as “Creating and distributing top-quality news, sports and entertainment around the world.” That’s in the eye of the beholder where there’s considerable disagreement with the official company position. Nonetheless, the site lists a vast array of News Corporation operations:

– Filmed entertainment: 20th Century Fox, 20th Century Fox Espanol, 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment, 20th Century Fox International, 20th Century Fox Television, Fox Searchlight Pictures, Fox Studios Australia, Fox Studios Baja, Fox Studios LA, Fox Television Studios, and Blue Sky Studios;

– Television: Fox Broadcasting, Fox Sports Australia, Fox Television Stations, FOXTEL, MyNeworkTV, STAR; and the newest entry, Fox Business, to compete with CNBC and Bloomberg;

– Cable: Fox Business Network (just launched), Fox Movie Channel, Fox News Channel, Fox Sports Channel, Fox College Sports, Fox Sports Enterprises, Fox Sports En Espanol, Fox Sports Net, Fox Soccer Channel, Fox Reality, Fuel TV, FX, National Geographic, Channel United States, Channel Worldwide, Speed, and Stats, Inc.;

– Direct broadcast satellite television: BSkyB, DirectTV, and Sky Italia;

– Magazines and Inserts: Big League, Inside Out, donna hay, ALPHA, News America Marketing, Smart Source, The Weekly Standard, and Gemstar - TV Guide International Inc.;

– Newspapers: 21 in “Australasia” including the Daily Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph, Herald Sun and Sunday Herald Sun, Post-Currier, Sunday Mail, Sunday Times, The Australian, The Mercury, and the Weekly Times; 6 in the UK including The Times, The Sunday Times, The Sun, and News International; and two in the US - the New York Post (the Columbia Journalism review calls “a force for evil”) and Wall Street Journal as of December 13 when News Corporation announced the completion of its acquisition of Dow Jones & Company;

– Books: HarperCollins Publishers, Australia, Canada, Children’s Books, United States, United Kingdom, Zondervan;

– Other assets: 25 are listed including Broadsystem, Fox Interactive Media, IGN Entertainment, FoxSports.com, Fox.com, News Outdoor and others.

News Corp. even claims to be addressing climate change, says it’s “committed” to “lowering the energy use of its businesses” across the globe, will “switch to renewable sources of power when economically feasible,” and will “become carbon neutral by 2010.” True or false, it’s likely the company does address its energy consumption to cut costs as most other businesses also do, climate change or not.

Bruce Page picks up the story in “The Murdoch Archipelago” published in 2003. Even while attacking the media baron, he says he and others do some good. Murdock, for instance, “exposes numberless sexual peccadilloes, and much lesser crime - but not dud military campaigns or Enronesque frauds.” He specializes in sensationalist pseudo-journalism that distorts the truth on the news and loads it with juiced-up reports on murder, mayhem, mishaps, celebrity gossip and soft porn. Page goes on to say “the world would be better off without News Corp.” and before he ever bought it “There’s certainly a good case that he should not own The Wall Street Journal.”

Too late, now that the Bancroft family sold it to him for the billions he offered and muscle he applied to get it like he always does. They might have considered former Chicago columnist Mike Royko’s comment when he left the Sun-Times after Murdock bought it (and later sold it Hollinger, Inc.’s fraud convicted Conrad Black). Moving to the Tribune, he remarked “no self-respecting fish would (want to be) wrapped in a Murdock paper….His goal is not quality journalism (it’s) vast power, political power.” Murdock’s own private joke also should have scared them off that “God doesn’t trust (him) in the dark.” Nor should anyone anywhere, anytime.

Page’s polemic traces Murdoch’s history in his lengthy book covering his rise from early beginnings to his unrivaled status in today’s media world. It’s the story of power and a man who wields it ruthlessly as a world class predator - with deception and chicanery, arrogance and artfulness, charm and cunning and sheer muscle, will, intimidation, poisonous influence and toadying to get his way as he generally does. Whatever Rupert wants, Rupert gets, and nothing stands in his way. That goes for governments and his editors as well as reporters in print and on-air. No one crosses Murdoch. Anyone practicing real journalism gets dispatched elsewhere to pursue it.

Page explained from firsthand accounts that Murdock newsrooms aren’t fun places to work. He upbraids editors and interferes with their work. Also, as explained above, he uses his operations for power play politics to bend governments to his will. As his influence grows, so does the bending, and along with it, fake journalism bearing no resemblance to the real kind. It’s a Murdock specialty by a world class pariah in a media world beset with them, but Murdoch’s the worst. He’s bereft of ethics, an authoritarian boss, and the book is full of examples of how he throws his weight around, bullies people and prevails. It also expresses particular displeasure about the way he cozied up to the Chinese in 1994 by removing BBC World News (no media paragon, just classier than Murdock) from Satellite TV Asia Region in return for special favors he got.

Page also exposes Murdock’s absurd claim to be an enemy of the establishment, a populist, and battler for the common man. This from someone raised in privilege, courts the powerful, represents entrenched wealth, is now a billionaire, benefitted from nepotism, is passing his empire to his children, smashes print unions, runs a “bordello of papers” as the Sunday Times called it before he bought it, and has easy access to Number 10, the White House and other seats of power.

Page worries that media barons cause serious harm by undermining democracy, and Murdoch’s the worst of the bunch. He targets the vulnerable, attacks disenfranchised minorities and bashes gays, Muslims, innocent victims of war and oppression, and anyone getting in his way. Page warns that unless we see his threat and confront it, all free societies are at risk.

Page also exposes the Murdock myth of an archetypical entrepreneur whose “journalistic (and business) genius” got him where he is. Nonsense about a man, like his father, who uses press power for business favors to gain more power. Yet he audaciously told his biographer, William Shawcross, to “Give me an example. When have we ever asked for anything?” Page has reams of it exposing Murdoch’s guile and mendacity about wanting a “level (media) playing-field.” Just the opposite. He’s obsessed with monopoly control and smashes competition for it.

He also smashes editors who disobey him. One observer called him unhinged, out of control and completely amoral while a former Sunday Times editor, Andrew Neil, describes the “terrorism” Murdoch spreads throughout his empire to get his way. Neil also wrote: “Rupert expects his papers to stand broadly for what he believes - a combination of right-wing Republicanism from America mixed with undiluted Thatcherism from Britain.”

Murdoch’s US Fox News Flagship

Fox News smoothes the way for him as a round-the-clock Bush administration commercial imitating real news. It debuted in 1996 and one of its on-air hosts explained the “Channel was launched (because) something was wrong with news media….somewhere bias found its way into reporting….Fox….is committed to being fair and balanced (covering) stories everybody is reporting–and….stories….you will see only on Fox.”

Later, the Columbia Journalism Review had a different view. It reported “several” former Fox employees “complained of ‘management sticking their fingers’ in the writing and editing of stories to cook the facts to make a story more palatable to right-of-center tastes.” One of them complained about never running into that before before while FAIR reported “Fox’s signature political news show, Special Report with Brit Hume, was originally created as a daily one-hour update devoted to the 1998 Clinton sex scandal.” So much for “fair and balanced” real news.

This type attack never happens to a Republican and hasn’t for Fox’s presidential favorite, Rudy Giuliani, who was sinking fast, fared poorly in early primaries and now has withdrawn from the race. Nonetheless, his leadership failures and marital transgressions were ignored, and so were his ties to friend, business partner and former New York City Police Commissioner, Bernard Kerik. He was indicted on 16 counts of federal corruption, including bribery, conspiracy, tax fraud, and lying on his federal disclosure forms for not reporting a $250,000 “loan” (a likely payoff) from an Israeli billionaire that may have been sent to him for Giuliani for favors rendered.

An added twist is that a former Kerik lover, Judith Regan, sued Murdock’s News Corp. and accused the company of pressuring her to commit perjury to protect Giuliani’s presidential hopes. Fox News won’t explain or cover it, but it daily airs preferential bias for Giuliani in its slanted reporting. It’s a blatant example of unethical coverage to manipulate news for its own purpose.

FAIR also blasted one of Hume”s regular features - “The Political Grapevine” that’s billed as “the most scintillating two minutes in television” as a sort of right-wing “hot-sheet.” It features anchor Hume “reading off a series of gossipy items culled from other (generally) right-wing” sources. It’s not subtle and is blatantly partisan calling Democrats, environmentalists, the liberal media, civil rights groups, anti-war activists and Hollywood and other liberals “villians” while Republicans are good guys or “heros who can do no wrong.” When critics jump on Fox, it hits back claiming a responsibility to correct the “liberal media’s bias” with Bill O’Reilly saying Fox “gives voice to people who can’t get on other networks.” What it does, of course, is slant the news its way to please the boss, and that means a distorted hard-right point of view only.

It also means the more people watch it, the less informed they are as News Dissector Danny Schechter explained about all TV news in his candid insider’s book “The More You Watch, The Less You Know.” That doesn’t bother Murdock who spends millions for lobbying and hundreds of thousands more for political contributions - mostly to Republicans but also to friendly Democrats to buy and keep his growing influence. It pays off with senators like Trent Lott once telling the Washington Post: “If it hadn’t been for Fox, I don’t know what I’d have done for the news.” He means a right-wing echo chamber pretending to be unbiased.

Long-time Republican operative Roger Ailes runs it for Murdock with FAIR once quoting former senior Bush aide Lee Atwater saying he operates on “two speeds - attack and destroy.” He also called Clinton a “hippie president,” refers to liberals as “bigots,” and assures all on-air programming conforms to his views. Only Republicans get hired to air them and those screened for jobs are asked to be sure.

As for punditry and political debate, here’s how FAIR characterizes it: on shows like Hannity & Colmes, The O’Reilly Factor and The Beltway Boys it’s like watching “a Harlem Globetrotters game (knowing) which side is supposed to win.” Or maybe pro wrestling. The discussion is so lopsided, it’s impossible hiding Fox’s partisanship, and it shows with on-air hosts like Tony Snow endorsing Republican Bob Dole for President in 1996 and then seamlessly becoming White House press secretary from May, 2006 to September, 2007. Other Fox “journalists” are as bad and collect handsome fees addressing Republican gatherings and corporate interest groups with big name ones like O’Reilly reportedly charging $50,000 per engagement on the lecture circuit delivering red meat to audiences that love it.

So do hard core Fox viewers who swallow the channel’s pro-Bush, pro-war, pro-occupation America uber alles type journalism combined with juiced-up infotainment reports imitating real news. It makes it hard knowing where one ends and the other begins. In the mainstream, much of it is the same, and all of it defiles what journalism should do -

– be the principle source of political information to create an informed citizenry Jefferson said was “the bulwark of a democracy;”

– provide a wide range of opinion and analysis of all key issues affecting everyone;

– hold governments accountable to the public interest and not just the privileged elite part of it; and generally

– “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.”

Murdock and the rest of the dominant media fail the test. Their concentrated power blunt democracy by destroying its essential free marketplace of ideas. Today, social control substitutes for diversity, free expression, and an informed electorate; pro-business ideology trumps the greater good; and the single-minded pursuit of profit triumphs over beneficial social change. Combatting it means confronting the media barons who are as determined as Murdoch to squash us.

Organizations like Free Press are doing it. It’s a “national nonpartisan organization working to increase informed public participation in crucial media policy debates.” It aims to “generate policies that will produce a more competitive and public interest-oriented media system with a strong nonprofit and noncommercial sector” promoting greater diversity. The more democratic our media, the more accountable government will be to public concerns. Free Press focuses on four broad areas to help: “media ownership” for greater competition and diversity; “independent and public media” free from the single-minded pursuit of profit; “internet freedom” from corporate control; and “media reform” of a corrupted system aided by government that must end.

To happen, public participation is essential, and for that organizations like Free Press are crucial. Corporate media control is the core issue of our time along with overall corporate dominance with governments as their handmaiden. Democracy and a free society are impossible unless that changes. It’s we the people vs. the Murdochs of the world, and we’ve only just begun fighting back.

Stephen Lendman
RINF Alternative News

Life in occupied Gaza was never easy, but conditions worsened markedly after Hamas’ surprise January 2006 electoral victory. Israel refused recognition along with the US and the West. All outside aid was cut off, an economic embargo and sanctions were imposed, and the legitimate government was isolated. Stepped up repression followed along with repeated IDF incursions, attacks and arrests. Gaza’s people have been imprisoned in their own land and traumatized for months. No one outside the Territories cares or offers enough aid. Things then got worse.

Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas, in league with Israel and the US, declared a “state of emergency last June 14 and illegally dismissed Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh and his national unity government. On June 15, he appointed former IMF and World Bank official Salam Fayyad prime minister even though his party got only 2% of the votes in the 2006 election. On June 17, Abbas swore in a new (illegitimate) 13 member “emergency” cabinet with plans for future elections, excluding Hamas.

Israel and the US showed gratitude. The West Bank embargo ended, Israel began releasing frozen Palestinian tax funds, and the US and European Union (EU) resumed aid to the PA but continued isolating Hamas in Gaza that since 1995 has been designated a terrorist organization. After passage of the 1996 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, the State Department included Hamas among the first 30 groups designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) in October 1997. It makes it illegal to provide funds or other material support. It also ignores how Israel once embraced Hamas in the 1980s.

It’s name means courage and bravery, and it’s also an abbreviation of Islamic Resistance Movement in Arabic. It grew out of the Muslim Brotherhood (that had roots in Egypt) and was formed in 1987 during the first Intifada. At the time, Israel offered support and used Hamas to counter the PLO’s nationalist threat under Arafat. Ever since, it’s been an effective resistance movement against repression, occupation and much more. It provides essential social services like medical clinics; education, including centers for women; free meals for children; financial and technical help to Palestinians whose homes Israel destroyed; aid to refugees in the camps; and youth and sports clubs for young people.

Hamas is also a formidable defender, and that gets it in trouble. It established the Izz Al-Din Al-Qassam Brigades, an elite military wing, and other security forces like its Tanfithya Executive Force for self-defense and law enforcement. Washington and Tel Aviv call it “terrorism” because Hamas wants the occupation ended, won’t surrender its sovereignty like Fatah did under Arafat and Abbas, is willing to recognize Israel (though that’s never reported), but only if Palestinians get equal recognition and what’s rightfully theirs - an independent homeland inside pre-1967 borders or one “state for all its citizens,” Jews, Muslims, Christians, Druze and others.

Instead, Hamas got isolated, hammered and called a “hostile entity” by Israel’s security cabinet. It was announced on September 19, sanctions on Gaza were tightened, and it was decided to “reduce the amount of megawattage provide(d) to the Strip, and Hamas will have to decide whether to provide electricity to hospitals or weapons lathes.” There was more as well - cutbacks in fuel, food, other essentials and even tighter border crossing restrictions.

Even before the latest crisis, Gaza was devastated. Its industrial production was down 90%, and its agricultural output was half its pre-2007 level. In addition, nearly all construction stopped, unemployment and poverty topped 80%, and by now it may be 90%. After September 19, it got worse when shops began running out of everything. Israel allows in only nine basic materials, their availability is spotty, and some essentials are banned, like certain medicines, and others restricted like fruit, milk and other dairy products. Before June 2007, 9000 commodities could be imported. Today, it’s down to 20, people don’t get enough food, and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) was unusually blunt in its criticism. In a November 2007 report called “Dignity Denied in the Occupied Palestinian Territories,” it said:

“….Palestinians….face hardship (in) their (daily) lives; they are prevented from doing what makes up the daily fabric of most people’s existence. (They) face a deep human crisis, where millions of people are denied their human dignity. Not once in a while, but every day (and the people of Gaza are) trapped (and) sealed off.” The “humanitarian cost (is) enormous,” people can barely survive, “families unable to get enough food increased by 14%, (and) Palestinians (are) being trampled underfoot day after day. (In) Gaza (under siege, Palestinians) continue to pay for conflict and economic containment with their health and livelihoods. Cutting power and fuel further compounds their hardship.”

Let ‘em eat cake, walk, and live without light or heat is apparently Israel’s solution, and noted Israeli historian, Ilan Pappe, took note. He calls it “genocide….to describe what the Israeli army is doing in the Gaza Strip.” Knowing the facts, who can disagree.

Then there’s the matter of energy. With electricity restricted and fuel supplies reduced, Israel went further. It sealed its borders and cut all fuel shipments in response to Palestinian rocket attacks in and around the border town of Sderot. They’re fired in self-defense and used in response to repeated Israeli attacks that in the week of January 17 - 23 alone:

– killed 19 Palestinians along with three others from previous IDF-inflicted wounds;

– extra-judicially executed seven of the victims, including two women;

– wounded 71 Palestinians, including 24 children and three women;

– made 33 IDF incursions in the West Bank and five in Gaza;

– arrested 58 Palestinian civilians, including seven children, in the West Bank, and 32 in Gaza, including 3 children;

– destroyed five homes and razed agricultural land in Jabalya in northern Gaza;

– allowed further settler attacks against civilians and property in Hebron.

The same pattern continued the following week through Janauary 30 with more Israeli incursions, attacks and arrests. In the West Bank:

– Nablus was targeted and several Palestinian civilians arrested; several homes were also searched and ransacked in the villages of Kufer Kalil, Beit Dajan and Beit Fourik;

– the IDF seized six Palestinians in Jenin in a pre-dawn invasion; another followed theire several days later, the Israeli army opened fire randomly, one civilian was injured, four others arrested and a home was ransacked; several civilian homes were attacked and ransacked in the town of Qabatiya and village of Abu Da’eif in the northern West Bank; local sources reported unprovoked random gunfire by heavily armed troops in civilian neighborhoods;

– the IDF invaded Bethlehem, killed one civilian, arrested another, and injured seven others; eyewitnesses reported that local journalists were prevented from witnessing and documenting the incursion;

– several other West Bank cities were targeted and six civilians arrested: the Al Toor neighborhood in northern Jerusalem; the village of Beit Rima near Ramallah; Tulkarem city and the nearby Nur Shams refugee camp; and Jenin city.

These are malicious acts of aggression, abductions and wanton killing. Mostly civilians are targeted, and when Palestinians respond with crude Qassam rockets and children throw rocks, it’s called “terrorism.” Israel’s response - fiercer attacks and incursions in the Territories on any pretext or none at all and further tightening of its medieval siege on Gaza.

Its border crossings have been closed since June 2007, and severe restrictions were imposed on movement. Finally, food and fuel supplies were cut. Gaza’s power plant exhausted its supply, shut down, and the Strip went dark on January 20. Israel remained defiant, and Prime Minister Olmert announced….”as far as I am concerned, every resident of Gaza can walk because they have no gasoline for their vehicles,” and Foreign Ministry spokesman, Arye Meckel, told AP the blackout was “a Hamas ploy to pretend there is some kind of crisis to attract international sympathy.”

The Director of Gaza’s main Shiffa hospital, Dr. Hassan Khalaf, had a different view. He described the situation as “potentially disastrous.” Already Israel’s siege was directly responsible for 45 deaths, and he said cutting hospital power would cause 30 premature babies to die immediately. The World Health Organization was also alarmed. It said insufficient electricity “disrupt(s)….intensive care units, operating theatres, and emergency rooms (and) power shortages have interrupted refrigeration of perishable medical supplies, including vaccine.”

To operate at full capacity, Gaza needs 230 - 250 daily megawatts of electricity. Its only power plant supplies around 30% of it, but people in central Gaza and Gaza city are totally dependent on what can’t be supplied if industrial diesel fuel the plant depends on is cut off. The result is critically ill people are endangered, bread and other baked goods can’t be produced without electricity to power ovens, food is already in short supply, so is fresh water, and sanitation conditions are disastrous.

Michele Mercier of the International Red Cross said hospital medications were running out and wouldn’t “last for more than two or three days.” In addition, allowable food shipments are endangered according to UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) spokesman, Christopher Gunness. He explained that the agency would have to suspend distribution to 860,000 people because of a fuel and plastic bags shortage.

Israel was unapologetic with Internal Security Minister, Avi Dichter, saying the IDF must “eliminate the rocket fire from Gaza, irrespective of the cost to Palestinians.” Defense Minister, Ehud Barak, added: “We are impacting the overall quality of life in Gaza and destroying the terror infrastructure.” He meant civilians as did Ehud Olmert claiming: “We are trying to hit only those involved in terrorism, but also signaling to the population in Gaza that it cannot be free from responsibility for the situation.”

Israel makes no distinction between civilians (including women and children) and resistance fighters, and B’Tselem stated that Yuval Diskin, head of the Israel Security Agency (ISA), “defines every Palestinian killed in the Gaza Strip as a terrorist,” including small children and the elderly infirm. The world approves, the Security Council debates and abstains, the dominant media is silent, and innocent Palestinians suffer and die - over 75 killed in January and several hundred injured. Who cares and who’s counting. They’re just Arab Muslims.

They’re also needy human beings, now desperate, and on January 23 they responded courageously. No help is coming so Hamas acted preemptively. It destroyed 200 meters of metal barrier separating both sides of Rafah that was divided in 1982 as part of Israel’s peace treaty with Egypt. About 40,000 people live in Egypt and another 200,000 in Gaza in the original town and an adjacent refugee camp. Until the outbreak of the second Intifada in September, 2000, crossing both ways was uncomplicated. That ended as violence increased, and Israel erected a barrier. Now it’s breached, Gazans took advantage, and some called it a “jail break.” Hundreds of thousands entered Egypt for needed essentials unavailable at home. Finally, the media noticed.

On January 24, The New York Times tried to have it both ways. It called Hamas’ border breach “an act of defiance” and continued indifferently. Unmindful of an 18 month siege, mass impoverishment, a humanitarian crisis and daily killings, correspondent Steven Erlanger made things seem festive in his report. Almost flippantly he said “Tens of thousands of Palestinians…. crossed the border for a ‘buying spree’ of medicine, cement, sheep….gasoline, soap and countless other supplies that have been cut off.”

Most Gazans can barely afford food and essentials and struggle daily to survive. Yet, Erlanger said they stocked up on “Coca-Cola, Cleopatra and Malimbo cigarettes, and satellite dishes” and on January 25 added “televisions (and) washing machines.” It was a party, “Egyptian merchants greeted them with a ‘cornucopia of consumer goods,” and Hamas joined the festivities by “mak(ing no) visible effort to control or tax” purchases. Those who could afford it indeed took advantage. Merchants bought items for resale at lower Egyptian prices. Most Palestinians, however, bought essentials - food, fuel, medicine if available and various household items.

Earlier on January 21, Israel relented to international pressure and a PR disaster impossible to ignore. Haaretz highlighted it in a January 26 editorial headlined “The siege of Gaza has failed.” Hamas ended it “via a well-planned operation and simultaneously won the sympathy of the world, which has forgotten the rain of Qassam rockets on Sderot, (and Israel looks foolish) entrenching itself in positions that look outdated.” Only a week ago, the government was crowing. Triumphantly, it claimed its policy was “bearing fruit.”

Today, it’s all bitter with Olmert in denial. In a speech at the January Herzliya Conference, he said: “Mistakes were made; there were failures. But in addition, lessons were learned, mistakes were corrected, modes of behavior were changed, and above all, the decisions we have made since then have led to greater security, greater calm and greater deterrence than there had been for many years.” Haaretz had another view, and it was harsh. It stated events in Gaza “completely (contradict) his statements. If that is what learning lessons looks like, if that is what deterrence means, the Olmert government has precious little to boast about.” So it acted.

AP reported on January 21 that authorities “agreed today to ship diesel fuel and medicine into Gaza on a one-time basis,” easing its blockade, but it wouldn’t continue unless rocket firings stopped. Everything then changed on January 27.

Aljazeera, The New York Times, Haaretz and other sources reported that the Olmert government relented. It agreed to resume fuel shipments to Gaza, easing its blockade. The decision came on the same day Israel’s Supreme Court addressed the petition of 10 human rights organizations to order a resumption and prevent a humanitarian disaster. No decision was rendered, but state authorities acted anyway.

They agreed to supply 2.2 million weekly liters of industrial diesel fuel, the minimum amount needed to power central Gaza and Gaza City, but it’s not enough overall according to Rafiq Maliha, the project manager at An-Nuseirat’s power plant location. It’s only two-thirds the amount needed, a mere fraction was delivered the first day, and Maliha said Gaza’s gas companies would strike and resist this “Israeli plot” masquerading as humanitarian aid. His doubts are well-founded. On the same day fuel shipments resumed, Israeli warplanes struck northern Gaza in two separate raids. Hamas sources said two missiles hit a Palestinian car and others targeted a Hamas’ Al-Qassam Brigades position causing four injuries.

Human rights groups are also dismissive. They noted previous promises made, then broken, and the GISHA group (the Israeli NGO for freedom of Palestinian movement in the Territories) spokesperson said that Israel “repeatedly promised that it would ship 2.2 million litres (of fuel) a week into Gaza and has repeatedly broken that promise.” Why believe authorities now, and with events so fluid it seems every day, a new policy.

At the same time, Hamas and Egyptian security forces are cooperating to close the border eight days after it was breached. On January 28, Haaretz reported that openings were being sealed by barbed wire, but not entirely as some two-way traffic continues as of January 30. Hamas and Egyptian forces now man the main Salah Eddin gate, most cars and trucks aren’t passing through, but pedestrians still in Egypt “scoured (nearly) empty stores for food and consumer products to take back to the Gaza Strip….in fear of an imminent border reclosing.”

What’s next is anyone’s guess, but Israel’s Supreme Court will affect it. On January 30, it upheld the government’s Gaza sanctions and its right to restrict fuel and electricity. In its statement, the three-judge panel left no doubt where it stands. It wrote:

“We emphasize that the Gaza Strip is controlled by a ‘murderous terror group’ that operates incessantly to strike the state of Israel and its citizens, and violates every precept of international law with its violent actions.” Israel, nonetheless, will supply enough fuel and electricity to “fulfill the vital humanitarian needs of the Gaza Strip at this time.”

Israeli human rights petitioners were quick to respond, and their message was clear and harsh. For its part, the Adalah Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights called the ruling a “dangerous legal precedent that allows Israel to continue to violate the rights of Gaza residents and deprive them of basic humanitarian needs in violation of international law.” Hamas spokesperson, Fawzi Barhoum, was equally pointed. He added: The High Court’s decision “reflects the criminal, ugly face of the occupation.”

Things are now back to square one, Israel’s siege has been sanctified, and an unworkable 2005 security arrangement remains in place. Hamas wants it replaced with a new one and demands justice for Gaza’s 1.5 million people. Its main objection is Israel controls all movement and monitors it with cameras and computers to track everyone entering and leaving Gaza. On January 27, Hamas leader, Ismail Haniyeh, said: ‘We don’t accept a continued Israeli veto on the movement, the exit and entry through Rafah.” It’s time for a new system.

Getting one is another matter, according to Israeli officials. They commented on January 28 saying “Israel will not allow the continuation of the current state where its security interests are being compromised,” and Olmert and Abbas met on January 27 to discuss it. Initial reports were that Israel wanted Egypt to control the border, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak wants Abbas to do it, he, in turn, agrees to anything Olmert and George Bush want, and they at first rejected putting Abbas in charge, but that’s now changed according to Haaretz.

On January 29, it reported “Israel does not plan to block….Abbas from assuming control of Gaza’s border crossing with Egypt (if Cairo agrees).” Abbas, in turn, says it does as well as the EU, Arab League and Condoleezza Rice. Hamas reacted angrily through its spokesperson, Sami Abu-Zuhri. He called the plan an “Israeli-led international conspiracy (against the legitimate government) with the participation of some regional parties. We tell all parties that we will not allow the return of old conditions at the crossing.”

So the beat goes on. Nothing has changed, and unconsidered is what Palestinians want, need and deserve. After decades of abuse, forces they can’t control continue buffeting them, yet they persist and endure.

Now there’s the latest crisis, and consider Haaretz’s January 27 report. It was after Olmert and Abbas met “for a two-hour tete-a-tete….in Jerusalem” at which Olmert again made promises. He said Israel wouldn’t let a humanitarian crisis develop in Gaza, when, in fact, one has existed for months, his government caused it, and it’s accompanied by daily attacks, killings, arrests and a vast array of human rights abuses against an isolated population barely hanging on.

On January 23, various Palestinian factions met in Damascus with plenty to say. With little hope of being heeded, they called on Abbas to end the “ridiculous” negotiations he insists must continue with Olmert. Among those attending were Khaled Meshaal of Hamas and Ramadan Shallah of Islamic Jihad. Their message was strong: “I want to ask our brothers in Ramallah (Fatah headquarters), what exactly are you waiting for?” While you’re talking, Palestinians in “the biggest prison in history (are) being massacred.”

Even Abbas supporters are dubious, and Palestinian writer, Hani Al-Masri, expressed their view: “It doesn’t make sense for negotiations to continue while Israel is changing facts on the ground and undermining the chances for a just and acceptable solution.” The Arab League also responded, but not with teeth. It denounced Israel’s siege, but does nothing to end it. That’s Hamas’ view with Khaled Meshaal saying the League could force change but instead prefers words, meetings, resolutions and more meetings in Arab capitals.

Still more are planned. Cairo is involved. So are the Saudis, but most of all Washington and Tel Aviv. They control everything and will decide what’s next with one thing assured. Gazans are isolated, locked in the Territory, children and the elderly are dying, so are the sick without medical care, daily attacks kill others, and no end is in sight.

The plight of Palestinians won’t change as things continue lurching from one crisis to another the way they have for decades. It won’t end until world leaders buckle to growing world sentiment that no longer will injustices this grave be tolerated. How much more suffering must be endured, how many more deaths are acceptable, when will justice finally be served? People of conscience want answers. It’s about time they got them.

By Stephen Lendman
RINF Alternative News

This article reviews two police state tools (among many in use) in America. One is new, undiscussed and largely unknown to the public. The other was covered in a December article by this writer called Police State America. Here it’s updated with new information.

The National Applications Office (NAO)

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) established a new domestic spying operation in 2007 called the National Applications Office (NOA) and described it as “the executive agent to facilitate the use of intelligence community technological assets for civil, homeland security and law enforcement purposes within the United States.” The office was to begin operating last fall to “build on the long-standing work of the Civil Applications Committee (CAC), which was created in 1974 to facilitate the use of the capabilities of the intelligence community for civil, non-defense uses in the United States.”

With or without congressional authorization or oversight, the executive branch is in charge and will let NAO use state-of-the-art technology, including military satellite imagery, to spy on Americans without their knowledge. Implementation is delayed, however, after Committee on Homeland Security Chairman, Bennie Thompson, and other committee members raised questions of “very serious privacy and civil liberties concerns.” In response, DHS agreed to delay operating (officially) until all matters are addressed and resolved.

Given its track record post-9/11, expect little more than pro forma posturing before Congress signs off on what Kate Martin, the director of the Center for National Security Studies, calls “Big Brother in the Sky” and a “police state” in the offing.

DHS supplies this background information on NAO. Post-9/11, the Director of National Intelligence appointed an Independent Study Group (ISG) in May, 2005 to “review the current operation and future role of the (1974) Civil Applications Committee and study the current state of Intelligence Community support to homeland security and law enforcement entities.”

In September 2005, the Committee produced a “Blue Ribbon Study,” now declassified. Its nine members were headed by and included three Booz Allen Hamilton officials because of the company’s expertise in spying and intelligence gathering. Its other members have similar experience. They all have a vested interest in domestic spying because the business potential is huge for defense related industries and consultants.

ISG members included:

Keith Hall, Chairman
Vice President, Booz Allen Hamilton

Edward G. Anderson
LTG US Army (Ret)
Principal, Booz Allen Hamilton

Thomas W. Conroy
Vice President
National Security Programs
Northrop Grumman/TASC

Patrick M. Hughes
LTG US Army (Ret)
Vice President, Homeland Security
L-3 Communications

Kevin O’Connell
Director of Defense Group Incorporated (DGI)
Center for Intelligence Research and Analysis (CIRA)

CIRA is a think tank that calls itself “the premier open source and cultural intelligence exploitation cell for the US intelligence community.” Its business is revolutionizing intelligence analysis.

Jeff Baxter
Independent Defense Consultant with DOD and industry ties

Dr. Paul Gilman
Director
Oak Ridge Center for Advanced Studies
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
US Department of Energy

Kemp Lear
Associate
Booz Allen Hamilton, and

Joseph D. Whitley, Esq
Alston & Bird LLP, Government Investigations and Compliance Group, former Acting Associate Attorney General in GHW Bush administration, and former General Counsel for DHS under GW Bush

The ISG’s report produced 11 significant findings and 27 recommendations based on its conclusion that there’s “an urgent need for action because opportunities to better protect the nation are being missed.” It “concluded a new management and process model (is) needed to effectively employ IC (Intelligence Community) capabilities for domestic uses.”

In March 2006, DHS unveiled the new agency to implement ISG’s recommendations called the National Applications Office. In May, 2007, Director of National Intelligence (DNI), Michael McConnell, named DHS as its executive agent and functional manager. At least in principle according to DHS, Congress agreed with this approach and to provide funding for it, beginning in the fall of 2007.

The public knew nothing about this until a feature August 15, 2007 Wall Street Journal story broke the news. It was headlined “US to Expand Use of Spy Satellites.” It noted that for the first time the nation’s top intelligence official (DNI’s McConnell) “greatly expanded the range of federal and local (civilian law enforcement agencies that) can get access to” military spy satellite collected information. Until now, civilian use was restricted to agencies like NASA and the US Geological Survey, and only for scientific and environmental study.

The Journal explained that key objectives under new guidelines will be:

– border security,

– securing critical infrastructure and helping emergency responders after natural disasters,

– working with criminal and civil federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies, and

– unmentioned by the Journal, the ability to spy on anyone, anywhere, anytime domestically for any reason - an unprecedented act using state-of-the-art technology enabling real-time, high-resolution images and data from space.

NAO will also oversee classified information from the National Security Agency (NSA), the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) and other US agencies involved in dealing with all aspects of national security, including “terrorism.”

NSA was established in 1952, is super-secret, and for many years was never revealed to exist. Today, its capabilities are awesome and worrisome. It eavesdrops globally, mines a vast amount of data, and does it through a network of spy satellites, listening posts, and surveillance planes to monitor virtually all electronic communications from landline and cell phones, telegrams, emails, faxes, radio and television, data bases of all kinds and the internet.

NGA is new and began operating in 2003. It lets military and intelligence analysts monitor virtually anything or anyone from state-of-the-art spy satellites. Both NSA and NGA coordinate jointly with the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) that designs, builds and operates military spy satellites. It also analyzes military and CIA-collected aircraft and satellite reconnaissance information.

Combined with warrantless wiretapping, pervasive spying of all kinds, the abandonment of the law and checks and balances, intense secrecy, and an array of repressive post-9/11 legislation, Executive Orders and National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directives, NAO is another national security police state tool any despot would love. It’s now established and may be operating without congressional approval.

Using spy satellites domestically “is largely uncharted territory,” as the Wall Street Journal noted. Even its architects admit there’s no clarity on this, and the ISG’s report stated “There is little if any policy, guidance or procedures regarding the collection, exploitation and dissemination of domestic MASINT (Measurement and Signatures Intelligence).”

The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) is the main DOD spy agency. It manages MASINT that’s ultra-secret and sophisticated. It uses state-of-the-art radar, lasers, infrared sensors, electromagnetic data and other technologies that can detect chemicals, electro-magnetic activity, whether a nuclear power plant produces plutonium, and the type vehicle from its exhaust. It can also see under bridges, through clouds, forest canopies and even concrete to create images and collect data. In addition, it can detect people, activity and weapons that satellites and photo-reconnaissance aircraft miss, so it’s an invaluable spy tool but highly intrusive and up to now only for military and foreign intelligence work.

Further, military spy satellites are state-of-the-art and superior to civilian ones. They record in color as well as black and white, use different parts of the light spectrum to track human activities and ground movements and can detect chemical weapons traces and people-generated heat in buildings.

This much we know about them. Their full potential is top secret and available only to the military and intelligence community. The Journal quoted an alarmed Gregory Nojeim, senior counsel and director of the Project on Freedom, Security and Technology, that advocates for digital age privacy rights saying: “Not only is the surveillance they are contemplating intrusive and omnipresent, it’s also invisible. And that’s what makes this so dangerous.”

Anyone for any reason may be watched at all times (through walls) with no way to know it, but a June 2001 (before 9/11) Supreme Court decision offers hope. In Kyllo v. United States, the Court ruled for petitioner 5 to 4 (with Scalia and Thomas in the majority). It voided a conviction based on police use of thermal imaging to detect heat in his triplex to determine if an illegal drug was being grown, in this case marijuana.

The Court held: “Where, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of a private home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a Fourth Amendment ’search,” and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant….To withdraw protection of this minimum expectation would be to permit police technology to erode the privacy guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment” protecting against “unreasonable searches and seizures.”

In 1981, Ronald Reagan seemed to agree in Executive Order 12333 on United States Intelligence Activities. It bars the intelligence community from most forms of home eavesdropping while providing wide latitude to all government agencies to “provide the President and the National Security Council with the necessary information (needed to) conduct….foreign, defense and economic policy (and protect US) national interests from foreign security threats. (Collecting this information is to be done, however,) consistent with the Constitution and applicable law….”

That was then, and this is now. It’s hard imagining congressional concern or DHS meaning that NAO will “prioritize the protection of privacy and civil liberties” and citing the Reagan Executive Order and the 1974 Privacy Act. That law mandates that no government agency “shall disclose any record (or) system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains.” The Privacy act requires the US government to maintain an administrative and physical security system to prevent the unauthorized release of personal records.

Post-9/11, the Patriot Act ended that protection, so DHS is shameless saying NAO must comply with civil liberties and privacy laws and be subject to “oversight by the DHS Inspector General, Chief Privacy Officer, and the Officer for Civil Rights and Liberties” plus additional oversight. No longer post-9/11 when the national security state got repressive new tools to erode the constitution, ignore democratic principles, and give the President unrestricted powers in the name of national security. NAO is the latest one watching us as our “Big Brother in the Sky.” Orwell would be proud.

Real ID Act Update - Another Intrusive Police State Tool

The Read ID Act of 2005 required states to meet federal ID standards by May, 2008. That’s now changed because 29 states passed or introduced laws that refuse to comply. They call the Act costly to administer, a bureaucratic nightmare, and New Hampshire said it’s “repugnant” and violates the state and US Constitutions.

The federal law mandates that every US citizen and legal resident have a national ID card that in most cases is a driver’s license meeting federal standards. It requires it to contain an individual’s personal information and makes one mandatory to open a bank account, board an airplane, be able to vote, get a job, enter a federal building, or conduct virtually all essential business requiring identification.

States balked, and that doomed the original version. On January 11, changes were unveiled when the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued binding new rules. Under them, states have until 2011 to comply (instead of 2008), until 2014 to issue “tamper-proof licenses” to drivers born after 1964, and until 2017 for those born before this date. DHS said the original law would cost states $14 billion. The new regulations with an extended phase-in cuts the amount to around $3.9 billion or $8 per license.

These numbers may be bogus, however, the true costs may be far higher, and that’s why the Information Technology Association of America (ITAA) is lobbying for Real ID’s passage. Its members include high-tech card makers like Digimarc and Northrup Grumman and data brokers like Choicepoint and LexisNexis that profit by selling personal information to advertisers and the government.

Under new DHS rules, licenses must include a digital photo taken at the beginning of the application process and a filament or other security device to prevent counterfeiting. They must also have three layers of security that states can select from a DHS menu. In addition, states must begin checking license applicants’ Social Security and immigration status over the next year.

As of now, a controversial radio frequency identification (RFID) technology microchip isn’t required. It may come later, however, and here’s the problem. It’ll let cardholder movements and activities be tracked everywhere, at all times - in other words, a police state dream along with other pervasive spying tools.

Even worse would be mandating human RFID chip implants. It’s not planned so far (but not ruled out), and three states (California, Wisconsin and North Dakota) preemptively banned the practice without recipients’ consent.

Think it can’t happen? Consider a January 13 article in the London Independent headlined “Prisoners ‘to be chipped like dogs.’ ” The article states that civil rights groups and probation officers are furious that “hi-tech ’satellite’…. machine-readable (microchip) tagging (is) planned (for thousands of offenders) to create more space in jails.” Unlike ankle bracelets now sometimes used, tiny RFID chips would be surgically implanted for monitoring the way they’re currently used for dogs, cats, cattle and luggage. They’re more reliable, it’s believed, as current devices can be tampered with or removed.

Ken Jones, president of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), was quoted saying: “We have looked at….the practicalities and the ethics (and we concluded) its time has come.” The UK currently has the largest prison population per capita in western Europe. It sounds like authorities plan to expand it using fewer cells. It also sounds like a scheme to tag everyone after testing them first on prisoners. And consider the possibilities. RFID technology is advancing, and one company plans deeper implants that can vibrate, emit electroshocks, broadcast a message to the implantee, and/or be a hidden microphone to transmit conversations. It’s not science fiction, and what’s planned for the UK will likely come to America. In fact, it’s already here.

In 2004, the FDA approved a grain-of-rice sized, antenna-containing VeriChip for human implantation that allows vital information to be read when a person’s body is scanned. The company states on its web site that it’s “the world’s first and only patented, FDA-cleared, human-implantable RFID microchip….with skin-sensing capabilities.” Reportedly, about 2000 test subjects now have them, but it may signal mandatory implantation ahead. Consider for whom for starters - prisoners, military personnel and possibly anyone seeking employment. After them, maybe everyone in a brave new global surveillance world.

It gets worse. Katherine Albrecht authored a report called “Microchip-Cancer Report - Microchip-Induced Tumors in Laboratory Rodents and Dogs: A Review of the Literature 1990-2006.” After reading it, Dr. Robert Benezra, Director Cancer Biology, Genetics Program, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center said: “There’s no way in the world, having read this information, that I would have one of those chips implanted in my skin, or in one of my family members. Given the preliminary animal data, it looks to me that there’s definitely cause for concern.”

Albrecht’s report evaluated 11 previously published toxicology and pathology studies. In six of them, up to 10.2% of rats and mice developed malignant tumors (typically sarcomas) where microchips were implanted. Two others reported the same findings for dogs. These tumors spread fast and “often led to the death of the afflicted animals. In many cases, the tumors metastasized and spread to other parts of the animals. The implants were unequivocally identified as the cause of the cancers.”

Report reviews, conclusions and recommendations were to immediately stop further human implantations, inform people with them of the dangers, offer a microchip removal procedure, and reverse all animal microchipping mandates.

Debate Ahead on New DHS ID Rules

DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff said new ID rules require states to verify each cardholder’s personal information (including a person’s legal status in the country) by matching it against federal Social Security and passport databases and/or comparable state ones.

States have time to adjust, but Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy wasted no time saying he’ll recommend legislation to ban Real ID drivers’ license provisions because “so many Americans oppose” them. They’re intrusive, burdensome, and federal databases are full of false or out-of-date information that’s hard to disprove, but unless it is Americans will be denied their legal right to a driver’s license.

The ACLU also strongly opposes Real ID because it violates privacy, lets government agencies share data, and its “tortured remains” represent an “utterly unworkable” system that will “irreparably damage the fabric of American life.” An ACLU January 11 press release further states that DHS “dumped the problems of the statute on future presidents like a rotting corpse left on (its) steps (and) whoever is president in 2018.” Congress must “recognize the situation and take action.” The Real ID Act and new DHS rules must be “repealed and replaced with a clean, simple, and vigorous new driver’s license security law that does not create a national ID” or violate Americans’ privacy.

Futuristic Hi-Tech Profiling

On January 14, Computerworld online revealed more cause for concern in an article called “Big Brother Really is Watching.” It’s about DHS “bankrolling futuristic profiling technology….” for its Project Hostile Intent. It, in turn, is part of a broader initiative called the Future Attribute Screening Technologies Mobile Module. It’s to be a self-contained, automated screening system that’s portable and easy to implement, and DHS hopes to test it at airports in 2010 and deploy it (if it works) by 2012 at airports, border checkpoints, other points of entry and other security-related areas.

Here’s the problem. If developed (reliable or not), these devices will use video, audio, laser and infrared sensors to feed real-time data into a computer using “specially developed algorithms” to identify “suspicious people.” It would work (in theory) by interpreting gestures, facial expressions and speech variations as well as measure body temperature, heart and respiration rate, blood pressure, skin moisture, and other physiological characteristics.

The idea would be detect deception and identify suspicious people for aggressive interrogation, searches and even arrest. But consider what’s coming. If developed, the technology may be used anywhere by government or the private sector for airport or other checkpoint security, buildings, job interviews, employee screening, buying insurance or conducting any other type essential business.

Aside from Fourth Amendment issues, here’s the problem according to Bruce Schneier, chief technology officer at security consultant BT Counterpane: “It’s a good idea fraught with difficulties….don’t hold your breath” it will work, and a better idea is to focus on detecting suspicious objects. Schneier further compares the technology to lie detectors that rely on “fake technology” and only work in films. They’re used because people want them although it’s acknowledged, even when well-administered, their median accuracy percentage is 50% at best.

This technology is worse, it may never be reliable, but may be deployed anyway in the age of “terror.” Something to consider next time we blink going through airport security, and ACLU Technology and Liberty Project director Barry Steinhardt states the concern: “We are not going to catch any terrorists (with it), but a lot of innocent people, especially racial and ethnic minorities, are going to be trapped in a web of suspicion.” Even so, DHS spent billions on this and other screening tools post-9/11. Expect lots more ahead, and here’s the bottom line:

As things now stand, Washington, post-9/11, suspended constitutional protections in the name of national security and suppressed our civil liberties for our own good. This article reviewed their newest tools and wonders what’s next. This writer called it Police State America in December that won’t change with a new White House occupant in 2009 unless organized resistance stops it. Complacency is unthinkable, and unless we act, we’ll deserve Aleksandr Herzen’s curse of another era - to be the “disease,” not the “doctors.”

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Stephen Lendman and Arun Shrivastava
RINF Alternative News

Abstract: This review paper documents the events of Nandigram and role of the Communist Party of India Marxists (CPM), Kissinger in Kolkata pushing through Indo-US nuclear deal, Special Economic Zones and their true purpose, and the true character of a Marxist Party that has ruled West Bengal for 30 years, also a partner in the United Progressive Alliance’s Government in New Delhi. The authors wish to thank the many people who were interviewed and who sent their written opinion in a very short time.

Nandigram. Google it and you get over one million hits. Early 2006, it was just another Block of poor and landless Hindu and Muslim peasants. It shot to fame early this year when the people of Nandigram opposed the Chemical Hub of the Salim Group of Indonesia that would require 4000 acres of land under Special Economic Zone dispensation. On 14th March, 2007, the West Bengal Police in league with armed hoodlums of the ruling Communist Party of India (Marxist), aka CPM, butchered unarmed people protesting forced sequestration of their farmlands. The savagery of attack and the sheer bestiality of attackers even surpassed those of the Zionists in Gaza strip and the US and NATO occupation forces in Iraq or Afghanistan. It was a naked assertion of supremacy of ruling elite by force of terror.

“Mohammed Salim, the businessman to whom the land was to be turned over, helped bankroll Suharto’s genocide of Indonesian Communists. The Communist-led government of West Bengal is eager to do business with him. If ever proof was needed of the irony of the current conjuncture of the Indian left, or of the way capital swallows up and transcends ideological animosities in its expansionary drives, it is here,” says Aditya Sarkar. (“Nandigram and the deformations of the Indian left”, issue 115; Indian Socialism, 2 July 2007; http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=333&issue=115)

We believe these events are not political aberrations or deformations but carefully crafted acts of the entrenched ruling elite taking control of natural resources, especially land, and destroying the independent farmers. Particularly the Indian Left parties are more unabashedly modifying their policies to accommodate the demands of the Neoconservatives in Washington. In so doing, the Left is not deforming itself; rather, it is now showing its true colour.

1. CPM’s alliance with neoconservatives

Three decades ago, having failed to engineer workers’ and peasants’ revolution, the Stalinist CPM re-packaged itself as pro-poor and became the ruling party in West Bengal, the first Communist state within India’s federal polity. Since then it has ruled continuously, not because it is popular but through a dependent class of 20-25% people. Through dispensations like petty contracts, allotment of shops and subsidized homes, appointment in government services, control over village councils through which billions of development funds are expended, and other petty privileges, it retains a loyal cadre. It has installed a highly politicized, pliable, and complicit intelligentsia in the universities. Any opposition to its misdeeds has been crushed by brute force.

The party of the poor is now systematically decimating the poor. It perfected the techniques in Marichjhapi (February, 1979 massacring an entire village to cover up its mischief in resettling East Bengal refugees whom it had used politically to come to power. “…the sight of the hopeless refugees living without food and water amid their own excreta on muddy islands attracted global attention. The Central government, which was then headed by Morarji Desai, offered the “friendly” regime in Calcutta a face-saver. The Centre (meaning Central Government in New Delhi) offered to transport the poor intruders back to Madhya Pradesh. But the Marxists were fearful of the political fallout. They owed their rise to power to the refugees, had promised them the moon, and even prevented them from taking up residence in alternative locations offered by the Centre on the Andaman Islands when it was still sparsely populated. Now, in 1979, it was case of a vote-bank paying diminishing returns. So, the Marxist government in emulation of the man closest to its heart, Joseph Stalin, ordered a massacre… Marichjhapi still figures in academic discourse as an example of CPM’s deceit.”

(Udayan Namboodiri; ‘Shame at Singur’; 17 December 2007; Organiser, page 7; http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=161&page=7) Even today no one knows how many were shot to death but some say it was over 3,000. (Prior to 1947 there was an East Bengal and West Bengal; after 1947 East Bengal became East Pakistan and in 1971 became Bangladesh. Many Hindus of East Bengal became refugees and settled wherever they could find vacant land. It is the refugees of 1947, who were massacred at Marichjhanpi by CPM.

It is the same party that condemned Salvador Allende’s murder (suicide?) in 1973 in unequivocal terms and consistently maintained its opposition to Gen Pinochet’s coup and subsequent brutalization of Chilean people. It opposed the ‘imperialism’ led by the USA everywhere from its Indian base (rats always operate from their hole), although it could never produce a Che Guevara in its long history.

It is the same party that consistently maintained that the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP), that ruled India for just under five years to 2004, is a Fascist and anti-minority communal party. However, events of Nandigram clearly show that CPM cadre attacked Muslim (minority) peasants and Dalits. All political parties, particularly the Communists, in India have used these two groups to come to power but excluded their concerns and aspirations consistently since 1947. When Muslim leaders in Andhra Pradesh raised questions in the state assembly about CPM’s oppression of Muslims in Nandigram, the CPM floor leader said that they “have no right to criticize Marxists and Communists.” (Statesman News Service; Hyderabad; November 19, 2007) Folks, if the right to criticize is denied, that usually happens in a Fascist state! And we are almost there.

It is the same party that opposed the ruling Congress Party in India right from 1947 and even sided with China, in a grand treasonous act, when she attacked India in 1962. As alliance partner in the present United Progressive Alliance its ostensible posture is anti-Congress. It was its ostensible anti-imperialist, anti-bourgeoisie ideological position that appeared to almost scuttle the Indo-US nuclear deal. That’s how it looked, but as John McCarthy says. “their argument is with politics, not action.”

And it is the same party that shot and brutalized unarmed men and women and tore young children apart. Can you even imagine what tearing children apart looks like? It is the same party that allowed its workers to rape women and hack them to death. Just watch the video ‘For the sake of development’ for five minutes because I doubt anyone can take it longer: http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=na+hannate&sitesearch=video.google.com And it is the same party that wanted marginal Muslim and Dalit farmers to leave their land for Salim Group’s chemical hub where Dow Chemicals, another criminal corporation in the news early this year for selling un-approved pesticides in India and tainted with Bhopal liability, would also set up its chemical plants. report on Dow Chemical’s criminals acts earlier this year here: http://civillibertarian.blogspot.com/2007/02/bhopal-criminals-at-it-again-this-time.html

The short-changed Bhopal survivors condemned the CPM led West Bengal Government for inviting Dow Chemicals, (See here: ‘West Bengal Government complicity with Dow in Nandigram’, Bhopal survivors condemn government of West Bengal for colluding with Dow Chemical, June 05, 2007 http://www.bhopal.net/blog_act/archives/2007/06/bhopal_survivor_2.html

This time these corporations are looting land while the party of the poor facilitates the loot and watches the loot from the grandstand.

And it is the same party that welcomed Dr. Henry Kissinger, the butcher of Vietnam and at least 60 other nations, in Kolkata.

2. Kissinger in Kolkata?

Kissinger was not in Kolkata to express his condolence for the Nandigram raped, nor to tell the Chief Minister of West Bengal to ensure peace, democracy, justice and equity. That is not the way the US Government works or has ever worked. Kissinger, the neocon global salesman of death, was here to sell nuclear reactors. Each nuclear reactor costs US$3-5 billion (120 to 200 billion rupees). (http://www.neis.org/literature/Brochures/npfacts.htm)

He wanted West Bengal’s Communist Chief Minister to use his influence with national Politburo members, chiefly Prakash Karat and Sitaram Yechuri, the Tweedledee and Tweedledum of the CPM to not oppose the deal, which would bring a windfall US$27-45 billion dollars worth of business to Kissinger’s friends in the US like General Electric and others and open up India to nuclear holocaust. ‘He said that the 123 deal would benefit both the countries,’ which is a lie. It should be noted that due to powerful grassroots anti-nuclear movement in the US, the industry had been languishing for 30 years until energy short India became an opportunity. “Nuclear reactors kill slowly” as Frieda Berryhill says, a leading anti-nuke activist in the US. Knowing the fact that low level radiation emanating from the reactors has turned sparsely populated America into a diseased nation, CPM never opposed the deal on health and environmental grounds. The latest report from Austria ‘Nuclear Power, Climate Policy and Sustainability’, 2007, clearly warns of the dangers of nuclear reactors. See here http://www.nirs.org/climate/background/austriangovtreport607.pdf.

The despicable Indo-US nuclear deal is through, after CPM gave its nod; the salesman of death rules okay, and the wheeler dealers of death rule okay too and that includes the CPM in India (http://in.news.yahoo.com/071116/43/6ncfd.html)

Secondly, Kissinger wanted to impress upon the Marxists to use their clout in Delhi not to have any energy deals with Iran because ‘Iran is facing international (US sponsored and illegal) sanction.’ He advised the Marxist Chief Minister to oppose Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline project because Iran is a rogue state. Indians should note that a number of countries possess nuclear weapons outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, including Pakistan, North Korea, India, and Israel; yet the US Government has not taken military action. Iran is forging ahead with its nuclear policy within the constraints imposed by IAEA, which again exposes Kissinger’s lie. Iran is not a rogue state and India needs Iran’s energy resources, not American nuclear reactor, as Arjun Makhijani of IEER has forewarned. (For high quality information on dangers of nuclear power, see Institute for Energy and Environmental Research at http://www.ieer.org)

He said that in Kolkata in order to spare great embarrassment to the Marxist-Neoconservatives in Delhi who back-seat drive the Prime Minister of India. Energy short South Asia is heading towards a major economic crisis. Kissinger nudged CPM to ensure total compliance of India’s Left-leaning [hellish] elite to lean more towards Neoconservative energy agenda.

Thirdly, Kissinger supported America’s stand on Iraq that a solution would be found soon, that India’s 9% growth is sustainable, and the two countries have common interests. This is the lousiest of all lies. More than 1.2 million Iraqis have been killed (http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html) and over 5 million are refugees. Children as young as six are being used as sex-slaves by the Americans in Iraq. In Afghanistan, a South Asian country, over 40,000 are dead, hundreds of thousand homeless. Worse, the depleted uranium weapons, used in these two Asian countries will continue to kill innocent civilians for thousands of years. ‘This relatively new monster, DU, has been around since 1943 and classified as a weapon of mass destruction when used as an area deniability weapon, as in contaminating an area to disallow human penetration, for ever,’ says John McCarthy, a weapons expert and a Viet-Vet. (Go to this page: http://johnmccarthy90066.tripod.com/id245.html to see what war crimes this US Government has committed). And John McCarthy is also on record saying that this sort of genocide has ‘Kissinger’s hand all over it.’ So, if Kissinger says that India’s 9% growth is sustainable, that sustainability is contingent upon utter subservience of the ruling coalition in Delhi to a global genocidal agenda. Despite two Asian countries rendered uninhabitable forever, the CPM laid red carpet for Kissinger.

Excerpt from its mouthpiece shows that the CPM knows about depleted uranium: “That Tony Blair, whose government sells lethal weapons to Israel, has sprayed Iraq and Yugoslavia with cluster bombs and depleted uranium and was the greatest arms supplier to the genocidists in Indonesia, can be taken seriously when he now speaks about the “shame” of the ‘new evil of mass terrorism’ says much about the censorship of our collective sense of how the world is managed.” (People’s Democracy; Volume XXV; No 38; September 23, 2001; quoting John Pilger. (http://pd.cpim.org/2001/sept23/2001_sept23_usattack_pilger.htm) That was in 2001, note the date. For six years these criminals in CPM have kept the brutal facts under wraps never bringing it up in policy discussions. So has the Leftist mainstream media in India.

US and NATO forces used depleted uranium /weapons in Afghanistan that contaminated the entire Northwestern India. The mutagenic, tumorigenic and neurotoxic effects of depleted uranium is becoming clear as is evidenced from a number of excellent studies conducted by experts (See, Brice Smith & Arjun Makhijani; “Emerging Pictures of Uranium’s Health Risks; Science for Democratic Action; Vol 13, No 2; June 2005). Dr Chris Busby found it over the British atmosphere as well. The global is ‘radiated’! Right now, as many scientists are saying, we are breathing aerosolized depleted uranium and none of us will complete our natural life. Neither will the CPM leaders. What sort of abominable minds they have belies our imagination, for they haven’t even raised their voice against these war crimes! The whole world is being Nandigrammed in a variety of ways.

And, finally, “The US had never thought India would lean towards that country,” said Kissinger, quoted in one newspaper report. Or is it something more sinister? (Lest we forget, it was Kissinger’s great ‘tilt’ towards Pakistan’s drunkard General Yahya Khan that resulted in the genocide of 1.5 million Bengalis, 10 million refugees from East Pakistan into India and a major war with Pakistan (1971), eventually leading to the formation of Bangladesh.) If India has ever leaned so unabashedly towards the US, it started with Manmohan Singh’s tenure as Finance Minister (1991), evolved through the two hotchpotch coalitions 1996 through to 1999, and further evolved under the ‘Hindu-Nationalist’ (as the Neoconservative sidekick BBC wants the world to believe) BJP. During events of 911, the Hindu-Nationalists were crawling on their knees to be recognized as most ‘dependable anti-Muslim terrorist ally’ but unfortunately lost to Parvez Musharraf. When the US and NATO forces invaded Afghanistan to grow opium poppy, and lilies over forty thousand dead civilians, and later Iraq to steal its oil, all parties kept mum. There has been a quiet tilt for over 17 years and Kissinger as usual is lying. Under normal circumstance, the Nandigram civil war would have forced the Central Government of Manmohan Singh to dismiss the state government of CPM and force an election within six months in accordance with the Constitutional provisions. Kissinger’s deal was that CPM drops its opposition to 123 and the Central government allows the barbarians to continue and retain their hold over West Bengal and that nefarious deed is done. The filthy hands of this supine coalition called United Progressive Alliance stands exposed.

So, Kissinger’s co-opted rulers are safely ensconced, not only in Delhi, but also in Kolkata, Islamabad and Dacca.

We believe that Kissinger’s visit was to ‘secure’ India’s diplomatic and military cooperation as a junior partner in Washington’s quest to expropriate oil and gas and redraw West Asian map. The map, copyright Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters 2006), is cited in Prof Michel Chussodovsky’s article here: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=4347.

Kissinger’s Kolkata meeting with CPM, alliance partners of the ruling UPA, was to ensure that US-NATO plan in West Asia, exposed by Chossodovsky, goes ahead unhindered. The neoconservative brotherhood expresses itself in various ways.

3. Special Economic Zones (SEZ) (a euphemism for land loot) (For Government data and policy statements see http://sezindia.nic.in/)

SEZ are 21st century’s mighty kingdoms. The concept was borrowed from China that has six mega SEZ. The previous BJP rulers thought of setting up ‘many.’ The present Commerce Minister, Kamal Nath, increased that to 500; India will set up 500 SEZs on Nandigrammed farmers.

Free zones

Except for issuing their own currency notes, SEZs are Indian territories in private hands. By May 2007, 234 were approved and 162 SEZs approved in-principle. These are all-tax-exempt zones: exemptions from excise duty, custom duty, sales tax, octroi, turnover tax, as well as income tax for ten years are some of the inducements. The fiscal sops extended to SEZs would cause a revenue loss of Rs. 1000 billion (US$25 billion) by 2009-10, which the Government itself has accepted. In water and electricity short India, the UPA government has assured round-the-clock electricity and water supply. The SEZ promoters have also been given a waiver from carrying out Environment Impact Assessment which is required in any infrastructure project. Promoters of SEZ can have their own security laws; Indian Police will not enter. For instance, Halliburton can acquire a SEZ, handover security to Blackwater, and invite armament manufacturers to reprocess depleted uranium into weapons of mass destruction; no questions asked.

No Inspection

SEZ owners are authorized not to permit any inspection of their premises by any official of the government and for conducting search and seizure operations without prior permission of the owners.

No restriction of capital flows

100 per cent foreign direct investment is permitted in these post modern fiefdoms. “They are permitted external commercial borrowings up to US $ 500 million without any maturity restrictions. They are free to bring in export proceeds without any time limit and make foreign investments from it and are exempted from interest on import finance. They are allowed to set up off-shore banking units with income tax exemption for three years and subsequently 50 per cent tax for another two years. And if they were to sub-contract production to local manufacturers, there would be duty drawbacks, exemption from state levies and income tax benefits. In the scheme of SEZ the livelihoods of small farmers and environmental concerns have been brushed aside.

Anti poor Left Parties

The Left parties, headed by the notorious CPM, enamored with the Neoconservative ideology, are not lagging behind in the race. The CPM in West Bengal has gifted over 900 acres of prime farmland in Singur to India’s Tata group for their NANO car project: two farmers opposing the acquisition of their land were beheaded and heads were kept as trophies by CPM hoodlums. Shamelessly, it has approved seven SEZ and given in-principle approval to fourteen more. The Left front ruled Kerala has approved ten SEZ and in-principle approved two more. SEZs kingdoms are slated to come up all over densely populated India.

The Great Land Loot

The official website says that for setting up of 396 SEZs 1750 sq km land would be required – all would not be on farmlands. Farmland would constitute only 1393.53 sq km. Krishan Bir’s estimate, however, points out that the loss of farmlands would be much more as has happened in the past. For example, the Russian backed Heavy Engineering Corporation project in 1960 required only 800 acres; instead 8,000 were acquired, and many farmers have not been compensated to this day. The government claims that with an estimated US$13.39 billion investment in 100 notified SEZ, 1.57 million additional jobs would be created; this is a complete hoax. Existing SEZs have not created the projected jobs with investments already made. Some of the best farmlands are gone and farmers have been forcibly uprooted. Once a SEZ, always a SEZ; there is no provision for returning the land to farmers, even if the industrial economy is devastated and modern mechanized manufacturing firms fold up.

Killing thousands to accommodate Salim Group

The Salim Group’s founder was manufacturing noodles in his backyard when accidentally he came across the young Suharto, the butcher of Indonesian communists. As Suharto grew in power, so did Salim group. Today, Suharto’s sons are stock holders in Salim Group and control many companies.

When Suharto was overthrown, Salim Group was in a financial mess. Tony Salim relocated to Singapore and used his considerable clout to restructure and expand. The patriarch had changed his name to a Muslim sounding one to appease the Muslims of Indonesia. They are Chinese and have also made huge investments in real estate in China. Majority of real money spinning firms of Salim group are closely held, not quoted on any stock exchange, leading some to remark that it actually fronts for Suharto ill-gotten gains.

And this fiefdom is expanding its hydra-headed tentacles in West Bengal, India, under the rule of ‘Peasants and Workers party,’ unraveling of CPM’s Chinese connections.
Since the CPM has signed a deal with the murderers of Indonesian communists, CPM has lost its credibility and it is now clear that it is complicit in Neoconservative agenda of looting whatever natural resources, especially land, remain in India.

4. Comments of a Nobel laureate

Dr Amartya Sen, was interviewed by Sambit Saha of The Telegraph on land acquisition for industrialization, the most important issue facing Bengal and India. Here are a few excerpts:

“Where there is a mistake in the government’s thinking, and I think it is a big mistake of a tactical kind, is not to recognize that if this land were available for industry in general, and not just for the Tatas (one of India’s largest conglomerates who were given lands at Singur), the value of the land would have been much greater. While the compensation paid is greater than the value of the land seen as agricultural land, the compensation paid by the government is less than what the value would have been had it been free for competition with industries. If you are part of the market economy, then you have to take into account what the value of the land would have been had it been freely available for industry. So there is an issue to be addressed. I think it is a mistake, an honest mistake and it can be corrected in the future…… “Nandigram is a much more complex issue. There is a question whether that kind of operation was needed, whether it was the right place. But I have not studied it in the way I have studied Singur. So I won’t comment,” said Dr Amartya Sen

(Full interview: http://www.telegraphindia.com/1070723/asp/nation/story_8094453.asp)

Dr Sen should know the essence of land as a factor input. Since the amount of land available is fixed, it confers a monopoly on land owners and that monopoly in case of poor peasants must not be expropriated to favor big business, especially by invoking antiquated Land Acquisition Act of 1894, an act that was created and misused by the British particularly in the central Indian tribal region. Land to Indian peasants constitutes an inherited capital along with inherited wisdom of over six millennia that can’t be valued in cash terms. In fact this asset is immeasurable in terms of its intrinsic survival value given the present contingencies as elaborated by Heinrich, discussed below.

Dr Sen’s interview was published on 23 July, 2007, over four months after the Nandigram massacre. There are two basic issues that Dr Sen is inexplicably silent on. (a) Is the sort of industrialization policy being pursued by the ruling elite sustainable, given the impending energy crisis and threats posed by climate change? And (b) Should the farmers at all be forcibly removed from fertile farmlands when plenty of wastelands are available all over India and when one of the direct consequences of energy crisis would be food scarcity? Instead of strengthening India’s food production system, the present Governments, at Centre and States, are implementing the Neoconservative agenda of industrialization of farming, corporatization of food production, Walmartization of distribution, and concentration of most fertile lands in the hands of large corporations.

If ‘development’ means “Americanization of India, Corporatization of its agriculture, and Walmartization of its distribution, then this developmental model is a prescription for mass culling, famine on a scale unknown, starvation, civil unrest, perhaps food wars and water wars amidst rural poor thronging the cities as beggars for food and none to produce that food because best lands would be gone to SEZ. It is inconceivable that CPM top brass does not know about these issues Governments are extremely well briefed by top experts.

5. Chavez’s visit to India

President Hugo Chavez visited India March 2005 and was feted everywhere. During his visit the CPM courted him; the pro Neoconservative, peddling the dope of being pro-poor, had to court the genuinely pro-poor Chavez. Excerpts from Chavez interview here:

“… Mr. Chavez made it clear that he would like to have an energy relationship with India, and that Indian companies would be welcome to help exploit the oil resources of Venezuela. Indeed, the scope for cooperation is enormous despite the distances. Apart from New Delhi benefiting by extracting Venezuelan oil for use in India or sale through swap agreements (which would reduce the dollar hegemony), Caracas gets to further diversify its markets and reduce the monopolistic power of the U.S. Indian companies like IRCON are also well placed to assist Venezuela in the construction of railway lines and roads, not to speak of low-cost housing, which is a priority area for Mr. Chavez. His visit last week has done a lot to exorcise the ghosts of previous agreements that fell through at the last moment. The crucial factor in all this is the determination to follow through.”

(Full report here: http://www.hindu.com/2005/03/11/stories/2005031101881000.htm)
While Mr. Hugo Chavez was outlining an alternative plan to the ‘New American Century,’ the rogues in CPM were planning to stab him in the back. This, despite the fact that one Indian company (ONGC) has significantly contributed to successful extraction of heavy oil in Venezuela (Sam Hopkins, ‘Indian Innovation in Heavy Oil,’ www.energyinstitution.org; October 24th, 2007). It remains to be seen how the CPM does the balancing act of working simultaneously to deprive India of energy resources from Iran under Kissinger’s pressure and of Venezuela, a country also in the crosshair of the criminals in DC. If Indian farmers are denied access to cheap energy till such time that the farmers have transited to low-energy food production and distribution, agriculture productivity will fall steeply causing mass starvation in both rural and urban areas.

All evidences suggest that this is the intention of CPM in India, leaders. Effectively, CPMWashington’s agenda of ensuring an energy-enslaved India, the ability to grow foodAnd because this party believes in industrialization-through-destruction-of-peasantry, it does not even have a strategy to help Indian farmers move towards low energy agriculture. While the Bolivarian circles are achieving in less than six years what the CPM could not achieve in sixty, it is driving small farmers out of the most fertile lands.

6. The massacre at Nandigram:

Time line
The people of Nandigram were massacred on 14th March. Survivors continued to oppose, till the Government of West Bengal (GoWB) withdrew Salim’s project. But the attack by CPM cadre on unarmed people continued. From 29th October to 8th November 2007, there were nine major events of violence. The civil war is going on unabated. Media persons have been beaten up. Delegation of civil society, including artists, writers, and intellectuals were prevented from visiting Nandigram. Here’s the brief time line:

March 31, 2006 A basic understanding between GoWB and Salim Group was arrived at wherein the Salim Group would set up a SEZ (a Chemical hub)

October 6, 2006 On the recommendation of GoWB, the empowered committee of the Government of India approved Salim Group’s SEZ

January 3, 2007 Facing farmers’ opposition to acquisition of lands for SEZ, the Police indiscriminately fired at unarmed farmers.

January 4, 2007 GoWB sought modifications in SEZ rules from Government of India

January 6, 2007 Formation of Bhumi Ucched Pratirodh Samittee, or BUPS, (People’s Committee to oppose acquisition of lands).

January 9, 2007 Mamta Bannerjee, opposition leader, demands President’s rule in West Bengal.

Violence of ruling party cadre continued through these months; Krishi Bhumi Raksha Samittee (KBRS) (Save Farmlands Committee) formed.

March 14, 2007 Police and CPM cadre fire indiscriminately at unarmed women,
children and men. Nandigram Massacre begins. Women are beaten up, raped and hacked to death; children torn apart.

No one knows the true figure of dead and ‘missing’.

No one knows how many women & children were brutalized.

March 15, 2007 The West Bengal High Court orders inquiry into the events by the Central Bureau of Investigations (CBI) (Our version of the FBI).

April 29, 2007 BUPC and KBRS confront CPM, more violence

May 24, 2007 All Party meet to resolve the Nandigram issue fails.

July 30, 2007 BUPC calls for State-wide Bundh; successful.

October 29, 2007 CPM cadre entered Takapura, Kamalpur and Ranichowk and at least 16 homes torched.

October 30, 2007 CPM hoodlums fired on a peaceful rally of thousands of farmers who were on their way from Nandigram to Tekhali. There was bombing and firing from Khejuri, a CPM stronghold. Armed miscreants, allegedly hired by the CPM, attacked Ranichowk village and set fire to two homes of BUPC supporters and looted a few. There was one death and 10 injured. Media persons and opposition leaders…were not spared either. Three journalists were beaten up.

October 31, 2007 CPM cadre bombed Bhangabera to terrorize the villagers.

November 02, 2007 CPI(M) cadre from Khejuri started firing while policemen deployed in the area turned a blind eye. All entry points into Nandigram have been sealed off by the cadres and there were attempts to take control over villages in Nadigram.

November 03, 2007 Further intensification of terror as armed CPM cadre reduced Satengabari to a virtual graveyard and the firing continued unabated. More than 200 thatched houses were burned to ashes after they were looted and ransacked, rendering approximately 1,000 people homeless. Women molested.

November 4, 2007 CPM Politburo member Brinda Karat, wife of Prakash Karat, the CPM supremo in Delhi, prescribed “Dum Dum Dawai” (harsh medicine, like severe beating — a slogan of the sixties advocating public thrashing of the corrupt) as a solution. She blamed the opposition politicians for the continuing trouble in Nandigram in the presence of Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee, the same man who would entertain Dr Henry Kissinger. Instead of fading out gracefully, Brinda in her middle age is advocating violence.

November 6, 2007 In a repeat performance of 14th March, a savage attack was mounted by CPM cadre. Nine villages were torched. At least 15,000 people were hounded out of their homes The state home secretary Mr. Prasad Ranjan Roy admitted that firing started from Khejuri, indicating that CPI-M cadres unleashed the violence.

November 7, 2007 Yet another attack on villagers, over 3000 rendered homeless.

November 8, 2007 Prominent citizens attempting to enter Nandigram were attacked, women members (particularly Anuradha Talwar and Medha Patkar) were slapped, insulted and beaten up, cars wrecked and drivers assaulted.

7. The parallel with China

“At the Center the sky is blue,
In the provinces clouds are gathering,
In the counties there is flooding,
In the townships people are drowning
And are running for their lives”

(Quoted in Thomas P Bernstein’s ‘Unrest in Rural China: A 2003 Assessment.’ This is also called ‘the peasant’s cries’ (Nongmin de huhan) as explained by Yang Hao, 1999)
There have been over 248,000 peasants’ unrest in China in eleven years ending 2003. (Albert Keidel, ‘The Economic Basis for Social Unrest in China,’ The George Washington University, 2005; page 1) Among other issues, social unrest has been caused by land acquisition for industry and ‘modernization.’ People have been arrested, beaten up, perhaps tortured, because lower level officials and the security forces are as bad as in India. ‘The peasant’s cries’ sums up the normal brutality of lower level officials and cadres but the Chinese peasants believed that by petitioning higher authorities they would get some solace. Not there. Not here in India either.

India doesn’t have 248,000 peasants’ movements but getting uncomfortably close. Despite the Governor of West Bengal and the Home Secretary (in-charge of internal security) saying that the situation is bad (meaning very bad because Home Secretaries always understate the facts), the centre took its own time sending special protection force (Central Reserve Protection Force or CRPF). They have finally managed to enter Nandigram and recovered arms and explosives from the homes of CPM supporters.

8. The role of the media and the intelligentsia in this episode

Surprisingly, even the Leftist intellectuals have eventually decided to raise their voice against this genocide. The Internet is buzzing in the middle-class intellectual homes to oppose the “massacre at Nandigram.” Some have shown spine, most are spineless. Those who have shown spine are also much guarded in what they say and much of what they say appears that what CPM has done is a bit of aberration that can be ‘corrected’ by their pressure group, that its ‘expansionary drive’ can be curbed and reformed. Famous Leftist icons come out in support of the farmers but as one Nandigram activist, who blogs from Kolkata, said ‘they are there when the TV cameras are there’ (Palash Biswas in conversation with the authors). Over fifty ‘leading Leftists’ signed a ‘protest note’ opposing the acts of the CPM in Nandigram but instead of exposing the true Machiavellian machinations of the CPM, they merely denounced their acts in Nandigram. One ‘intellectual’ went so far as to say that events of Nandigram have been engineered by ‘communalist forces’. Do we need colonialists when we have home grown criminals to loot our natural resources?

9. Democide

The parties of the peasants and workers have history of exterminating the peasants. A researcher, R.J Rummel (We question many of his assumptions because he almost condones the American Democides, but he is right about Soviet Russia and China during their collectivization phase), has calculated that the Soviets under Stalin killed about millions of domestic citizens and China under the Communists killed about 35 million, majority peasants, some dissidents, two most lethal regimes of the 20th Century. (Details are here: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM) We do credit Rummel with having coined the phrase ‘Democide’ or death by governments. CPM ruled West Bengal has killed people in Nandigram and that is “Democide.”

The Communist parties are experts at turning the educated middle-classes into supine, spineless core support base. The so-called Leftist intellectuals in India’s top universities owe their positions not because they are serious thinkers but because they support the Left parties. The Communist Party of India, allied with Soviet Russians supported Indira Gandhi’s emergency (total dictatorship) in June 1975, just as the CPM is now allied with the UPA, inching towards total dictatorship.

Essentially totalitarian in nature, the Communists have found the small farmers difficult to control. The small farmer invariably is forced to take a stand against them because he/she can grow food and has land to grow food, no matter how small. In India’s case, the small farmers brought CPM to power in West Bengal but in the grand old Communist tradition of governance they are up against a Frankenstein monster.

As one wit told the author recently: politically correct disposition ensures material wealth and recognition! The politically correct disposition in India Today is to be Leftist, when Leftists are treasonous sycophants of Anglo-American Neoconservatives. If they fail, Washington will need a different strategy to pummel South Asia, a far worse hubris. The question is this: should India succumb to the terrorists? Or should the people of India, including conscientious socialists, resolve to demolish this UPA monster backed by CPM and other self serving Leftists and make an example of this democidal group?

10. CPM’s hubris

CPM, a party that ruled by manipulating ballots now rules by bullets. It is now openly stealing lands from poor peasants as part of the global Neoconservative strategy of destroying the independent farmers. It is determined to make an example of the people of Nandigram as part of the tribute to its traditional masters.

In trying to set an example for the rest of the country, the ruling coalition in Delhi is also banking on successful crushing of Nandigram revolt. In this hubris lies the success of the ‘sustainable 9% growth rate’ fondly blessed by mass murderer Kissinger, and eagerly sought by a small clique of former World Bank and IMF economists shaping the policies of India and South Asia. Framers’ suicides, taking place on a daily basis in India, is the real cost of Washington based Neoconservative’s agenda in which our present government is complicit.

Nandigram is a Democide; it is the beginning of a wholesale culling of farmers in India; the CPM must stand trial for Democide. All Politburo members of India’s CPM must stand trial for Democide.

Stephen Lendman
RINF Alternative News

Bill Engdahl is a leading researcher, economist and analyst of the New World Order who’s written on issues of energy, politics and economics for over 30 years. He contributes regularly to publications like Japan’s Nihon Keizai Shimbun, Foresight magazine, Grant’s Investor.com, European Banker and Business Banker International. He’s also a frequent speaker at geopolitical, economic and energy related international conferences and is a distinguished Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization where he’s a regular contributor.

Engdahl also wrote two important books - “A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order” in 2004. It’s an essential history of geopolitics and the importance of oil. Engdahl explains that America’s post-WW II dominance rests on two pillars and one commodity - unchallengeable military power and the dollar as the world’s reserve currency combined with the quest to control global oil and other energy resources.

Engdahl’s newest book is just out from the Centre for Research on Globalization. It’s a sequel to his first one called “Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation” and subject of this review. It’s the diabolical story of how Washington and four Anglo-American agribusiness giants plan world domination by patenting life forms to gain worldwide control of our food supply and why that prospect is chilling. The book’s compelling contents are reviewed below in-depth so readers will know the type future Henry Kissinger had in mind in 1970 when he said: “Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people.”

Remember also, this cabal is one of many interconnected ones with fearsome power and ruthless intent to use it - Big Banks controlling the Federal Reserve and our money, Big Oil our world energy resources, Big Media our information, Big Pharma our health, Big Technology our state-of-the-art everything and watching us, Big Defense our wars, Big Pentagon waging them, and other corporate predators exploiting our lives for profit. Engdahl’s book focuses brilliantly on one of them. To fully cover its vital contents, this review will be in three parts for more detail and to make it easily digestible.

Part I of “Seeds of Destruction”

In 2003, Jeffrey Smith’s “Seeds of Deception” was published. It exposed the dangers of untested and unregulated genetically engineered foods most people eat every day with no knowledge of the potential health risks. Efforts to inform the public have been quashed, reliable science has been buried, and consider what happened to two distinguished scientists.

One was Ignatio Chapela, a microbial ecologist at the University of California, Berkeley. In September, 2001, he was invited to a carefully staged meeting with Fernando Ortiz Monasterio, Mexico’s Director of the Commission of Biosafety in Mexico City. The experience left Chapela shaken and angry as he explained. Monasterio attacked him for over an hour. “First he trashed me. He let me know how damaging to the country and how problematic my information was to be.”

Chapela referred to what he and a UC Berkeley graduate student, David Quist, discovered in 2000 about genetically engineered contamination of Mexican corn in violation of a government ban on these crops in 1998. Corn is sacred in Mexico, the country is home to hundreds of indigenous varieties that crossbreed naturally, and GM contamination is permanent and unthinkable - but it happened by design.

Chapela and Quist tested corn varieties in more than a dozen state of Oaxaca communities and discovered 6% of the plants contaminated with GM corn. Oaxaca is in the country’s far South so Chapela knew if contamination spread there, it was widespread throughout Mexico. It’s unavoidable because NAFTA allows imported US corn with 30% of it at the time genetically modified. Now it’s heading for nearly double that amount, and if not contained, it soon could be all of it.

The prestigious journal Nature agreed to publish Chapela’s findings, Monasterio wanted them quashed, but Chapela refused to comply. As a result, he was intimidated not to do it and threatened with being held responsible for all damages to Mexican agriculture and its economy.

He went ahead, nonetheless, and when his article appeared in the publication on November 29, 2001 the smear campaign against him began and intensified. It was later learned that Monsanto was behind it, and the Washington-based Bivings Group PR firm was hired to discredit his findings and get them retracted.

It worked because the campaign didn’t focus on Chapela’s contamination discovery, but on a second research conclusion even more serious. He learned the contaminated GM corn had as many as eight fragments of the CaMV promoter that creates an unstable “hotspot.” It can cause plant genes to fragment, scatter throughout the plant’s genome, and, if proved conclusively, would wreck efforts to introduce GM crops in the country. Without further evidence, there was still room for doubt if the second finding was valid, however, and the anti-Chapela campaign hammered him on it.

Because of the pressure, Nature took an unprecedented action in its 133 year history. It upheld Chapela’s central finding but retracted the other one. That was all it took, and the major media pounced on it. They denounced Chapela’s incompetence and tried to discredit everything he learned including his verified findings. They weren’t reported, his vilification was highlighted, and Monsanto and the Mexican government scored a big victory.

Ironically, on April 18, 2002, two weeks after Nature’s partial retraction, the Mexican government announced there was massive genetic contamination of traditional corn varieties in Oaxaca and the neighboring state of Puebla. It was horrifying as up to 95% of tested crops were genetically polluted and “at a speed never before predicted.” The news made headlines in Europe and Mexico. It was ignored in the US and Canada.

The fallout for Chapela was UC Berkeley denied him tenure in 2003 because of his article and for criticizing university ties to the biotech industry. He then filed suit in April, 2004 asking remuneration for lost wages, earnings and benefits, compensatory damages for humiliation, mental anguish, emotional distress and coverage of attorney fees and costs for his action. He won in May, 2005 but not in court when the university reversed its decision, granted him tenure and agreed to include retroactive pay back to 2003. The damage, however, was done and is an example of what’s at stake when anyone dares challenge a powerful company like Monsanto.

The other man attacked was the world’s leading lectins and plant genetic modification expert, UK-based Arpad Pusztai. He was vilified and fired from his research position at Scotland’s Rowett Research Institute for publishing industry-unfriendly data he was commissioned to produce on the safety of GMO foods.

His Rowett Research study was the first ever independent one conducted on them anywhere. He undertook it believing in their promise but became alarmed by his findings. The Clinton and Blair governments were determined to suppress them because Washington was spending billions promoting GMO crops and a future biotech revolution. It wasn’t about to let even the world’s foremost expert in the field derail the effort. His results were startling and consider the implications for humans eating genetically engineered foods.

Rats fed GMO potatoes had smaller livers, hearts, testicles and brains, damaged immune systems, and showed structural changes in their white blood cells making them more vulnerable to infection and disease compared to other rats fed non-GMO potatoes. It got worse. Thymus and spleen damage showed up; enlarged tissues, including the pancreas and intestines; and there were cases of liver atrophy as well as significant proliferation of stomach and intestines cells that could be a sign of greater future risk of cancer. Equally alarming - this all happened after 10 days of testing, and the changes persisted after 110 days that’s the human equivalent of 10 years.

GM foods today saturate our diet. Over 80% of all supermarket processed foods contain them. Others include grains like rice, corn and wheat; legumes like soybeans and soy products; vegetable oils; soft drinks; salad dressings; vegetables and fruits; dairy products including eggs; meat and other animal products; and even infant formula plus a vast array of hidden additives and ingredients in processed foods (like in tomato sauce, ice cream and peanut butter). They’re unrevealed to consumers because labeling is prohibited yet the more of them we eat, the greater the potential threat to our health.

Today, we’re all lab rats in an uncontrolled, unregulated mass human experiment the results of which are unknown. The risks from it are beyond measure, it will take many years to learn them, and when they’re finally revealed it will be too late to reverse the damage if it’s proved GM products harm human health as independent experts strongly believe. Once GM seeds are introduced to an area, the genie is out of the bottle for keeps.

Despite the enormous risks, however, Washington and growing numbers of governments around the world in parts of Europe, Asia, Latin America and Africa now allow these products to be grown in their soil or imported. They’re produced and sold to consumers because agribusiness giants like Monsanto, DuPont, Dow AgriSciences and Cargill have enormous clout to demand it and a potent partner supporting them - the US government and its agencies, including the Departments of Agriculture and State, FDA, EPA and even the defense establishment. World Trade Organization (WTO) Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) patent rules also back them along with industry-friendly WTO rulings like the February 7, 2006 one.

It favored a US challenge against European GMO regulatory policies in spite of strong consumer sentiment against these foods and ingredients on the continent. It also violated the Biosafety Protocol that should let nations regulate these products in the public interest, but it doesn’t because WTO trade rules sabotaged it. Nonetheless, anti-GMO activism persists, consumers still have a say, and there are hundreds of GMO-free zones around the world, including in the US. That and more is needed to take on the agribusiness giants that so far have everything going their way.

In “Seeds of Deception,” Jeffrey Smith did a masterful job explaining the dangers of GM foods and ingredients. Engdahl explains them as well but goes much further brilliantly in his blockbuster book on this topic. It’s the story of a powerful family and a “small socio-political American elite (that) seeks to establish control over the very basis of human survival” - future life through the food we eat. The book’s introduction says it “reads (like) a crime story.” It’s also a nightmare but one that’s very real and threatening.

This review covers the book in-depth because of its importance. It’s an extraordinary work that “reveals a diabolical World of profit-driven political intrigue (and) government corruption and coercion” that’s part of a decades-long global scheme for total world dominance. The book deserves vast exposure and must be read in full for the whole disturbing story. It’s hoped the material below will encourage readers to do it in their own self-interest and to marshal mass consumer actions to place food safety above corporate profits.

Engdahl’s book supplies the ammunition to do it and is also a sequel to his earlier one on war, oil politics and The New World Order and follows naturally from it. It covers the roots of the strategy to control “global food security” that goes back to the 1930s and the plans of a handful of American families to preserve their wealth and power. But it centers on one in particular that above the others “came to symbolize the hubris and arrogance of the emerging American century” that blossomed post-WW II. Its patriarch began in oil and then dominated it in his powerful Oil Trust. It was only the beginning as the family expanded into “education of youth, medicine and psychology,” US foreign policy, and “the very science of life itself, biology, and its applications” in plants and agriculture.

The family’s name is Rockefeller. The patriarch was John D., and four powerful later-generation brothers followed him - David, Nelson, Laurance, and John D. III. Engdahl says the GMO story covers “the evolution of power in the hands of an elite (led by this family), determined (above all) to bring the entire world under their sway.” They and other elites already control most of it, including the nation’s energy, the US Federal Reserve, and other key world central banks. Today, three brothers are gone, David alone remains, and he’s still a force at age 92 although he no longer runs the family bank, JP Morgan Chase. He’s active in family enterprises, however, including the Rockefeller Foundation to be discussed in Part II of this review.

F. William Engdahl is the author of Seeds of Destruction, the Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation just released by Global Research. He is also the author of A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order, Pluto Press Ltd.. To contact him by e-mail: info@engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net.

Special Introductory Online Offer

Click to order William Engdahl’s book:

Seeds of Destruction

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Steve Lendman News and Information Hour on TheMicroEffect.com Mondays at noon US Central time.

By Stephen Lendman
RINF Alternative News

Christmas is observed December 25 by Christians and others celebrating the spirit of the season while for those of the Eastern Orthodox faith the holiday falls on January 7. It’s to honor the birth of Jesus Christ even though it’s widely acknowledged not to be his birthday. Along with its religious significance, the season is also for other celebratory events like winter festivals, parties, family get-togethers and Kwanzaa from December 26 - January 1 for Africans Americans to reconnect to their cultural and historical heritage. Jews as well celebrate the season with the Hanukkah Festival of Lights. It’s to commemorate their struggle for survival, but for Jewish children it’s their Christmas with gifts from parents like their Christian friends get.

Christmas is also the time when the national obsession to shop and consume reaches its zenith. It traditionally begins the day after Thanksgiving, runs through Christmas eve, and after the holiday continues into January with plenty of extra buying power from holiday gift cards, year-end bonuses and other resources gotten or borrowed. It’s for everything people never knew they wanted until creative advertising wizardry made their lives incomplete without them.

Perhaps this single dominant trait characterizes American culture more than any other. It’s a variant of the kind of consumerism economist/sociologist Thorstein Veblen called “conspicuous” in his 1899 book “The Theory of the Leisure Class.” F. Scott Fitzgerald explained that “the very rich….are different from you and me.” Veblen wrote about their spending habits and coined the phrase “conspicuous consumption.” Today, it’s called “keeping up with the Joneses” or consumerism, and it’s practiced by status-seeking people obsessed with personal gratification. But not just by the rich. Most people, except the poor, do it and to excess.

The term “consumption” originated hundreds of years ago. Then, it referred to infectious tuberculosis or TB. But its original meaning is relevant in today’s acquisitive society where consuming for essentials is worlds apart from gluttonous consumerism. This variant refers to overindulgent shopping and spending for things people buy irrespective of need but not without consequences for themselves and society.

Untreated TB, or consumption, consumes its victims in a slow, painful death. Consumerism mimics it with it’s similarly harmful fallout: ecological destruction; unhealthy and unsafe consumer products; corporate empowerment; profits pursued over people; militarism and foreign wars; health, education and other essential needs neglected; and democratic decay in a corporatist state disdaining the public interest.

People take pride saying “when the going gets tough, the tough go shopping” - but not without consequences. The personal fallout is over-indebtedness millions can’t handle in the wake of unexpected medical emergencies or loss of employment. The toll: since the early 1980s one in seven families forced into bankruptcy, over 2 million in 2005 alone (30% above 2004), and millions more ahead from unchecked borrow and binge-spending made worse by the subprime crisis.

Overindulgent spending is what clinicians call an obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). At its worst, it’s pathologically characterized by obsessive, repetitive thoughts that need compulsive tasks and rituals to relieve. For addicted consumers, it’s an obsession to shop and spend and a compulsion to buy and accumulate. In excess, it’s clinically pathological and destructive when it causes bankruptcy.

In America and the West, tens of millions of otherwise normal people shop excessively for what they never knew they wanted until Madison Avenue mind manipulators convinced them. Economist Paul Baran described the process as making us “want what we don’t need (all unessential consumer goods and services) and not….what we do (good health care, education, clean air and water, safe food, and good government providing essential services).”

Future insolvency is risked, but few consider the possibility until it’s too late. It’s worst at Christmas when it becomes a pathological orgy of frenzied spending dismissively called getting into the holiday spirit. Maybe for merchants, but not when bills come due with growing millions unable to pay them or needing more debt to delay for later what they can’t handle now.

Institutionalized consumerism also plays into social control. It’s empowered when people are focused on bread and circus distractions that include the sights and sounds of the season. Media theorist Neil Postman once called Americans the most over-entertained and under-informed people in the world and wrote about it in books like “Amusing Ourselves to Death.” Attracted to self-gratification and its reinforcing images, they’re diverted from what matters most - challenging wars of aggression, loss of civil liberties and human rights, violations of law, gutted social services, environmental harm, and policies benefitting the privileged at the expense of beneficial social change.

Consumerism also lets corporate power prosper and grow. It feeds unfettered capitalism and out-of-control greed. It helps direct our tax dollars to a militarized state instead of going for essential social needs. It diverts the national wealth to an imperial juggernaut that consumers finance through overindulgence. The more we shop, the stronger it gets and is better able to exploit new markets, resources and cheap labor at the expense of the more expensive kind at home whose future consumption is endangered by today’s self-gratifying excesses.

Adam Smith was capitalism’s ideological godfather who was also concerned about concentrated wealth and wrote about it in “The Wealth of Nations.” He explained an “invisible hand” of unseen forces worked best in a free market with many small businesses competing locally against each other. He contrasted them with concentrated mercantilism and wrote about the “merchants and manufacturers” who used their power to wreak “dreadful misfortunes” and grave injustices on the vast majority of people using the British East India Company as a case study example.

Today’s monopoly capitalism would have been unimaginable in his day, but he’d recognize it. He wrote that throughout history we find the wreckage of the “vile maxim of the masters of mankind….All for ourselves and nothing for other people….unless government takes pains to prevent” this outcome. No invisible hand works in manipulated markets where governments sanction Smith’s “vile maxim,” and the greater good is nowhere in sight. Under neoliberal rules, capital wins, people lose, and consumerism makes things worse. It’s most extreme at Christmas when shopping trumps the holiday’s meaning and seasonal sights and sounds drown out everything else.

The toll is tragic. Whatever Christmas was, it no longer is, and our behavior corrupts it and the spirit of the man it honors. He spread it in deeds and teachings from his Sermon on the Mount and message to “turn the other cheek,” love thy neighbor, not kill, and do unto others as you’d want them doing to you. The consumerist ethic glorifies receiving, not giving; condoning predatory capitalism and ignoring its harm; neglecting the greater good; sanctifying overindulgence while forgetting those most in need throughout the year. In the spirit of the season, thoughts should be on helping others and giving thanks. In an unfettered marketplace, it’s impossible.

It’s a sad testimony to a society obsessed with greed and gratification at the expense of beneficial social change. At Christmas, it defiles the holiday spirit and forgets the needy. For them, Christmas is “Bah Humbug,” and Santa Scrooge - all take and no give.

New Year’s Day

New Year’s day is one week after Christmas and concludes the long holiday season. It starts after Thanksgiving, reaches a climax around Christmas, ebbs for a day and builds again for a final celebratory new year’s welcome with more overindulgent eating, drinking, partying, and binge-shopping for nonessentials.

The new year is also a traditional time for resolutions that include some with merit like losing weight, quitting smoking and getting fit. Most are forgotten, and those most important never made: working for peace, good will toward others, loving they neighbor, respecting everyone, and treating people as we want to be treated in a society of caring and sharing with equity and justice for all. Wouldn’t that be a wonderful resolution for the new year. Long ago in simpler times before the old world became America, it was that way. It can be again, but wishing won’t make it so.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sj.lendman.blogspot.com and listen each Saturday to the Steve Lendman News and Information Hour on TheMicroEffect.com Saturdays at noon US central time.

By Stephen Lendman
RINF Alternative News

The Bush administration tried and failed three prior times to oust Hugo Chavez since its first aborted two-day coup attempt in April, 2002. Through FOIA requests, lawyer, activist and author Eva Golinger uncovered top secret CIA documents of US involvement that included an intricate financing scheme involving the quasi-governmental agency, National Endowment of Democracy (NED), and US Agency for International Development (USAID). The documents also showed the White House, State Department and National Security Agency had full knowledge of the scheme, had to have approved it, and there’s little doubt of CIA involvement as it’s always part of this kind of dirty business. What’s worrying now is what went on then may be happening again in what looks like a prelude to a fourth made-in-Washington attempt to oust the Venezuelan leader that must be monitored closely as events develop.

Since he took office in February, 1999, and especially after George Bush’s election, Chavez has been a US target, and this time he believes credible sources point to a plot to assassinate him. That information comes from Alimamy Bakarr Sankoh, president of the Hugo Chavez International-Foundation for Peace, Friendship & Solidarity (HCI-FPFS) in a November 11 press release. Sankoh supports Chavez as “a man of peace and flamboyant champion of human dignity (who persists in his efforts in spite of) growing US blackmail, sabotage and political blasphemy.”

HCI-FPFS sources revealed the plot’s code name - “Operation Cleanse Venezuela” that now may be unfolding ahead of the December 2 referendum on constitutional reforms. According to Sankoh, the scheme sounds familiar - CIA and other foreign secret service operatives (including anti-Castro terrorists) aiming to destabilize the Chavez government by using “at least three concrete subversive plans” to destroy the country’s social democracy and kill Chavez.

It involves infiltrating subversive elements into the country, inciting opposition within the military, ordering region-based US forces to shoot down any aircraft used by Chavez, employing trained snipers with shoot to kill orders, and having the dominant US and Venezuelan media act as supportive attack dogs. Chavez is targeted because he represents the greatest of all threats to US hegemony in the region - a good example that’s spreading. Venezuela also has Latin America’s largest proved oil reserves at a time supplies are tight and prices are at all-time highs.

Sankoh calls Washington-directed threats “real” and to “be treated seriously” to avoid extending Bush’s Middle East adventurism to Latin America. He calls for support from the region and world community to denounce the scheme and help stop another Bush administration regime change attempt.

More information on a possible coup plot also came from a November 13 Party for Socialism and Liberation article headlined “New US plots against the Venezuelan Revolution.” It states Tribuna Popular (the Communist Party of Venezuela) and Prensa Latina (the Latin American News Agency) reported: “Between Oct. 7 and Oct 9, high-ranking US officials met in Prague, Czech Republic, with parts of the Venezuelan opposition (where they were) urged to convene social uprisings, sabotage the economy and infrastructure, destroy the food transportation chain and plan a military coup.” It said Paul Wolfowitz and Madeleine Albright attended along with Humberto Celli, “a well-known coup-plotter from the Venezuelan party Accion Democratica.”

The article further reported Tibisay Lucena, The National Electoral Council chairman, said the Venezuelan corporate media was “stoking a mood of violence amongst right-wing students” through a campaign of agitprop, and Hermann Escarra from the “pro-coup” Comando Nacional de la Resistencia openly incited “rebellion” last August and then called for constitutional changes to be stopped “through all means possible.”

The Venezuelan news agency, Diaria VEA, also weighed in saying “anonymous students planned on committing acts of destabilization” as the December 2 vote approaches. Venezuelan Radio Trans Mundial provided proof with a recorded video of a youth dumping gasoline into an armored vehicle, ramming metal barricades into police on top of other vehicles, and knocking them from their roofs and hoods onto the ground.

The Threat of Street Protest Violence

For weeks, protests with sporadic violence have been on Venezuela’s streets as anti-Chavistas use middle and upper class students as imperial tools to destabilize the government and disrupt the constitutional process. The aim is to discredit and oust the Chavez government and return the country to its ugly past with Washington and local oligarchs in charge and the neoliberal model reinstated.

Venezuela’s Foreign Minister, Nicolas Maduro, weighed in on this on November 8. He accused Washington of meddling by staging violent Caracas street protests against proposed constitutional reforms to extend the country’s participatory social democracy. Referring to a November 7 shootout at Caracas’ Central University, he said: “We don’t have any doubt that the government of the United States has their hands in the scheme that led to the ambush yesterday” that Chavez calls a “fascist offensive.” Several students were wounded on the streets from a clash between pro and anti-Chavez elements.

“We know the whole scheme,” Maduro added, and he should as it happened before in 2002, again during the disruptive 2002-03 oil management lockout, and most often as well when elections are held to disrupt the democratic process. These are standard CIA operating tactics used many times before for 50 years in the Agency’s efforts to topple independent leaders and kill them. Chavez understands what’s happening, and he’s well briefed and alerted by his ally, Fidel Castro, who survived over 600 US attempts to kill him since 1959. He’s now 81 and very much alive but going through a difficult recovery from major surgery 15 months ago.

Chavez has widespread popular support throughout the region and from allies like Ecuador’s Raphael Correa and Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega who expressed his “solidarity with the revolutionary people of Venezuela and our friend Hugo Chavez, who is being subjected to aggression from a counterrevolution fed by the traitors from inside the country and by the empire (referring to the US).” He compared the situation to his own country where similar efforts are being “financed by the United States Embassy” in Managua to support elements opposed to his Sandinista government even though it’s very accommodative to Washington.

Even Brazil’s Lula chimed in by calling Chavez’s proposed reforms consistent with Venezuela’s democratic norms, and he added: “Please, invent anything to criticize Chavez, except for lack of democracy.”

Constitutional Reform As A Pretext for Protests

Washington’s goal from all this is clear, but why now? Last July, Chavez announced he’d be sending Venezuela’s National Assembly (AN) a proposed list of constitutional reforms to debate, consider and vote on. Under Venezuelan law, the President, National Assembly or 15% of registered voters (by petition) may propose constitutional changes. Under articles 342, 343, 344 and 345, they must then be debated three times in the legislature, amended if needed, and then submitted to a vote that requires a two-thirds majority to pass. Finally within 30 days, the public gets the last word, up or down, in a national referendum. It represents the true spirit of democracy that’s unimaginable in the US where elitists control everything, elections are a sham, and the people have no say.

That was true for Venezuela earlier, but no longer. In its history, there have been 26 Constitutions since its first in 1821, but none like the 1999 Bolivarian one under Chavez that’s worlds apart from the others. It created a model participatory social democracy that gave all citizens the right to vote it up or down by national referendum and then empowered them (or the government) later on to petition for change.

On August 15, Chavez did that by submitting 33 suggested amendment reforms to the Constitution’s 350 articles and explained it this way: The 1999 Constitution needed updating because it’s “ambiguous (and) a product of that moment. The world (today) is very different from (then). (Reforms are) essential for continuing the process of revolutionary transition” to deepen and broaden Venezuelan democracy. That’s his central aim - to create a “new geometry of power” for the people along with more government accountability to them.

Proposed reforms will have little impact on the nation’s fundamental political structure. They will, however, change laws with regard to politics, the economy, property, the military, the national territory as well as the culture and society and will deepen the country’s social democracy.

The National Assembly (AN) completed its work on November 2 adding 25 additional articles to Chavez’s proposal plus another 11 changes for a total of 69 articles that amend one-fifth of the nation’s Constitution. The most important ones include:

– extending existing constitutional law that guarantees human rights and recognizes the country’s social and cultural diversity;

– building a “social economy” to replace the failed neoliberal Washington Consensus model;

– officially prohibiting monopolies and unjust consolidation of economic resources;

– extending presidential terms from six to seven years;

– allowing unlimited presidential reelections so that option is “the sovereign decision of the constituent people of Venezuela” and is a similar to the political process in countries like England, France, Germany and Australia;

– strengthening grassroots communal councils, increasing their funding, and promoting more of them;

– lowering the eligible voting age from 18 to 16;

– guaranteeing free university education to the highest level;

– prohibiting foreign funding of elections and political activity;

– reducing the work week to 36 hours to promote more employment;

– ending the autonomy of Venezuela’s Central Bank to reclaim the country’s financial sovereignty the way it should be everywhere; today nearly all central banks are controlled by private for-profit banking cartels; Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul wants to end that status in the US and correctly explains the Federal Reserve Bank is neither federal nor does it have reserves; it’s owned and run by Wall Street and the major banks;

– adding new forms of collective property under five categories: public for the state, social for citizens, collective for people or social groups, mixed for public and private, and private for individuals or private entities;

– territorial redefinition to distribute resources more equitably to communities instead of being used largely by economic and political elites;

– prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination and enacting gender parity rights for political candidates;

– redefining the military as an “anti-imperialist popular entity;”

– in cases where property is appropriated for the public good, fair and timely compensation to be paid for it;

– protecting the loss of one’s home in cases of bankruptcy; and

– enacting social security protection for the self-employed.

The National Assembly also approved 15 important transitional dispositions. They relate to how constitutional changes will be implemented if approved until laws are passed to regulate them. One provision is for the legislature to pass 15 so-called “organic laws” that include the following ones:

– a law on “popular power” to govern grassroots communal councils (that may number 50,000 by year end) that Chavez called “one of the central ideas….to open, at the constitutional level, the roads to accelerate the transfer of power to the people (in an) Explosion of Communal (or popular) Power;” five percent of state revenues will be set aside to fund it;

– another promoting a socialist economy for the 21st century that Chavez champions even though he remains friendly to business; and

– one relating to the country’s territorial organization; plus others on education, a shorter workweek and more democratic changes.

Under Venezuelan law, and in the true spirit of democracy, these proposed changes will be for citizens to vote up or down on December 2. The process will be in two parts reversing an earlier decision to do it as one package, yea or nay. One part will be Chavez’s 33 reforms plus 13 National Assembly additions, and the other for the remaining 23 articles.

Coup D’Etat Rumblings Must Be Taken Seriously

Now battle lines are drawn, opposition forces are mobilized and events are playing out violently on Venezuela’s streets. The worst so far was on November 7 when CNN falsely reported “80,000″ anti-Chavez students demonstrated “peacefully” in Caracas to denounce “Hugo Chavez’s attempts to expand his power.” The actual best estimates put it between 2000 and 10,000, and long-time Latin American expert James Petras calls the protesters “privileged middle and upper middle class university students,” once again being used as an imperial tool.

In their anti-government zeal, CNN and other dominant media ignore the many pro-Chavez events writer Fred Fuentes calls a “red hurricane” sweeping the country. An impressive one was held on November 4 when the President addressed hundreds of thousands of supporters who participated in an 8.5 kilometer Caracas march while similar pro-reform rallies took place at the same time around the country. They’re the start of a “yes” campaign for a large December 2 turnout that’s vital as polls show strong pro-reform support by a near two to one margin.

In an effort to defuse it, orchestrated opposition turned violent and officials reported eight people were injured in the November 7 incident. No one was killed, but one was wounded by gunfire when at least “four (masked) gunmen (who looked like provocateur plants, not students) fir(ed) handguns at the anti-Chavez crowd.” In an earlier October demonstration, opposition students clashed with police who kept them from reaching the National Assembly building and a direct confrontation with pro-Chavez supporters that might have turned ugly.

It did on November 7 when violence erupted between pro and anti-government students, but it wasn’t as reported. Venezuelan and US corporate media claimed pro-Chavez supporters initiated the attack. In fact, they WERE attacked by elements opposing the President. They seized this time to act ahead of the referendum to disrupt it and destabilize the government as prelude to a possible planned coup.

One pro-Chavez student explained what happened. She and others were erecting posters supporting a “yes” referendum vote when they were attacked with tear gas and crowds yelling they were going to be lynched. Avila TV had the evidence. Its unedited footage showed an opposition student mob surrounding the School of Social Work area where pro-Chavez students hid for safety. They threw Molotov cocktails, rocks, chairs and other objects, smashed windows, and tried to burn down the building as university authorities (responsible for security) stood aside doing nothing to curtail the violence. Another report was that corporate-owned Univision operatives posing as reporters had guns and accompanied the elements attacking the school in an overt act of complicity by the media.

The pattern now unfolding on Caracas streets is similar to what happened ahead of the April, 2002 aborted coup attempt, and Petras calls it “the most serious threat (to the President) since” that time. The corporate media then claimed pro-government supporters instigated street violence and fired on “unarmed” opposition protesters. In fact, that was later proved a lie as anti-Chavez “snipers” did the firing as part of the plot that became the coup. A similar scheme may now be unfolding in Caracas and on other campuses around the country as well.

In his public comments, Foreign Minister Maduro accused the major media and CNN of misrepresenting events and poisoning the political atmosphere. It’s happening in Venezuela and the US as the dominant media attacks Hugo Chavez through a campaign of vilification and black propaganda.

US Corporate Media on the Attack

On November 12, The Venezuela Information Office (VIO) reported that growing numbers of “US print newspapers lodged attacks against Venezuela” using “outdated cold-war generalizations” and without explaining any of the proposed democratic changes. Among others, they came from the Houston Chronicle that claimed:

– constitutional reforms will “eliminate the vestiges of democracy” in Venezuela when, in fact, they’ll strengthen it, and the people will vote them up or down;

– Chavez controls the electoral system when, in fact, Venezuela is a model free, fair and open democracy that shames its US equivalent. The Chronicle falsely said reforms will strip people of their right to due process. In fact, that’s guaranteed under article 337 that won’t be changed.

VIO also reported on a Los Angeles Times editorial comparing Chavez to Bin Laden. It compounded that whopper by claiming reforms will cause a global recession due to higher oil prices that, of course, have nothing to do with changes in law. In another piece, the LA Times inverted the truth by falsely claiming a public majority opposes reforms. Then there’s the Miami Herald predicting an end to freedom of expression if changes pass and the Washington Post commenting on how high oil prices let Chavez buy influence.

The Post then ran an inflamatory November 15 editorial headlined “Mr. Chavez’s Coup” if which it lied by saying November 7 student protesters “were fired on by gunmen (whom) university officials later ‘identified’….as members of government-sponsored ‘paramilitary groups’ when, in fact, there are no such groups. The editorial went on to say Chavez wants to “complete his transformation into an autocrat (to be able to) seize property….dispose of Venezuela’s foreign exchange reserves….impose central government rule on local jurisdictions and declare indefinite states of emergency” as well as suspend due process and freedom of information. Again, misinformation, deliberate distortion and outright lies from a leading quasi-official US house organ.

Rupert Murdock’s Wall Street Journal weighed in as well with its lead anti-Chavez attack dog and all-round character assassin extraordinaire, Mary Anastasia O’Grady. This writer has tangled with her several times before and earlier commented how one day she’ll have a serious back problem because of her rigid position of genuflection to the most extreme hard-right elements she supports. Her latest November 12 column was vintage O’Grady and headlined “More Trouble for Chavez (as) Students and former allies unite against his latest power grab.”

Like most of her others, this one drips with vitriol and outrageous distortions like calling Chavez a “dictator” when, in fact, he’s a model democrat, but that’s the problem for writers like O’Grady. Absent the facts, they use agitprop instead. O’Grady writes: “Mr. Chavez has been working to remove any counterbalances to his power for almost nine years (and) has met strong resistance from property owners, businesses, labor leaders, the Catholic Church and the media.” Now add opposition well-off students. Omitted is that the opposition is a minority, it represents elitist interests, and Chavez has overwhelming public support for his social democracy and proposed reform changes including from most students O’Grady calls “pro-Chavez goons.”

Once again, she’s on a rampage, but that’s her job. She claims the absurd and people believe her - like saying the media will be censored, civil liberties can be suspended, and government will be empowered to seize private property. He’s a “demagogue,” says O’Grady, waging “class warfare,” but opposition to reform “has led to increased speculation (his) days are numbered.” Wishing won’t make it so, and O’Grady uses that line all the time.

The New York Times is also on the attack in its latest anti-Chavez crusade. It’s been a leading Chavez critic for years, and Simon Romero is its man in Caracas. On November 3, he reported “Lawmakers in Venezuela Approve Expanded Power for Chavez (in a) constitutional overhaul (to) enhance (Chavez’s) authority, (allow) him to be reelected indefinitely, and (give) him the power to handpick rulers, to be called vice-presidents, (and) for various new regions to be created in the country….The new amendments would facilitate expropriations of private property (and allow state) security forces to round up citizens (stripped of their) legal protections” if Chavez declares a state of emergency - to make him look like Pakistan’s Musharraf when he’s mirror opposite.

Romero also quoted Jose Manuel Gonzales, president of Venezuela’s Fedecamaras (chamber of commerce), saying “Venezuelan democracy was buried today” and anti-Chavez Roman Catholic church leaders (always allied with elitists) calling the changes “morally unacceptable.” Then on November 8, Romero followed with an article titled “Gunmen Attack Opponents of Chavez’s Bid to Extend Power” and implied they were pro-Chavez supporters. Again false. Still more came on November 10 headlined “Students Emerge as a Leading Force Against Chavez” in an effort to imply most students oppose him when, in fact, these elements are a minority.

His latest so far is on November 17 titled “Chavez’s Vision Shares Wealth and Centers Power” that in fairness shows the President addressing a huge crowd of supporters in Maturin on November 16. But Romero spoiled it by calling his vision “centralized, oil-fueled socialism (with) Chavez (having) significantly enhanced powers.” Then he quotes Chavez biographer Alberto Barrera Tyszka who embarrassed himself and Romero saying the President is seizing and redirecting “power through legitimate means (and this) is not a dictatorship but something more complex,” the ‘tyranny’ of popularity.” In other words, he’s saying democracy is “tyranny.” The rest of the article is just as bad with alternating subtle and hammer blow attacks against a popular President’s aim to deepen his socially democratic agenda and help his people.

Romero’s measured tone outclasses O’Grady’s crudeness that’s pretty standard fare on the Journal’s notorious opinion page. He’s much more dangerous, however, with a byline in the influential “newspaper of record” because of the important audience it commands.

One other notable anti-Chavez piece is in the November 26 issue of the magazine calling itself “the capitalist tool” - Forbes. It shows in its one-sided commentary and intolerance of opposing views. The article in question, headlined “Latin Sinkholes,” is by right wing economist and long-time flack for empire, Steve Hanke. In it, he aims right at Chavez with outrageous comments like calling him a “negative reformer (who) turned back the clock (and) hails Cuba, the largest open-air prison in the Americas, as his model. His revolution’s enemy is the marketplace.” He then cites a World Bank report saying “Venezuela is tied with Zimbabwe as this year’s champion in smothering economic freedom,” and compounds that lie with another whopper.

Point of fact - Venezuela and Argentina have the highest growth rates in the region and are near the top of world rankings in recent years. Following the devastating oil management 2002-03 lockout, Venezuela’s economy took off and grew at double digit rates in 2004, 05 and 06 and will grow a likely 8% this year. Hanke, however, says “Venezuela’s economic performance under Chavez has been anemic (growing) at an average rate of only 2% per year. In the same article, he aims in similar fashion at Ecuador’s Raphael Correa calling him “ruthlessly efficient (for wanting to) pull off a Bolivarian Revolution in Ecuador.” Hanke and most others in the dominant media are of one mind and never let facts contradict their opinions. Outliers won’t be tolerated even when it’s proved their way works best.

There’s lots more criticism like this throughout the dominant media along with commentators calling Chavez “a dictator, another Hitler (and) a threat to democracy.” Ignoring the rules of imperial management has a price. This type media assault is part of it as a prelude for what often follows - attempted regime change.

Further Venezuela Information Office (VIO) Clarification of Facts on the Ground

On November 15, VIO issued an alert update to dispel media inaccuracies “about Venezuela’s constitutional reforms and the student protests” accompanying them. They’re listed below:

– Caracas has a student population of around 200,000; at most 10,000 participated in the largest protest to date, and VIO estimates it was 6000;

– the major media ignore how the government cooperates with students and made various accommodations to them to be fair to the opposition;

– Venezuelan police have protected student protesters, and article 68 of the Constitution requires they do it; it affirms the right of all Venezuelans to assemble peacefully;

– in addition, student protest leaders linked to opposition parties were granted high-level meetings with government officials to present their concerns;

– on November 1, their student representatives met with directors of the National Electoral Council (CNE) and presented a petition to delay the referendum;

– on November 7, they again met with National Tribunal of Justice officials and presented the same petition;

– on November 12, Minister of Interior and Justice Minister, Pedro Carreno, met 20 university presidents to assure them the government respects university autonomy and their students’ right to assemble peacefully;

– VIO reported what really happened at another November 1 protest after students met with CNE officials; some of them then tried to chain themselves to the building while others charged through police lines and injured six officers; in addition, one student had 20 liters of gasoline but never got to use it criminally; after the incident, the CNE president, Tibisay Lucena, issued a public statement expressing his disappointment about this kind of response to the government’s good faith efforts; and

– VIO said students and university presidents from across the nation filed a document with the Supreme Court on November 14 supporting constitutional reform. Chief justice Luisa Estela Morales praised their coming and said the court’s doors are open to anyone wanting to give an opinion. The dominant media reported nothing on this. It also ignored the government’s 9000 public events throughout the country in past weeks to explain and discuss proposed reforms and that a hotline was installed for comments on them, pro or con.

– finally, when protests of any kind happen in the US, police usually attack them with tear gas, beatings and mass arrests to crush their democratic spirit and prevent it from being expressed as our Constitution’s First and most important amendment guarantees. In Venezuela, the spirit of democracy lives. It never existed in the US, and we want to export our way to everyone and by force if necessary.

Here’s a November 15 breaking news example of our way in action. At 8:00AM, 12 FBI and Secret Service agents raided the Liberty Dollar Company’s office in Evansville, IN and for the next six hours removed two tons of legal Ron Paul Dollars along with all the gold, silver and platinum at the location. They also took all location files and computers and froze Liberty Dollar’s bank accounts in an outrageous police state action against a legitimate business. This move also seems intended to impugn the integrity of a presidential candidate gaining popularity because he defies the bellicose mainstream and wants more people empowerment.

Chavez champions another way and answered his critics at a November 14 Miraflores Presidential Palace press conference where he denounced them for lying about his reform package. He explained his aim is to strengthen Venezuela’s independence and transfer power to the people, not increase his own. “For many years in Venezuela,” he said, “they weakened the powers of the state as part of the neoliberal imperial plan….to weaken the economies of countries to insure domination. While we remained weak, imperialism was strengthened,” and he elaborated.

He then continued to stress his most important reform “is the transfer of power to the people” through an explosion of grassroots communal, worker, student and campesino councils, formations of them into regional and national federations, and the formation of “communes (to) constitute the basic nucleus of the socialist state.” Earlier Chavez stated that democratizing the economy “is the only way to defeat poverty, to defeat misery and achieve the largest sum of happiness for the people.” He’s not just saying this. He believes and acts on it, and that’s why elitists target him for removal even though he wants equity for everyone, even his critics, and business continues to thrive under his government. But not like in the “good old” days when it was all one-way.

Venezuelan Business is Booming - So Why Complain?

Business in Venezuela is indeed booming, and in 2006 the Financial Times said bankers were “having a party” it was so good. So what’s the problem? It’s not good enough for corporate interests wanting it all for themselves and nothing for the people the way it used to be pre-Chavez. Unfair? Sure, but in a corporate-dominated world, that’s how it is and no outliers are tolerated. Thus Hugo Chavez’s dilemma.

Last June, Business Week (BW) magazine captured the mood in an article called “A Love-Hate Relationship with Chavez - Companies are chafing under the fiery socialist. But in some respects, business has never been better.” Writer Geri Smith asked: “Just how hard is it to do business in Venezuela” and then exaggerated by saying “hardly a day passes without another change in the rules restricting companies.” Hardly so, but what is true is new rules require a more equitable relationship between government and business. They provide more benefits to the people and greater attention to small Venezuelan business and other commercial undertakings like an explosion of cooperatives (100,000 or more) that under neoliberal rules have no chance against the giants.

Nonetheless, the economy under Chavez is booming, and business loves it even while it complains. It’s because oil revenues are high, Chavez spends heavily on social benefits, and the poor have seen their incomes more than double since 2004 when all their benefits are included. The result, as BW explains: “Sales of everything from basics” to luxury items “have taken off….and local and foreign companies alike are raking in more money than ever in Venezuela.” In addition, bilateral trade has never been higher, but American business complains it’s caught in the middle of a Washington - Caracas political struggle.

The article continues to show how all kinds of foreign business is benefitting from cola to cars to computer chips. Yet, it restates the dilemma saying “As Chavez continues his socialist crusade, there are signs of rising discontent,” and it’s showing up now on the country’s streets with the latest confrontation still to be resolved, one way or another.

Events Are Ugly and Coming to A Head

Through the dominant media, Washington and Venezuelan anti-Chavez elements are using constitutional reform as a pretext for what they may have in mind - “to arouse the military to intervene” and oust Chavez, as Petras notes in his article titled “Venezuela: Between Ballots and Bullets.” He explains the opposition “rich and privileged (coalition) fear constitutional reforms because they will have to grant a greater share of their (considerable) profits to the working class, lose their monopoly over market transactions to publicly owned firms, and see political power evolve toward local community councils and the executive branch.”

Petras is worried and says “class polarization….has reached its most extreme expression” as December 2 approaches: “the remains of the multi-class coalition embracing a minority of the middle class and the great majority of (workers) is disintegrating (and) political defections have increased (including 14) deputies in the National Assembly.” Add to them former Chavez Defense Minister, Raul Baduel, who Petras believes may be “an aspirant to head up a US-backed right-wing seizure of power.”

The situation is ugly and dangerous, and lots of US money and influence fuels it. Petras puts it this way: “Venezuelan democracy, the Presidency of Hugo Chavez and the great majority of the popular classes face a mortal threat.” An alliance between Washington, local oligarchs and elitist supporters of the “right” are committed to ousting Chavez and may feel now is their best chance. Venezuela’s social democracy is on the line in the crucial December 2 vote, and the entire region depends on it solidifying and surviving.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Steve Lendman News and Information Hour on TheMicroEffect.com Mondays at noon US Central time.

By Stephen Lendman
RINF Alternative News

B’Tselem is the conservative Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories with a well-deserved reputation for accuracy. A group of prominent academics, attorneys, journalists and Knesset members founded the organization in 1989 to “document and educate the Israeli public and policymakers about human rights violations in the Occupied Territories, combat the phenomenon of denial prevalent among the Israeli public, and help create a human rights culture in Israel” to convince government officials to respect human rights and comply with international law.

Its work covers a wide range of human rights issues that include detentions and torture. In May, 2007, it prepared a detailed 100 page report titled “Absolute Prohibition: The Torture and Ill-treatment of Palestinian Detainees” that’s now available in print for those who request it. This article summarizes its findings that represent a joint effort by B’Tselem and HaMoked: Center for the Defense of the Individual that was founded in 1988 to support Palestinian rights during the first intifada in the late 1980s.

Since the early 1990s, B’Tselem published more than ten reports on Israelis’ use of torture and mistreatment of Palestinian detainees. This is the latest one in an effort to raise public awareness and help abolish these abhorrent practices. The findings are based on testimonies solicited from a small “unrepresentative” sample of 73 Palestinian West Bank residents who were arrested between July, 2005 and January, 2006, agreed to tell their stories, and who met predetermined criteria for the study.

They were chosen from the names of 4460 Palestinian detainees whose relatives contacted HaMoked for help to locate their whereabouts. HaMoked provides this service because Israel violates international law and its own military regulations by denying family members any information about who was detained or where they’re being held. From its many years investigating Israeli torture, B’Tselem believes the information in this report accurately reflects the types and extent of Israeli abusive practices.

Torture, abuse or degrading treatment are abhorrent in any form for any reason, and long-standing international law forbids these practices under all circumstances. The four 1949 Geneva Conventions banned any form of “physical or mental coercion” and affirmed sick, wounded, war prisoners and civilians must be treated humanely. All four conventions have a common thread called Common Article Three that requires all non-combatants to be treated humanely at all times. There are no exceptions for any reasons, and violations are grave breaches of Geneva and other international law that constitute crimes of war and against humanity.

Nonetheless, the 1987 Landau Commission (headed by retired Israeli Supreme Court Chief Justice Moshe Landau) cited the “necessary defense” provision in the Penal Law to recommend using “psychological and moderate physical pressure,” to obtain evidence for convictions in criminal proceedings. Its justification was that coercive interrogation tactics were necessary against “hostile terrorist activity” it defined to include not just threats or acts of violence but all activities related to Palestinian nationalism.

Later in September, 1999, Israel’s High Court of Justice (HCJ) responded to the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel’s petition (PCATI) and issued a landmark decision (reversing Landau recommendations) and barred the use of torture against detainees. It was, however, a hollow gesture as at the same time it ruled pressure and a measure of discomfort were legitimate interrogation side-effects but should not be used to break a detainee’s spirit. It then added a giant loophole allowing interrogators to use physical force and avoid prosecutions in “ticking time bomb” cases even though international law allows no exceptions, and Israeli authorities could claim that excuse for anyone in custody.

Since its occupation of Gaza and the West Bank (the OPT) in 1967, Israel imprisoned over 650,000 Palestinians according to the Palestinian peace and justice group MIFTA. That’s equivalent to about one-sixth of the OPT’s population today. The security services currently hold around ten to twelve thousand Palestinian men, women and children in its prisons under deplorable conditions with many under administrative detention without charge. Based on earlier assessments by Hamoked, B’Tselem estimates as many as 85% of them are subjected to torture and mistreatment in custody even though most of them aren’t accused of terrorism. These practices are routinely and systematically used against political activists, students accused of being pro-Islam, sheikhs and religious leaders, people in Islamic charitable organizations, relatives of wanted individuals or any man, woman or child Israel targets for any reason.

B’Tselem’s May, 2007 report states that the Israeli Security Agency (ISA - formerly called the General Security Service or GSS) admits to using “exceptional” methods that include “physical pressure” of interrogation in “ticking bomb” cases that can be used as an excuse to abuse anyone. In addition, law enforcement officials openly admit harsh measures are approved retroactively so that Palestinian detainee rights can be freely violated without fear of recrimination. In other words, ISA interrogators know the rules - don’t ask permission, use any methods you wish, and don’t worry about the consequences after the fact. There won’t be any, and it shows in what detainees told B’Tselem.

They reported being “softened up” for interrogation from the moment of their arrest to when ISA agents took over. Abuses at the outset included beatings, painful binding, swearing, humiliation and denial of basic needs. The ISA procedure then included seven key forms of abuse that violated the detainees’ dignity and bodily integrity. They were inflicted to break their spirit, but international law calls it torture when it includes verified intent, severe pain or suffering, improper motive, and involvement of the state. All those conditions apply to Israeli abusive practices that included:

– isolation that prohibited detainees from contact with family, an attorney or ICRC representatives; this exacerbated detainees’ sense of powerlessness by creating a situation in which they’re completely at the mercy of interrogators; it’s also known to cause them serious psychological harm when continued for extended periods;

– psychological pressure from solitary confinement in “putrid, stifling cells three to six square meters in size” with no windows or access to daylight and fresh air; a fixed overhead light on 24 hours a day; walls made of rough plaster making them uncomfortable or impossible to lean against; a water faucet on one wall and some cells with sinks; a usually dirty and damp mattress and “filthy putrid” blankets on the floor; nothing else in cells; reading and writing materials not allowed; in many cells, toilets were holes in the floor; detainees denied all human contact except for guards and interrogators.

– physical conditions in solitary confinement cells are regulated in Criminal Procedure Regulations issued by Israel’s Minister of Internal Security with the approval of the Knesset Constitution, Law and Justice Committee; they don’t apply to “security detainees,” however, so cells have no bed, chairs and most often no sink; nothing else provided including use of a telephone and right to have visitors provide items; cells were too small to walk around in, and no daily outside exercise was allowed;

– detainees weakened from lack of physical activity, sleep deprivation and inadequate food; they’re denied basic needs like food and liquids, medicines or the right to relieve themselves; throughout long hours of interrogation, they’re shackled to a chair unable to move hands or legs even minimally; they had nutritional deficiencies and food received was inadequate, cold, improperly cooked, flavorless and often repulsive in appearance; many detainees resisted eating as long as possible;

– shackling in the “shabah” position that’s the prolonged and painful binding of detainees’ hands and feet to a standard-sized unupholstered, metal frame, rigid plastic chair fixed to the floor with no armrests; hands tightly bound behind the back in adjustable plastic handcuffs and connected to a ring at the back of the seat to stretch them uncomfortably below the backrest; legs bound to the chair’s front legs; detainees were unable to get up throughout interrogation that on average lasted eight consecutive hours without a break and on the first day ran 12 hours; later in the interrogation period, sessions shortened to four or five hours;

– interrogations only for a small portion of this time; for most if it, interrogators were out of the room; at those times air conditioning turned up to uncomfortably cold levels; most often only one meal served during a day’s interrogation; very sparing toilet privileges allowed; nearly all detainees complained of severe back, neck, shoulder, arms and wrist pain during interrogation; numbness or loss of sensation in limbs also reported; the Israeli High Court of Justice (HCJ) ruled in 1999 that all “shabah” shackling procedures are unlawful since they violate rules for “reasonable and fair interrogation” and injure detainees’ dignity and well-being; ISA interrogators ignore the ruling with impunity;

– cursing and humiliating strip searches of detainees as well as shouting, spitting in the face and other related abusive practices; detainees forced to strip naked and submit to body searches while being yelled at and mocked;

– intimidations made to include threats of physical torture (called “military interrogation”), arrest of family members and destruction of homes;

– using informants (”asafirs”) to get information that’s not abusive as such but is a very questionable method following preparatory “softening up.”

B’Tselem then discussed “special” interrogation methods that mostly involve physical violence:

– sleep deprivation for 30 to 40 hours during which detainees left painfully shackled in interrogation rooms; guards frequently awakened detainees between midnight and 5AM; various type oppressive noises used at night to interfere with sleep;

– use of “dry” beatings that included punching, kicking all parts of the body, striking with rifle butts and face slapping; detainees hit with clubs, helmets and other objects; heads slammed against a wall, floor or hard surface; beatings inflicted when detainees’ hands were bound behind their back, and they were blindfolded; additional beatings during physical inspections with their hands cuffed;

– painful binding with handcuffs or other devices tight enough to cut off blood flow circulation and cause swelling;

– sharp twisting of the head forcefully and suddenly sideways or backwards;

– forced “frog” crouching on tiptoes with cuffed hands behind the back accompanied by shoving or beating until detainees lost their balance and fell forward or backward; this method inflicts pain by increasing pressure on leg muscles and also hurts wrists after falling;

– use of forced “banana” position that involves bending the back in a painful arch while the body is extended horizontally to the floor on a backless chair with arms and feet bound beneath it.

Prison killings also occur like the October 22 one at the notorious Ketziot Detention Center in the Negev desert where 2300 Palestinians are held under very harsh conditions. It happened at 2AM when prison guards began searching tents and strip-searching inmates in a deliberate middle of the night provocation. Prisoners resisted and about 550 members of the Israeli Prison Service (IPS) Metsada riot dispersal unit responded with excessive force by beating them with plastic clubs and rifle butts as well as firing rubber-coated bullets, live ammunition, tear gas and stun grenades that set tents ablaze and caused as many as 250 inmate injuries and at least nine serious ones. During the assault, Mohammed Al Ashqar was killed after being shot in the head.

The Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) maintains that prisoner abuse, repressive tactics and killing Palestinians is official Israeli policy that’s become even worse under current IPS director, Beni Kaniak. PCHR reports he instituted these punitive measures:

– reductions in food and cleaning materials rations;

– additional items prisoners forbidden to have;

– confiscated prisoners’ money and prevented none sent from families to reach them;

– widespread use of solitary confinement;

– periodic movement of prisoners to new facilities to prevent any sense of stability;

– repeated unannounced harsh late night raids like the October 22 one at Ketziot.

These tactics and Palestinian detainee torture and abuse are condoned “under the auspices of the Israeli law enforcement system.” B’Tselem reported since 2001, Israel’s State Attorney’s Office got over 500 complaints of these practices but investigated none of them. Overall, instances of detainee mistreatment are rarely looked into and even fewer ever result in indictments. Further, despite its 1999 ruling, Israel’s High Court of Justice (HCJ) aids ISA interrogations by refusing to accept even one of hundreds of petitions brought before it for redress. HCJ also lets ISA conceal information from detainees that abusive orders were issued against them or that legal petitions were filed on their behalf. It further allows evidence obtained under torture to be used in criminal proceedings.

B’Tselem and HaMoked are committed to ending Israel’s use of torture against Palestinian detainees. They cite the example of the US Army’s September, 2006 Field Manual for Human Intelligence Collector Operations as a proper guide to conducting interrogations even though authorized physical and psychological brutality became official administration policy under George Bush post-9/11. Nonetheless, this manual covers 18 interrogation methods experience showed work under varying situations and conditions. They range from establishing trust between interrogator and detainee to the use of ruses and psychological manipulation. In all cases, they don’t involve torture or other unlawful practices.

It’s one thing to have rules and laws and another to abide by them. The US under George Bush condones and practices “the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency” according to once secret Department of Justice (DOJ) legal opinions. It’s no different in Israel where the ISA systematically and routinely uses banned interrogation measures with impunity. B’Tselem and HaMoked want these practices ended and urge the Israeli government to halt them by enacting enforceable laws “strictly prohibiting torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment” in accordance with international law.

They further recommend every complaint of abuse and torture be investigated by an independent body, persons found to have broken the law to be prosecuted, and that “every detainee receives minimum humane conditions.” Israel claims to be a civilized state. It’s about time it acted like one.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Steve Lendman News and Information Hour on TheMIcroEffect.com Mondays at noon US central time.

Stephen Lendman
RINF Alternative News

The Islamic Republic of Pakistan was established in August,1947 when its majority Muslim population separated from British-controlled India and became a sovereign state. Since then, the country has been plagued by wars, political instability, and a series of military coups as it continues stumbling unsuccessfully toward democracy.

Nominally, Pakistan is a federal democratic republic (declared in 1956) under a semi-presidential system and bicameral legislature consisting of a 100 member Senate and larger lower house National Assembly. The President is considered head of state and armed forces commander and chief (in a civilian capacity) and is elected by the Electoral College of Pakistan comprised of both houses of Parliament and the Provincial Assemblies. The Prime Minister is Pakistan’s head of government, is elected by the National Assembly, and is usually the largest party’s leader.

This is how government is supposed to work in Pakistan, but things are never that simple there. In its entire 60 year history, democracy has been a sham under various elected and military regimes. Musharraf is just the latest military one after he ousted elected Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in an October, 1999 coup. At the time, few people were surprised as tensions between elements of Pakistan’s ruling classes had been building for months. Sharif had grown increasingly unpopular and had Musharraf not deposed him other opposition forces might have done it.

Elected as a champion of democracy, Sharif soon disappointed as did his predecessor, Benazir Bhutto, who’s now trying to reinvent herself as a democrat. Massive corruption accompanied his repressive right-wing rule that made his tenure widely unpopular. He sacked thousands of workers, cut food subsidies, let utility costs skyrocket, banned state union sectors and restricted workers’ rights to demonstrate and strike. At the same time, he and his cronies siphoned off millions of state funds, amassed enormous wealth, and hid it in offshore accounts. Under his rule, state institutions were collapsing, and workers and the poor suffered most. They wanted change, and the army obliged but not the way most people wanted.

Since taking power in 1999 and appointing himself President in June, 2001, Musharraf engaged in a precarious balancing act and ruled repressively. He tried to secure Pakistan’s traditional geopolitical and strategic South and Central Asian interests. In addition, he supported the domestic Islamic fundamentalist right against traditional political elites and popular opposition from below. He also aimed to please Washington post-9/11 under threat of being declared a hostile power if he didn’t and was summarily told by Deputy Secretary of State Armitage his punishment would be “to be bombed back to the stone age.” To avoid that, he stopped supporting the Taliban and provided the Bush administration vital logistical help in its attack and occupation of Afghanistan.

His reward was not being bombed and over $10 billion in military and other aid ever since through a virtual unaccountable blank check and blind eye to human rights abuses under his regime. Since he came to power, Musharraf tried to silence all political dissent and did it through disappearances, arbitrary detentions, extrajudicial killings and torture on the pretext of fighting “terrorism.” And as a “war on terror” ally, he launched military assaults against tribal and Taliban forces in Waziristan and Baluchistan, but that caused internal resentment to build against his increasingly unpopular rule. He also angered elements in the military that resent his lust for power and reckless behavior to hold on to it, and that ultimately may be his undoing.

Things came to a boil when Musharraf suspended the nation’s Chief Justice, Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, last March. He accused him of “misconduct and misuse of authority” as cover to remove a key official he thought might block his plan for another five year term as President along with remaining chief of army staff (COAS) that’s constitutionally illegal. He named an interim head justice, effectively placed Chaudhry under house arrest, and ordered the judicial council to investigate corruption charges.

The response to the move was outrage across the board from opposition parties, lawyers’ organizations and human rights groups. They called the action unconstitutional and rallied in street protests against it. At the same time, Musharraf faces other crises that led to his recent actions. The Bush administration wants more from him against the Taliban as well as assurances he’ll be a reliable ally if the US attacks Iran. In addition, Baluchistan’s insurgency has continued for the past two years, and the army has lost hundreds of troops confronting it. That’s caused mounting defections in its ranks, and public anger over it as well.

There are also economic issues because Musharraf adopted Washington Consensus policies that allowed poverty and discontent to grow hugely under his rule. People needs are ignored, social inequity has increased, food prices have spiraled, unions are cracked down on, and over half of government spending is for the military and debt service. In addition, corruption is rampant, the military practices crony capitalism, and Musharraf gets millions from it according to Pakistani analyst, Ayesha Siddiqa, in her recently published book - Military, Inc.: Inside Pakistan’s Military Economy.” On top of that, democracy in the country is a joke and always has been.

Nonetheless, Musharraf wants to retain power until 2012 and staged a bogus October 6 election to do it. It violated the law and was stage-managed by the military in a process neither free nor fair because the general’s allies dominate the Parliament from having rigged elections five years ago. As expected, Musharraf won easily getting all but five parliamentary votes (252 out of 257) cast and swept the Provincial Assembly balloting as well. Opposition MPs abstained or boycotted the proceeding calling it unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court said no winner could be declared until it rules if Musharraf could run in his joint COAS capacity.

Pakistan has seen increased political upheaval for months. Musharraf wants to keep power by confronting it and intends to stay allied with the Bush administration in the process. At the time though, he said he’d step down as army chief once the Supreme Court certified his election, but the fact remains he has no intention to do it.

Pakistan Post-November 3

That’s how things stood before November 3 when the general staged his second coup by declaring a state of emergency and suspending constitutional rule. But that’s nothing new in Pakistan’s history. The country’s first Constitution was adopted in 1956 but was short-lived. It was abrogated in 1958 when martial law was imposed. A new Constitution emerged in 1962 and then annulled in 1969, again under martial law. A third and current Constitution came in 1973. It was suspended in 1977, restored in 1985 with major changes, suspended again in 1999, and restored in 2002 with more changes until Musharraf acted on November 3.

Few in the country with long memories were surprised, and one analyst said it’s “back to the past again (in Pakistan.” Another put it this way: “Pakistan’s constitutional development illustrate(s)….that a constitutional morality (in the country) has not developed. The document is unable to discipline the political elite, especially the bureaucratic and military elite.” Put another way, these comments illustrate that the country is not yet ready for prime time.

Washburn University law professor Ali Kahn explained on CounterPunch that article 232 of Pakistan’s 1973 constitution “allows the President (as a civilian) to issue a Proclamation of Emergency under grave circumstances.” Kahn also said the Constitution doesn’t allow a “wholesale termination of services of Supreme Court judges,” thus rendering Musharraf’s action an “extra-constitutional coup.” But it’s not the first time he did it. After seizing power in 1999, he ordered all judges to swear a new oath of allegiance to him as military ruler. Thirteen of them on the Supreme Court refused, were sacked, and then replaced by more complaint ones in a blatantly unconstitutional act Musharraf got away with at the time.

Now he’s at it again with a brutal crackdown. After his November 3 action, Musharraf deployed his security forces across the capital; occupied Parliament and the Supreme Court; forced private TV stations off the air; suspended free speech and the press as well as free assembly, association and movement; disrupted mobile phone networks; and placed targeted opposition politicians, lawyers and others under “preventive detention” after empowering police to do it.

He further annulled the Supreme Court’s authority to rule against him, the Prime Minister, or anyone acting on his behalf and made it a crime to ridicule the President, armed forces, Parliament or the courts. Last July, the full Supreme Court bench reinstated Chief Justice Choudhry to his post, but on November 3 he was removed again along with six other Supreme Court justices because they refused to endorse Musharraf’s Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO) emergency decree. They were also placed under house arrest. The president of Pakistan’s Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), Aitzaz Ahsan, and other influential lawyers were also arrested as the general hardens his dictatorial rule.

Why This Measure and Why Now

Musharraf apparently feared an imminent Choudhry Supreme Court ruling against his October 6 reelection and acted preemptively to stop him. Reports in the country were that he likely knew how the Court would rule and decided weeks ago to quash it in his COAS capacity. Benazir Bhutto apparently knew it, too, and left the country to avoid looking complicit so as not to tarnish her pretense to be democratic. She returned to Islamabad November 6, the country is under martial law with the Constitution suspended, and Musharraf, as army chief, is a de facto dictator.

This event is front page news everywhere with Washington and western leaders feigning outrage. Condoleezza Rice calls Musharraf’s move “highly regrettable” while affirming the Bush administration’s support for his regime nonetheless. She claims it’s because he acted up to now to put Pakistan on a “path to democratic rule” that on its face is laughable.

Washington values Musharraf in its “war on terror” because he backs the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, is apparently on board against Tehran, and he lets the Pentagon use Pakistan territory for cross-border incursions against its Iranian neighbor in preparation for something bigger ahead. To prove it means it, the administration signaled on November 4 it will keep aiding the man George Bush calls one of his most important “counterrorism” allies, and America values “stability” over democracy.

After the coup, Tariq Ali wrote on CounterPunch and ZNet that Pakistan’s largest independent TV station, Geo TV, continues broadcasting outside the country, and one of its “sharpest journalists,” Hamid Mir, reported his sources told him “the US Embassy had green lighted the coup because they regarded (Chaudhry) as a nuisance and ‘Taliban sympathiser.’ ” He was at odds with Musharraf for months over key issues, according to Ali, such as “disappeared prisoners, harassment of women and rushed privatizations.” The greater fear, however, was that “he might (also be about to) declare a uniformed President illegal” which is likely true and an easy sell to forces opposed to an unpopular leader.

This has been building for months and was the reason behind Washington’s wanting a power-sharing arrangement between Musharraf and Benazir Bhutto. Those plans unravelled on November 3 even though Bhutto’s criticism of the coup was muted, and reports are she’s back to negotiating a deal while, at the same time, rallying her supporters for an opposition November 9 Rawalpindi rally.

Accomodating Musharraf is her only option to return to power (as Prime Minister) and to assure corruption charges against her are dropped. That part of the deal was sealed October 5 when Musharraf signed a “reconciliation ordinance” absolving her of all outstanding charges of looting up to $2 billion in public funds during her tenure. In her final year in office in 1996, Transparency International, an independent watchdog group, named Pakistan the second most corrupt country in the world even though its standing later improved modestly.

Fast-Moving Events in Pakistan

Pakistan remains in turmoil under martial law. Thousands have been arrested including hundreds of lawyers, opposition politicians, journalists and students according to independent sources although the Interior Ministry acknowledges only 1800. In addition, pitched battles are on the streets, and all George Bush can say is we’ll “continue to work with (Musharraf and hope) he will restore democracy as quickly as possible.” Military and other aid will continue, so it’s business as usual, but that’s to be expected from two nations with contempt for the law.

Consider this New York Times November 7 quote from prominent Islamabad lawyer Babar Sattar and relate it to US conditions post-911: “How do you function as a lawyer when the law is what the general says it is?” Consider also what lawyer and former cabinet member Athar Minallah said about Pakistan’s Supreme Court: “When the (Court) started acting (independently) for the first time in 60 years, they (Musharraf) came down very hard. In the past, the Supreme Court had always connived with the establishment and the military.”

That’s the state of things under George Bush. He unconstitutionally usurped “Unitary Executive” power to claim the law is what he says it is and once told Republican colleagues the Constitution is “just a goddamned piece of paper.” In addition, federal courts, including the Supreme Court, are stacked with supportive right wing justices, and the nation is about to get a new Attorney General who condones torture and approves of arbitrary executive power.

Where this will lead in the US next year and beyond is open to debate. In Pakistan it’s anyone’s guess as well as things remain fluid and events are breaking fast. January, 2008 Parliamentary elections are scheduled but are likely to be delayed or suspended even though on November 8 Musharraf is now saying, through his state media, the original timetable will be moved back to mid-February. Maybe not according to some observers who believe the political process is on hold until he secures his position as President for the next five years and most importantly continues as army chief because that’s where the real power in the country lies. Pakistan’s Constitution allows the legislature’s tenure to be extended up to a year so it’s possible that’s the plan.

In the meantime, the Pentagon, Bush administration, Democrats and corporate media back Musharraf even if some in his own military may not. Washington badly needs him with Afghanistan deteriorating badly and Iraq already a hopeless cause. It’s even more important given the reluctance of NATO and “coalition” defense ministers to commit more troops and a growing anxiety of some to pull out of Bush’s wars entirely. With this backdrop, Musharraf portrays himself as a rock of stability so who in Washington cares how he solidifies power or if he’ll accept Bhutto as Prime Minister. For Bush and Democrats, only the “war on terror” matters so any leader backing it is an ally. Bottom line despite muted criticism - democratic credentials are not an issue. Fact is they never are.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Steve Lendman News and Information Hour on TheMicroEffect.com Mondays at noon US central time.

By Stephen Lendman
RINF Alternative News

On September 20, Haaretz reported: “The security cabinet voted unanimously yesterday to increase sanctions against the Hamas-run Gaza Strip (and declare) the region a ‘hostile entity.’ ” A further statement read: “We will reduce the amount of megawattage we provide to the Strip, and Hamas will have to decide whether to provide electricity to hospitals or weapons lathes.” Israeli officials also decided to punish Gazans by restricting:

– fuel as well as electricity from Israel to Gaza;

– the passage of goods and people through border crossings that are already severely restricted; and

– visits to prisoners even further than how limited they are already.

An increased monitoring of funds was also announced as well as stating border crossings would be closed for up to 48 hours in response to (crude small homemade) Qassam rocket fire, and that Israel would supply nothing further to Gaza residents “except for (whatever Israel considers) humanitarian needs.” Hamas’ response was swift and sharp. Spokesman Fawzi Barhoum called the cabinet’s decision and sanctions a “declaration of war” and said “we must unite the ranks to come together in the conflict with the cruel enemy….This is another attempt to force us to surrender (our sovereignty).”

At first, the world community hardly blinked with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon acting as irresponsibly as his predecessor. He urged Israel to reconsider its decision but denounced Hamas for its “continued indiscriminate rocket fire….into Israel (and that he) understand(s) Israel’s security concerns over this matter.” Nothing in his statement mentioned Israel’s daily attacks and killings of Palestinians or the deepening humanitarian crisis in Gaza after Israel closed its borders last June, isolated the Territory from the outside world, and cut off most essential supplies and services to its people.

Karen Koning-Abu Zayd is the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) Commissioner-General for Palestine Refugees. On October 30, she showed more concern than her boss by saying Israel’s decision to cut fuel and electricity to Gaza violates international law. She noted Israel’s concern, but stressed “how can you want to punish people, all of them in Gaza (as) most of them….are not behind these activities….if you don’t have electricity, you don’t have water, you probably don’t have food.” This action will have a “very serious” effect on the population.

Two other UN officials also went public with their criticisms. UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Jean Ziegler was one of them. He called on the European Commission to suspend commercial relations with Israel until it stops preventing Palestinians from receiving food without restrictions. He reported to the General Assembly that 22% of Palestinian children already suffer from malnutrition because they lack access to food.

UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, John Dugard, also weighed in. He called on State Members in their capacity as High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention. He asked them to ensure Israel complies with its provisions regarding the protection of civilians in times of war. One of them under article 54 states: “Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited,” as well as “attack(ing), remov(ing), or render(ing) useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population such as foodstuffs, agricultural areas (for their production), crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies and irrigation works…. ” Article 55 then obligates an occupying power to ensure “the food and medical supplies of the population.”

Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) chief Walter Fust also expressed alarm after a recent Gaza visit. He called conditions “untenable” and “shocking” with 30% of children (in his judgment) malnourished and hospitals and health centers in a precarious state.

Things then changed on October 30. Haaretz reported Israel’s “High Court of Justice ordered the state to respond within five days to a petition submitted by dozens of human rights groups (10 of them according to other reports) to halt its (Gaza fuel and electricity) cutoff,” but it stopped short of banning the action. Justices may have been concerned after the European Union (EU) criticized Israel’s move on October 29 calling it an act of “collective punishment.” EU commissioner for external relations, Benita Ferraro-Waldner, said she was “very concerned” about the decision, that it’s not a solution, and that the EU doesn’t “want the population to suffer.”

It’s hard knowing if this signals change or whether to take the commissioner’s concern seriously. The European community, along with Israel and the US, denounced Hamas’ democratic election in January, 2006 as the legitimate Palestinian government. It’s response ever since was to end all outside aid and impose crushing sanctions and an economic embargo on the Territories as well as politically isolate the new Hamas government.

The results were devastating. Even before the latest crisis, Gaza’s industrial production had fallen 90% and its agricultural output was half its pre-2007 level. In addition, nearly all construction had stopped, unemployment is around 80%, and the level of poverty is shocking based on World Bank data showing over 80% of Gazans live on less than $2.40 a day. Further, the Palestinian Al Huq association of jurists called Israel’s summer, 2005 Gaza disengagement fraudulent as “Israel retains full control of the Gaza Strip’s land borders, population registry, airspace and territorial sea,” and the IDF invades the Territory at will.

The EU was silent about this and Israel’s overall repressive rule, land expropriations, daily incursions, and regular attacks and killings in the Territories. It was unconcerned about the internal violence on Gaza streets last spring and gave tacit support to anti-Hamas US and Israeli-armed Fatah (Protective Security Force) paramilitary death squads led by warlord Mohammed Dahlan. It ignored Hamas’ months-long unilateral cease-fire, its ending all suicide bombings, its call for peace, and its willingness to recognize the Jewish state if Israel accepts and recognizes a Palestinian one.

Its founder, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin said at the time Hamas would end its struggle “if the Zionists ended its occupation of Palestinian territories and stopped killing Palestinian women, children and innocent civilians.” Israel and the West rejected the offer and all good faith efforts. They opted instead to punish Palestinians collectively and deny them their legitimate rights.

After Hamas defeated Fatah paramilitaries, the EU backed Mahmoud Abbas’ quisling West Bank government. It ignored Gaza’s punishing isolation and Oxfam Great Britain’s grim warning of the “increasing desperation of Gazans as shortages of fuel, water and food are reported.” It failed to denounce Israel and the US for creating the crisis affecting 1.5 million people. It stood allied instead with Washington and the Olmert government and did so ever since. The same is true of the UN. It’s hard thinking that’s changed, and it’ll take more than occasional high-sounding comments from a few officials to prove it.

In the meantime, Israel began reducing fuel supplies on October 28, and Gaza’s deputy Petroleum Authority director, Ahmed Ali, said diesel fuel and gasoline deliveries were 30% lower than usual. He then added: “This is a serious warning (and) the people of Gaza….are now in danger. The hospitals, water pumping station and sewage will be affected by the lack of fuel.” Israel’s Dor Alon energy company confirmed the reduction, and the Defense Ministry said the Sufa crossing used for transporting fuel to Gaza was closed.

On October 25, Defense Minister Ehud Barak ordered the phased cutoff, and his deputy, Matan Vilnai, said “We will dramatically reduce the flow of electricity (by about two-thirds) from Israel over several weeks” to let Gaza supply its own electricity that’s impossible as Israel knows. He added this measure is part of Israel’s “deeper, broader disengagement.” He neglected to say it’s an illegal act of collective punishment as Gaza relies on Israel for all its fuel (that includes diesel, gasoline and natural gas) and most of its electricity.

The Palestinian Center for Human Rights reported Gaza needs over 220 megawatts of electricity and consumes about 200 megawatts, 60% of which is bought from Israel. The Gaza Electricity Generation Plant supplies 65 megawatts and another 17 megawatts are bought from Egypt. When Israel directly controlled the Strip, it let Gazans establish enough electrical capacity for only 38% of their needs. Then during “Operation Summer Rain” in June, 2006, the IDF assaulted the Territory, bombed its only electrical power plant, and destroyed its main transformers with missiles. Months of rebuilding restored less than two-thirds of its original 100 megawatt capacity and made the area mostly dependent on Israel for supply.

After declaring Gaza a “hostile entity” on September 19, that’s now in jeopardy unless Israel reverses its stance and reconsiders other collective punishment measures as well. Currently, its authority allows only nine basic materials to enter the Territory. That hit local markets hard, and most ran out of many items causing sharp price rises up to 500% in some cases. Items banned include some medicines, furniture, electrical appliances, cows and cigarettes while others restricted are fruits, milk and other dairy products.

Then there’s the energy plan. It’s to begin cutting electricity for 15 minutes, then a half hour with daily increases as long as the punitive measure remains in effect that doesn’t apply to hospitals and other “vital installations,” Vilnai said. Things are now on hold, however, after Attorney General Menachem Mazuz temporarily halted the electricity cutoff following a “debate” in his office on October 29. He was apparently acting on UN and EU comments as well as his own High Court’s order to respond to a petition by 10 human rights organizations in five days to stop this punitive action. Mazuz said Israel had a right to sever economic and commercial ties with Gaza, but its government is responsible for the Territory and more “research” was needed before cutting off electricity. What he meant, of course, is he’ll await a High Court ruling and then act.

Haaretz reported on November 3 that “State Prosecution on (November 2) defended the government’s decision (to cut fuel and electricity in a letter to the High Court) claiming it is not a form of collective punishment.” It said that the decision was appropriate and gave the same tired reasons it often uses to justify its harshest actions. Defense Minister Ehud Barak agreed. In a November 4 Jerusalem meeting with Condoleezza Rice, he assured the Secretary that “The sanctions (won’t) cause a humanitarian crisis” without further elaboration.

Israel’s infrastructure minister, Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, agrees as well and feels these measures are needed and are a final attempt to avoid a military action some observers see coming. Israel’s Gaza commander, General Moshe Tamir, already admits to almost nightly incursions into the Territory and practically signaled a planned assault.

Haaretz also reported on October 30 that Israel’s Defense Forces (IDF) conducted their largest military drill in the north Galilee region since the 2006 Lebanon war. It ran four days and involved ground, air and naval forces as well as intelligence and S4 units. The paper noted a similar exercise preceded the Lebanon war so it happening now is ominous.

The Jerusalem Post echoed that sentiment on October 31. It quoted Defense Minister Ehud Barak saying a large-scale IDF operation against “Palestinian rocket squads” was drawing near, and “the time is approaching when we’ll have to undertake a broad operation in Gaza.” The report mentioned Gaza commander Tamir saying Hamas was “building an army” and had smuggled in unprecedented capabilities. Israeli Shin Bet Security Agency chief Yuval Diskin claimed Hamas had accumulated over 112 tons of explosives, and Tamir signaled Israel is prepared to act as a result. The Jerusalem Post earlier quoted IDF Southern Command chief General Yoav Galant saying he’s been “pushing for a massive operation for the past year” and now may be close to getting one.

Hamas responded to this growing threat on November 1. It called on all Palestinian resistance factions to declare a high state of alert in anticipation of a large-scale Israeli incursion into the Territory. It issued a statement saying: “Hamas is well-prepared to engage in a battle with the Israeli army, once (Gaza) is invaded, as Hamas is confident of victory, given its strong trust in God.”

A major IDF assault may be imminent as Israel continues attacking civilians in Gaza and the West Bank daily. The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights report for the last week of October said 15 Palestinians were killed, 29 others wounded, and 78 more arrested. In addition, during the seven day period, IDF forces made 49 hostile incursions into the Territories, and for the past 16 months maintained a devastating siege on the population.

Washington’s Upcoming Annapolis Peace Offensive

Middle East observers know what most honest ones will admit. The intermittent, now revived “peace process” is merely pretense head fake. It’s more theater than substance or a serious effort to resolve this long-running conflict, and look at the proof:

– daily IDF incursions, attacks and killings in the Territories;

– continued land expropriations;

– crop destruction and agricultural restrictions;

– home demolitions;

– restricted movement through hundreds of checkpoints as well as curfews and border and other closures any time for any reason;

– building permit restrictions and construction prohibitions;

– denial of essential services; and

– other politically motivated daily repression and “matrix of control” harassment.

This all continues without letup with the full acquiescence and support of the West plus billions in annual aid from Washington.

Furthermore, Hamas is barred from the peace process, and without its participation there can be none. Its exclusion and the desperate conditions in the Territories expose the glaring hypocrisy overhanging the staged affair. Just like the fraudulent “road map,” this latest incarnation is going nowhere with more proof on November 4 from Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni. She told Secretary Rice Israel’s security comes first, and “only then (can there be) a Palestinian state.”

Electronic Intifada editor Ali Abunimah compares the process to “one of those big budget Broadway extravaganzas; they go on for years (and) with each revival the cast changes,” but the outcome is always the same as intended.

Abunimah notes the “latest revival” has Condoleezza Rice in a lead role play-acting to end the long-running conflict. George Bush is on stage as well trying to cast off his image as a warmonger and enabler of “Israeli colonization” and now pretends to want peace “with an eye on his legacy.”

And so it goes with the other key actors in this melodrama pretending the process is real - quisling Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas who agreed to let Washington act as a “neutral arbitrator,” Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert who jumped on the idea, and “special guest star” and reinvented war criminal Tony Blair in his new role as Middle East peace envoy. Last June he ended a failed 10 year run as UK prime minister when his audience booed him off the stage. He’s been practically invisible since but will resurface in Annapolis later in November once a firm date is announced.

Abunimah notes how reality at times intervenes. It did in mid-October after Abbas’ representatives met with Israeli counterparts to arrange a “declaration of principles” for the Annapolis meeting that are still unresolved. The IDF expropriated 300 more acres of Palestinian land near “occupied East Jerusalem (to expand the huge) Jewish-only settlements (bisecting) the West Bank (that) render a contiguous Palestinian state impossible.”

Land seizures have been continuous since the 1993 Oslo Accords. For the past 14 years, Israel expropriated an area the size of Washington, DC for Jewish-only development knowing none of the “peace process” participants would object. It’s been so extreme that noted Israeli historian Ilan Pappe believes the settlements, army bases, roads and separation wall will let Israel annex almost half the West Bank by 2010 and dispossess Palestinians now living there.

And now Abunimah explains “Rice feigns (gallingly hypocritical) frustration saying: “Frankly it is time for the establishment of a Palestinian state.” She knows Israel won’t allow one nor will Palestinians accept it under the current bantustan configuration and the condition Pappe describes.

Nor is one possible given the power of extremist elements in the Israeli government led by proto-fascist Deputy Prime Minister Avigdor Lieberman. Haaretz reported he insists any Israeli-Palestinian conflict resolution “include Israel’s Arab citizens (on) the basis (of) a land swap and population transfer.” He means no peace is possible unless 1.4 million Israeli Arab citizens are ethnically cleansed from the country. Nor will he allow core Palestinian issues to be discussed in Annapolis (or elsewhere) like “borders, settlements and the (right of return for) Palestinian refugees expelled by Israel.”

And the beat goes on. Life in occupied Palestine is intolerable and worsening as the latest sham peace extravaganza is heading to Annapolis once its “opening night” is announced with fanfare and phoniness.

A different sort of event will take place in London November 17 and 18 hosted by the London Middle East Institute and organized by the London One State Group and SOAS Palestine Society at London University. It’s called “Challenging the Boundaries: A Single State in Palestine/Israel.” It will include panel discussions and individual speakers featuring noted participants like author and Middle East expert Gilbert Achcar, Electronic Intifada editor Ali Abunimah, noted author Nur Masalha, and Israeli historian and expert on Israel and Zionism Ilan Pappe who’s now teaching at the UK University of
Exeter. The conference is about alternatives to a two-state paradigm and will advance ideas of a one-state vision that can become a workable political agenda for what seems to be the only credible way forward.

In another development, Al-Ahram Weekly reports Hamas will air its views at a “national conference” in Damascus that will coincide with Annapolis. Other Palestinian factions will also attend including the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) in a significant break with Fatah. Participating as well are the Damascas-based PFLP-General Command, the Islamic Jihad organization and senior Fatah members Farouk Al-Qaddumi and Hani Al-Hassan in a show of protest against “Abbas’ line” and “his subservience to America and Israel.” In addition to organized groups, hundreds of Palestinian and Arab intellectuals may attend that will add credibility to the event.

Conference organizers state they wish to reassert their opposition to “the attempted liquidation of the Palestinian cause” with special emphasis on “the right of return of five million (or more) Palestinian refugees.” They also intend “not to give political cover to US-Israeli schemes to terminate the Palestinian cause in Annapolis (that is) hypocritical (and) insincere.” And they further state: “The PLO leadership in Ramallah no longer represents the Palestinian people (because) it is a prisoner of the Israeli occupation and has lost whatever semblance of independence and free will it may once have had.” In addition, “the PLO leadership (lacks legitimacy as it’s) unelected, undemocratic and anachronistic.”

Hamas also revealed plans to follow Damascus with meetings in Gaza and the West Bank to further highlight what Hamas and others call “this mockery” of a US-Israeli-Abbas effort to compromise or scrap issues vital to the Palestinian people like the right of return and status of Jerusalem. Ideas to be discussed include selecting “alternative and parallel national bodies” to counter Fatah’s disregard for “the Palestinian national consensus.” Under consideration is a new National Council and Executive Committee in direct opposition to Abbas who (along with Secretary Rice) tried unsuccessfully to abort Hamas’ initiative. Little is expected from Annapolis, and some believe that may trigger a third Intifada and swing momentum to Hamas.

Shin Bet’s Yuval Diskin thinks not but others disagree. Oslo came out of the first Intifada, and Israel’s Gaza disengagement followed the second one. Nothing is off the table this time. Stay closely tuned.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Steve Lendman News and Information Hour on TheMicroEffect.com Mondays at noon US central time.

By Stephen Lendman
RINF Alternative News

The latest October Reuters/Zogby Index shows record low approval ratings for George Bush and Congress - 24% for the president that looks almost giddy compared to the bottom-scraping 11% level for the nation’s lawmakers. It’s more evidence that the criminal class in Washington is bipartisan and hoping November, 2008 will change things is pure fantasy.

A voter groundswell sent a message last November to end the Iraq war and occupation. Instead, the Democrat-led 110th Congress continues to fund it generously. In May, the House overwhelmingly passed HR 1585, the FY 2008 National Defense Authorization Act. It calls for $506.8 billion for DOD plus $141.8 billion (of the $150.5 billion White House request) for ongoing Iraq and Afghanistan operations. The Senate followed with a similar bill on October 1 with only three opposing votes against it. Neither bill proposed an Iraq withdrawal timeline, and final legislation has yet to be sent to the president.

Add on further amounts like George Bush’s latest $46 billion request putting FY 2008 supplemental war-funding above $196 billion and rising. Congress will approve it and more in spite of Democrats signaling a protracted budget showdown ahead. The only showdown will be over how much pork will be added to the final appropriation and for what purpose.

Democrats also back the administration’s push to attack Iran by echoing what the Israeli Lobby calls “The Iranian Threat.” War with Iran is AIPAC’s top priority, and key Democrats in Congress are on board hyping a non-existent threat to prepare the public for what may be coming. Earlier in March, Speaker Pelosi removed a provision from an appropriations bill that would have required George Bush to get congressional approval before attacking Iran. Then in July, the Senate unanimously (97 - 0) passed the Lieberman amendment that practically endorses war if it’s declared. It affirmed George Bush’s baseless charges that Tehran funds, trains and arms Iraqi resistance fighters “who are contributing to the destabilization of Iraq and are responsible for the murder of members of the United States Armed Forces.”

The House added its voice on September 25 by voting 397 - 16 for the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007 that imposes sanctions on non-US companies investing in Iran’s oil sector. The next day the Senate acted again by overwhelmingly (79 - 22) passing the Kyl-Lieberman amendment that calls for US policy to “combat, contain and (stop Iran by use of) diplomatic, economic, intelligence and military instruments.” Other bellicose language in the resolution stated:

– “the United States should designate Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corp as a foreign terrorist organization….and place (it) on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists….it should be the policy of the United States to stop inside Iraq the violent activities and destabilizing influence of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies.”

This measure helped smooth the way for George Bush’s October 25 unilateral imposition of sanctions discussed below. It was an unprecendented move against another nation’s military Senator Jim Webb (voting no) said provides “a backdoor method of gaining congressional validation for military action, without one hearing (or) serious debate (and that the action) is Dick Cheney’s fondest pipe dream.”

George Bush acted provocatively twice. At his October 17 news conference, he menacingly said he believes Iran “want(s) to have the capacity, the knowledge in order to make a nuclear weapon….it’s in the world’s interests to prevent them from doing so….If Iran had a nuclear weapon, it would be a dangerous threat to world peace….So….if you’re interested in avoiding World War III” this possibility must be prevented implying war (potentially using first-strike nuclear weapons) is the way to do it.

On October 25 Bush acted again to counter China and Russia’s opposition to sweeping UN Security Council measures. He unilaterally imposed harsh new sanctions against Iran’s Revolutionary Guard (IRGC), its Quds Force, three state-owned banks and over 20 Iranian companies. The IRGC was named as “proliferators of weapons of mass destruction,” and the Quds Force was called a “supporter of terrorism.”

Democrats buy this stuff and ignore IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei’s latest October 28 statement that repeated his earlier ones. He said he had no evidence Iran is building or seeks to build nuclear weapons and accused the Bush administration of adding “fuel to the fire” with its bellicose rhetoric. The “loyal opposition” prefers instead to accept White House press secretary Dana Perino’s October 29 charge that Iran “is a country that is enriching and reprocessing uranium and the reason one does that is to lead towards a nuclear weapon.”

This accusation and new administration sanctions ratchet up tension further and amount to what one analyst called “a warning shot across the bow (that stops short of) a signal we’re going to war,” but it’s got other observers thinking the likelihood is greater than ever with Congress on board. The move also caught Vladimir Putin’s attention in Lisbon where he was attending an EU leader summit. “Why worsen the situation and bring it to a dead end” with sanctions or military action,” he said. He then added a pointed reference to George Bush stating: “Running around like a madman with a razor blade, waving it around, is not the best way to resolve the situation.”

Newly imposed sanctions won’t affect US companies. They’re already barred from doing business directly in Iran, but they do target their foreign subsidiaries and other foreign-based ones with threats of penalties and exclusion from the US market. It remains to be seen how effective they’ll be as key EU countries as well as China, Russia, India and others have growing economic ties to Iran. They won’t be eager to sever them or join the US campaign for a wider Middle East war. In addition, Iran is a major oil supplier. With the price of crude touching $96 a barrel on November 1 (and December futures up to $125), any cutoff or severe reduction of supply guarantees it’ll top $100 and make a global economic slowdown or recession much more likely.

Nonetheless, the Bush war machine presses on with congressional Democrats aboard. Presidential candidates from both parties support Bush’s move, and Democrat front runner Hillary Clinton is as hawkish as Joe Lieberman and John McCain. They both endorse attacking Iran, and McCain believes striking Iran’s nuclear sites “is a possibility that is maybe closer to reality than we are discussing tonight.”

Clinton is just as bellicose, is close to AIPAC, and in an earlier speech said: “The security and freedom of Israel must be decisive and remain at the core of any American approach to the Middle East. (We dare not) waver from this (firm) commitment.” She was also quoted in the current issue of Foreign Affairs saying: “Iran poses a long-term strategic challenge to the United States, our NATO allies and Israel. It is the country that most practices state-sponsored terrorism, and it uses its surrogates to supply explosives that kill US troops in Iraq….(Iran) must not not be permitted to build or acquire nuclear weapons. If Iran (won’t comply with) the will of the international community, all options must remain on the table.”

The only give in her position (that’s hardly any at all) is wanting congressional approval for any future military action. Up to now, that’s been pro forma rubber stamp. It’ll be no different if George Bush orders an attack as congressional Democrat leaders, including Hillary Clinton, have already signaled their approval.

John Richardson wrote on October 18 in Esquire.com that two former high-ranking Bush administration National Security Council officials fear the worst. They’re Middle East experts Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann, and they’re reacting publicly. They believe war with Iran has been in the cards for years, and we’re “getting closer and closer to the tripline.” Key for them was the unprecedented move to name Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Quds Force a terrorist organization.

Richardson lays out what they think will happen: UN diplomacy will fail because Russia and China won’t agree to harsh sanctions. Iran’s policies won’t change without “any meaningful incentive from the US. That will trigger a….White House (response with) a serious risk (George Bush) would decide to order an attack on the Iranian nuclear installations and probably a wider target zone.” This, in turn, “would result in a dramatic increase in attacks on US (Iraq) forces, attacks by proxy forces like Hezbollah, and an unknown reaction from….Afghanistan and Pakistan, where millions admire Iran’s resistance.” Attacking Iran “could engulf America in a war with the entire Muslim world.” The article also quotes former CIA officer and author Robert Baer (from Time magazine) saying an unnamed highly placed White House official believes “IEDs are a casus belli for this administration. There will be an attack on Iran.”

The London Times raised the betting odds further for one in its October 21 report. Columnist Michael Smith wrote: UK defense sources disclosed that “British (Special Air Service - SAS) forces have crossed into Iran several times (along with other special forces, the Australian SAS and American special-operation troops) as part of a secret border war against the Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s Al-Quds special forces.” They engaged in “at least half a dozen intense firefights” along the Iran-Iraq border in what looks like deliberate US-UK efforts to provoke Iran into providing justification for a major American attack.

Speculation one looms has been around for some time, and if it comes, it won’t surprise observers like Iran expert Gary Sick. He was a military advisor to three US presidents and was recently quoted in Germany’s Der Spiegel magazine saying: The recent shift in US emphasis to “Iran’s support for terrorism in Iraq….is a complete change and is potentially dangerous.” That’s because it’s much easier proving (true or not) Iran supports Iraqi resistance fighters than it poses an imminent nuclear threat to the world.

Der Spiegel also reports on a leak “by an official close to” Dick Cheney that he’s “already asked for a backroom analysis of how a war with Iran might begin (and in) the scenario concocted by (his) strategists, Washington’s first step would be to convince Israel to fire missiles at Iran’s (Natanz) uranium enrichment plant.” That would provoke Iran to retaliate and give the Bush administration the excuse it needs “to attack military targets and nuclear facilities in Iran.” That’s OK with Democrats if it comes including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Black Agenda Report writer Margaret Kimberly calls a “Quisling” and an “absolute disaster for the Democrat Party and….the entire nation (because of her) eagerness to cooperate with the Bush regime (and) her incompetence in leading Congress.”

Other key Democrats share those qualities and that assures extremist Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey’s confirmation won’t be challenged. That’s in spite of reports top Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats Chairman Leahy and Majority Whip Durbin say their votes depend on his admitting waterboarding is torture. During his confirmation hearing, Mukasey was evasive and noncommittal.

When asked during questioning, he incredulously claimed not to know what waterboarding is even though it’s been around for centuries and what it entails is common knowledge. Mukasey would only say “IF (waterboarding) is torture, it is unconstitutional.” He then repeated the White House line “We don’t torture” even though he knows DOJ legal opinions confirm the Bush administration condones the practice by endorsing “the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency.”

He should also know about the ACLU’s new “Administration of Torture” book based on FOIA requested evidence. It documents that “marching orders” for torture came from Donald Rumsfeld so the White House had to be involved as well. That includes George Bush and Alberto Gonzales, who in 2002 as White House Counsel, called the Geneva Conventions “quaint” and “obsolete” and as Attorney General authorized physical and psychological brutality as official administration policy.

Mukasey promises business as usual as AG and confirmed it by claiming “I don’t think (Guantanamo prisoners) are mistreated.” He also supports the president’s right to imprison US citizens without charge and deny “unlawful enemy combatants” their habeas rights, but that’s OK with Democrats on the Judiciary Committee with a large party majority sure to agree.

In a follow-up letter Senator Leahy requested, Mukasey was just as evasive and noncommittal as during his confirmation hearing. He sidestepped commenting on presidential surveillance powers limits beyond what FISA allows and continued to avoid admitting waterboarding is torture. Instead he said: ….”there is a real issue (whether) the techniques presented and discussed at the hearing and in your letter are even part of any program of questioning detainees.”

He then added if confirmed he’ll concentrate on “solving problems cooperatively with Congress,” advise George Bush appropriately on any “technique” he determines to be unlawful, and the president is bound by constitutional and treaty obligations that prohibit torture. This man and the president defile the law and practically boast about it, but Democrats will confirm him anyway as the next Attorney General.

House Democrats Pass New Terrorism Prevention Law

Almost without notice, the House overwhelmingly (404 - 6) passed the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (HR 1955) on October 23 some are calling “the thought crime prevention bill.” It now moves to the Senate where if passed and signed by George Bush will establish a commission and Center of Excellence to study and act against thought criminals.

The bill’s language hides its true intent as “violent radicalization” and “homegrown terrorism” are whatever the administration says they are. Violent radicalization is defined as “adopting or promoting an extremist belief system (to facilitate) ideologically based violence to advance political, religious or social change.” Homegrown terrorism is used to mean “the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily with the United States or any (US) possession to intimidate or coerce the (US) government, the civilian population….or any segment thereof (to further) political or social objectives.”

Along with other repressive laws enacted post-9/11, HR 1955 may be used against any individual or group with unpopular views - those that differ from established state policies even when they’re illegal as are many under George Bush. Prosecutors henceforth will be able to target anti-war protesters, believers in Islam, web editors, internet bloggers and radio and TV show hosts and commentators with views the bill calls “terrorist-related propaganda.”

If this legislation becomes law, which is virtually certain, any dissenting anti-government action or opinion may henceforth be called “violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism” with stiff penalties for anyone convicted. This bill now joins the ranks of other repressive post-9/11 laws like Patriot I and II, Military Commissions and Protect America Acts that combined with this one are grievous steps toward a full-blown national security police state everyone should fear and denounce.

Blame it on Congress and the 110th Democrat-led one that was elected to end these practices but just made them worse….and there’s still 14 months to go to the term’s end with plenty of time left to vaporize Iran and end the republic if that’s the plan.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Steve Lendman News and Information Hour on TheMicroEffect.com Mondays at noon US central time.

The Bank of the South: An Alternative to IMF and World Bank Dominance 

By Stephen Lendman
RINF Alternative News

In July, 2004, the IMF and World Bank commemorated the 60th anniversary of their founding at Bretton Woods, NH to provide a financial framework of assistance for the postwar world after the expected defeat of Germany and Japan. With breathtaking hypocrisy, an October, 2004 Development Committee Communique stated: “As we celebrate the 60th anniversary of the Bretton Woods Institutions….we recommit ourselves to supporting efforts by developing countries to pursue sustainable growth, sound macroeconomic policies, debt sustainability, open trade, job creation, poverty reduction and good governance.” Phew.

In fact, for 63 hellish years, both these institutions achieved mirror opposite results on everything the above comment states. From inception, their mission was to integrate developing nations into the Global North-dominated world economy and use debt repayment as the way to transfer wealth from poor countries to powerful bankers in rich ones.

The scheme is called debt slavery because new loans are needed to service old ones, indebtedness rises, and borrowing terms stipulate harsh one-way “structural adjustment” provisions that include:

– privatizations of state enterprises;

– government deregulation;

– deep cuts in social spending;

– wage freezes or cuts;

– unrestricted free market access for foreign corporations;

– corporate-friendly tax cuts;

– crackdowns on trade unionists; and

– savage repression for non-believers under a system incompatible with social democracy.

Everywhere the scheme is the same: huge public wealth transfers to elitist private hands, exploding public debt, an ever-widening disparity between the super-rich and desperate poor, and an aggressive nationalism to justify huge spending on security for aggressive surveillance, mass incarceration plus repression and torture for social control.

An Alternative to Debt Slavery - The Bank of the South

Last December, Hugo Chavez announced his idea for a Banco del Sur, or Bank of the South, as part of his crusade against the institutions of international capital he calls “tools of Washington.” The bank will be officially launched at a presidential November 3 summit in Caracas, where it’s to be headquartered, with seven founding member-states - Venezuela, Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia and Ecuador.

On October 12, Colombia’s President Alvaro Uribe announced his nation agreed to become the eighth member but said “The decision is not a rejection to the World Bank or Inter-American Development Bank, but a sign of solidarity and fraternity towards the South American community.” At this time, only four South American states aren’t included - Chile, Peru, Guyana and Surinam, but Chile seems likely to come aboard following Colombia’s lead, and the others may decide to join them.

Finance ministers from the founding countries met in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil October 8 to finalize the Bank’s Founding Document. Many key operating issues have yet to be resolved, but unofficial information was that each nation will commit 10% of its international reserves and have equal oversight over the new institution. In a concluding news conference, Brazilian finance minister Guido Mantega stated: the participating countries “have been able to overcome all obstacles that were in the way of an understanding around the formation of the Bank of the South. We can now say that the (bank) is close to becoming a reality” even though Brazil (Latin America’s largest economy) hasn’t yet formalized its entry.

Venezuelan finance minister Rodrigo Cabeza explained the bank will help develop the region by offering South Americans more credits. It’s being “created to build a new architecture that assumes an improved relationship of the bank and its capacity to offer credits for its people.” It also aims to increase liquidity and revive socioeconomic development and infrastructure investments in participating countries and keep them outside the restrictive control of the IMF and World Bank that are fast losing influence and being phased out of the region.

In 2005, 80% of IMF’s $81 billion loan portfolio was to Latin America. Today, it’s 1% with nearly all its $17 billion in outstanding loans to Turkey and Pakistan. The World Bank is also being rejected. Venezuela had already paid off its IMF and World Bank debt ahead of schedule when Hugo Chavez symbolically announced on April 30: “We will no longer have to go to Washington nor to the IMF nor to the World Bank, not to anyone.” Ecuador’s Raphael Correa is following suit. He cleared his country’s IMF debt, suspended World Bank loans, accused the WB of trying to extort money from him when he was economy and finance minister in 2005, and last April declared the Bank’s country representative persona non grata in an extraordinary diplomatic slap in the face.

The Banco del Sur will replace these repressive institutions with $7 billion in startup capital when it begins operating in 2008. It will be under “a new financial architecture” for regional investment with the finance ministers of each member nation sitting on the bank’s administrative council with equal authority over its operations as things now stand. Venezuelan Finance Minister Rodrigo Cabeza stressed the banks Latin roots saying: “The idea is to rely on a development agency for us, led by us” to finance public and private development and regional integration projects. He added: “There will not be credit subjected to economic policies. There will not be credit that produces a calamity for our people and as a result, it will not be a tool of domination” like the international lending agencies.

Hugo Chavez’s vision is to liberate the region’s countries from IMF, World Bank and Inter-American Development Bank (IBD) control that condemn millions to poverty through their lending practices. Helped by windfall oil profits, his government is already doing it with an unprecendented commitment to provide financial aid and below-market priced oil to regional and other countries. So far this year, it’s on the order of around $9 billion, and, unlike the Washington-controlled kind, it comes at low cost and with good will, a cooperative spirit and few if any strings.

Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz recognizes Chavez’s efforts and stated his support for the Banco del Sur on an October 10 visit to Caracas. He said “One of the advantages of having a Bank of the South is that it would reflect the perspectives of those in the South (while in contrast IMF and World Bank conditions) hinder (regional) development effectiveness.”

Stiglitz met with Hugo Chavez on his visit and praised his redistributive social policies. He also criticized Washington Consensus neoliberal practices that exploit the regions’ people, “undermin(e)….Andean cooperation, and it is part of the American strategy of divide and conquer, a strategy trying to get as much of the benefits for American companies” at the expense of the region and its people.

Venezuela’s acting ambassador to the Permanent Mission to the UN, Aura Mahuampi Rodriguez de Ortiz, warned the world body about Latin American debt during her participation in the General Debate on Macroeconomic Policies in October. She stressed: “The persistence of the foreign debt of the developing countries affects negatively on its process of development. It is not worthy to direct resources for the development of poor countries if such resources end up directed to the payment of the foreign debt” instead of going to economic development internally. She also spoke of the new Bank of the South, how it will help strengthen regional integration and also fairly distribute investments and finance projects to reduce poverty and social exclusion.

A less publicized Bank of ALBA (Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas) will also begin operating by year end under “a new regional financial architecture under principles that create a new form of channeling financial resources” to its four country alliance - Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia and Nicaragua.

Chavez first proposed ALBA as an alternative to the Free Trade of the Americas (FTAA) in 2001 with Venezuela, Cuba and Bolivia its original members in December, 2004. Nicaragua then joined the alliance in January, 2007 under its newly elected president, Daniel Ortega, who signed on as his first act in office. ALBA’s goal is ambitious. It’s the comprehensive integration of the region and development of its “the social state” for all its people. It’s boldly based on member states complementarity, not competition; solidarity, not domination; cooperation, not exploitation; and respect for each participating nation’s sovereign right to be free from the grip of other countries and corporate giants.

In April, the 5th ALBA summit was held in Caracas to discuss ways to improve the alliance. Initiatives covered included a Permanent (coordinating) Secretariat and a plan to create 12 public companies to be co-managed by ALBA member states. Its goal is to strengthen key economic sectors in areas of energy, agriculture, telecommunications, infrastructure, industrial supplies and cement production. ALBA country foreign ministers then agreed in June to create a development Bank of ALBA to help finance these ventures with low-cost credit. It will complement the Banco del Sur and also be headquartered in Caracas.

Uncertain Future Prospects

Socially responsible regional banks, like those discussed above, will challenge the dominant institutions of finance capital if they fulfill their promise. But therein lies the problem. These new institutions aren’t panaceas, and they may end up letting capital interests exploit them for their own advantage. In addition, financial autonomy alone won’t free the region from Washington’s grip without greater change. What’s needed are sweeping nationalizations of basic industries, an end to one-way WTO-style trade deals, socially redistributing national resources, developing local economies, achieving land and housing reform plus a sweeping commitment to social equity and a resolve to end a 25 year neoliberal nightmare. From 1960 to 1980, the region’s per capita income growth was 82%. From 1980 to 2000, however, it was 9%, and from 2000 to 2005 only 4%. For the region, it meant sweeping poverty, inequality and the most extreme disparity between the super-rich and desperate poor in the world.

Change is needed, and Venezuela under Hugo Chavez has done most in the region to achieve it. Finance Minister Rodrigo Cabezas just presented his government’s 2008 budget to the National Assembly that allocates 46% of it to social spending. It devotes special attention to health and education but also to subsidized and free food, land reform, housing, micro credit, job training, cooperatives and more as Chavez continues to use his nation’s resources to address the needs of his people. Since he took office, social spending per person is up more than threefold and in 2006 was 20.9% of GDP.

Chavez now has an ally in Ecuador under Raphael Correa who’s early efforts are promising. Hopefully, they’ll continue under a new constitution to be drafted in the next six months and then put to a national referendum next year. Other Bank of the South founding countries like Brazil, Argentina and Bolivia, however, claim to be center-left but, in fact, embrace 1990s neoliberalism, and financial autonomy won’t change that. The Bank of the South will only work if it fulfills a mandate to prioritize local needs and development, not corporate ones. That’s a tall order, and achieving it won’t be easy with its dominant member, Brazil under Lula, closely tied to Washington and in its grip.

Nonetheless, small signs of change are emerging, the Bank of the South may be one of them, and a new generation of leftist leaders may in the end break Washington’s weakening (but still strong) hold on the region. That’s the hope, and every step forward means more power to the people and another possible world.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Steve Lendman News and Information Hour on TheMicroEffect.com Mondays at noon US central time.

By Stephen Lendman
RINF Alternative News

On October 5, George Bush confronted a public uproar and defended his administration claiming “This government does not torture people.” Again he lied. Once secret US Department of Justice (DOJ) legal opinions confirm the Bush administration condones torture by endorsing “the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency.” It also condones paramilitary thuggery, oppressive occupation, and genocide. This unholy combination is the ugly face of an imperial nation run by war criminals. That’s the state of things today. First, the practice of torture.

Torture as Policy under George Bush

In a hollow posturing gesture, DOJ publicly declared torture “abhorrent” in a December, 2004 legal opinion. That secretly changed after Alberto Gonzales became Attorney General in February, 2005 and authorized physical and psychological brutality as official administration policy. This continues unabated in violation of international and US laws that include fifth and eighth amendment prohibitions against cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in all forms for any reason. These practices been long-standing US official policy, nonetheless, but the mask came off post-9/11 when former CIA Counterterrorism Center chief Cofer Black (now Blackwater USA’s vice-chairman) told a joint House-Senate intelligence committee hearing September 26, 2002: “There was a before-9/11 and an after-9/11(on the use of torture). After 9/11, the gloves came off” and “old” standards no longer apply. They never did, and Congress knows and condones it.

Further, George Bush signed a secret September 17, 2001 “finding” authorizing CIA to kill, capture and detain “Al Qaeda” members anywhere in the world and rendition them to secret black site torture prisons for interrogation presumed to include torture.

As White House Counsel, Alberto Gonzales then wrote a sweeping memorandum to George Bush January 25, 2002 calling the Geneva Conventions “quaint” and “obsolete” and claimed the administration could ignore Geneva international law in interrogating prisoners henceforth. He also outlined plans to try prisoners in military “commissions” and deny them all protections under international law including due process and habeas rights. DOD Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was on board as well. In December, 2002, he approved a menu of banned interrogation practices that allowed most anything short of what would cause organ failure.

A new book called “Administration of Torture,” by two ACLU attorneys, contains evidence (from FOIA requests) from over 100,000 newly released government documents. It reveals how US military interrogators carried out abuse and torture orders from their superiors on scores of prisoners. The book quotes Major General Michael Dunlavey who had DOD responsibility for interrogations of “suspected terrorists.” He and Guantanamo commander General Geoffrey Miller both told the FBI they got their “marching orders” from Donald Rumsfeld to use harsh methods at Guantanamo that presumably were meant for all other US-run torture prisons as well. It was also revealed that Rumsfeld was “personally involved” in overseeing the torture-interrogation of Mohammed al Qahtani. He was falsely accused of being the 20th 9/11 hijacker, confessed under torture, and then retracted his testimony later as completely untrue.

Torture violates international law. The (non-binding) Universal Declaration of Human Rights outlawed it in 1948. The four 1949 Geneva Conventions then banned any form of “physical or mental coercion” and affirmed detainees must at all times be treated humanely. Its first two conventions protect sick and wounded forces in battle. The third one defines who is a prisoner of war and establishes “minimum standards” for POW treatment. The fourth convention applies to civilians and affords them protections during war that require they be treated humanely. All four conventions have a common thread called Common Article Three. It requires non-combatants be treated humanely at all times. There are no exceptions for any reasons and violations are grave breaches under Geneva and other international law that constitute crimes of war and against humanity.

The European Convention followed Geneva in 1950. Then in 1984, the UN Convention Against Torture became the first binding international instrument dealing exclusively with the issue of banning torture in any form for any reason. These are sacred international laws all signatories, that include the US, are bound by. No longer under George Bush’s unconstitutional “unitary executive” authority power grab Chalmers Johnson calls a “bald-faced assertion of presidential supremacy….dressed up in legalistic mumbo jumbo.” Condoning torture as official policy under it is Exhibit A.

In her important new book, “Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Defied the law,” law professor and current National Lawyers Guild president Marjorie Cohn calls torture abhorrent and violates at least two US laws - the 1996 War Crimes Act and 1994 Torture Statute. The US is also party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) that guarantees the right to life and prohibits cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.

The 1996 War Crimes Act provides up to life imprisonment or the death penalty for persons convicted of committing war crimes within or outside the US. Administration memos from Gonzales, John Yoo, Jay Bybee, and David Addington supported dictatorial powers for the president and advised Al Qaeda and Taliban interrogators were exempt from torture laws under George Bush’s “commander-in-chief powers.” Cohn, in her book, explained “the Torture Convention permits no such exemption, even during wartime.”

Yoo and Bybee also distorted what constitutes torture by claiming psychological harm must last “months or even years.” Otherwise, it’s just harsh “enhanced interrogation” of the secret kinds George Bush authorized in a July, 2006 executive order. They reportedly include sleep deprivation, simulated drowning, stress positions, prolonged isolation, sensory deprivation and/or overload, beatings, induced hypothermia, and more that can cause irreversible physical and psychological harm including psychoses.

The October, 2006 Military Commissions Act followed, appropriately called the “torture authorization act.” It gives the administration extraordinary unconstitutional powers to detain, interrogate and prosecute alleged terror suspects and anyone thought to be their supporters. The law lets the president designate anyone in the world an “unlawful enemy combatant,” without corroborating evidence, and order they be arrested and incarcerated indefinitely in military prisons outside the criminal justice system without habeas and due process rights. US citizens aren’t exempt. We’re all “enemy combatants” under this law. Anyone charged under it loses all constitutionally protected rights and can be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment including torture.

Ironically, on the one year anniversary of the Military Commissions Act enactment, Fr. Louie Vitale and Fr. Steve Kelly were both sentenced to five months in federal prison for opposing torture. They also oppose teaching it at Fort Huachuca, Arizona and tried to deliver a letter with their views to the base commander, Major General Barbara Fast, former head of military intelligence in Iraq. Both priests were arrested for trespassing while kneeling in prayer on the base driveway in November, 2006. In an appalling miscarriage of justice, the presiding judge refused to allow any evidence of torture to be introduced. He also ruled out discussion of the illegality of the Iraq war and all references to international law.

Relief from these type abuses are nowhere in sight as leading Democrats condone them and now assure extremist Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey’s nomination won’t be challenged. He promises business as usual that’s bad news for supporters of the law. He earned his bona fides as a US District Court Southern District of New York judge by ruling Jose Padilla, a US citizen, could be imprisoned without trial and held indefinitely by the military.

Padilla spent three and a half years uncharged in a 9 by 7-foot isolated South Carolina Navy brig cell where he underwent alternating sensory deprivation and overload and was denied the right to counsel for two years. Months of beatings, mind-altering drugs, and denial of medical treatment destroyed his mind, turned him to mush, and him easy pickings to convict on all charges without evidence he broke any law. Under Bush administration justice, we’re all potential Jose Padillas in a nation where the rule of law affords no protection, and torture is the preferred means of social control.

Administration Outsourced Paramilitarism

The Bush administration believes anything government can do private business does better, so let it. And that applies to the military as well with Blackwater USA’s powerful emergence Exhibit A. Author Jeremy Scahill portrays the company as “the world’s most powerful mercenary army” in his frightening new book about it. It describes a “shadowy mercenary company (employing) some of the most feared professional killers in the world….accustomed to operating without worry of legal consequences….largely off the congressional radar.” It has “remarkable power and protection within the US war apparatus” with unaccountable license to practice street violence with impunity that includes cold-blooded murder.

A congressional report indicates Blackwater received more than $1 billion in mostly State Department no-bid contracts since 2001. It’s to provide security services for US diplomats, officials and others once assigned to the military at around six times the cost and can be up to $1200 per man-day. With Bush administration backing, it operates outside the law and Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and is immune from civil lawsuits like the military. Scahill calls the company the “Bush administration’s Praetorian Guard” with “immunity and impunity” to do as it pleases.

Today, around 200,000 private contractors operate in Iraq. Up to 100,000 of them are paramilitary mercenaries from companies like Blackwater, DynCorp, ArmorGroup, Erinys, Triple Canopy and others like the Australian-owned Unity Resources that murdered two Iraqi women October 9. Blackwater is the largest, is close to the Bush administration, and is cashing in big as a war profiteer from huge continuing no-bid contracts.

The company was founded in 1996 by former Navy SEAL Eric Prince who’s also closely allied to the extremist Christian Right. Blackwater came into its own post-9/11 and is now the world’s best connected, largest paramilitary army. It employs 2300 personnel in nine countries with 20,000 or more others on call as needed. The company also has its own 20 aircraft fleet that includes helicopter gunships as well as a private intelligence division and a 7000 acre Moyock, North Carolina headquarters Scahill calls “the world’s largest private military base.”

Controversary surrounding Blackwater made headlines after its mercenaries killed as many as 28 Iraqis in al-Nisour September 16 by some accounts and wounded dozens more. It was only the latest incident involving the company that has a disturbing history of instigating unprovoked violence and then falsely claim it acted in self-defense as Eric Prince told Congress saying his men act “appropriately at all times.”

A new congressional account from State Department and company documents reveals otherwise. It shows the company has been involved in at least 195 “escalation of force” incidents since early 2005 that include previously unreported Iraqi civilian killings. In at least one of them, evidence proved Blackwater personnel tried covering up what happened with a falsified report, and the State Department made no effort to hold them accountable or order the company to pay compensation to the families of the victims.

Agence France-Presse reported on September 16 Blackwater personnel shot recklessly “at everything that moved with a machine gun and even with a grenade launcher (as well as from two hovering helicopters). There was panic. Everyone tried to flee. Vehicles tried to make U-turns to escape. There were dead bodies and wounded people everywhere. The road was full of blood. A bus was also hit and several of its occupants were wounded.” Among the dead were women and children. A daughter witnessing her mother shot in the head and killed said: “They are killers. I swear to God, not one bullet was shot at them. Why did they shoot us?”

Following the incident, investigations were launched that are little more than damage control cover-up. The FBI is involved as well as a joint American-Iraqi inquiry. Iraqi prime minister al-Maliki has gone back and forth on this one. At first, he demanded Blackwater personnel leave Iraq. He then backed down under pressure. He’ll likely await the inquiry’s findings that are out in part from Iraqi investigators, but again said he wants Washington to sever all Blackwater ties, remove the company from Iraq in six months, and have it pay each family $8 million in compensation.

It won’t ever happen, even though early findings conclude Blackwater’s actions were unprovoked, the al-Nisour massacre was a deliberate crime, those involved in it should be charged, put on trial, and the families of victims fairly compensated. The findings are similar to an initial US military report that one Pentagon official confirmed saying Blackwater’s actions were “obviously excessive, it was obviously wrong. The civilians….didn’t have any weapons (and) none of the IP (Iraqi police) or any local security forces fired (on Blackwater).”

Investigations are still continuing, the State Department is in damage control mode, and an October 4 House-passed bill (not retroactive) just made US contractors accountable for felony crimes under the 2000 Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA). In addition, new operating procedures have been instituted to paper over the whole affair. Nothing, in fact, will change, however. Blackwater personnel will stay in place, none of them will face criminal charges, and things are again business as usual with the company’s paramilitaries back on Iraqi streets after being banned from operating there by an impotent prime minister.

A sign of things to come came a day ahead of the October House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Blackwater hearing. It was revealed the company’s Presidential Airways subsidiary got a new government contract to supply aircraft, crew and equipment for flight operations in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan. Blackwater personnel may likely show up anywhere and currently patrol New Orleans streets for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) post-hurricane Katrina. Their presence is menacing everywhere, and they may show up soon in a neighborhood near you as the “war on terrorism” touches down at home.

Imperial Conquest and Occupation

Current rhetoric aside, even Alan Greenspan’s new book admitted what’s “politically inconvenient to acknowledge (but) everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil” and it was “essential” Saddam be removed to control it. Unmentioned was Iraq’s importance that explains why Washington plans permanent occupation of the country. The Middle East has two-thirds of the world’s proved oil reserves; Iraq has the most untapped amounts of it; and it’s the easiest gotten, cheap to refine light sweet kind Big Oil covets. The country is also strategically located between Saudi Arabia and Iran at the top of the Persian Gulf. That makes it a perfect site for military bases sitting atop an ocean of oil worth trillions of dollars and surrounded by lots more of it.

The strategy to seize it was simply conceived but hopelessly flawed - replace the “cradle of civilization” with a newly created free market paradise with all that oil as grand prize pickings. It’s still up for grabs, but a huge supportive infrastructure is in place and still being built for permanent occupation.

By May, 2005, US forces were operating out of 106 bases around the country from an original 120 number of sites. They range in size from the huge Main Operating Base (MOB) Camp Victory complex near Baghdad airport with thousands of US troops to others for fewer numbers called Forward Operation Sites (FOS) that are still major installations. There are also many smaller Cooperative Security Locations (CSL) as well as prisons and detention facilities throughout the country plus others for Iraqi military and police units.

A sign of permanency are four to six or more super-bases built and planned, the largest of which is the huge Balad one. It’s the major Air Force facility in the country with its state of the art “Kingpin” air traffic control center (called the Common Grid Reference System) that divides the country’s airspace into “kill boxes.” The Army’s largest logistical support center and secret Combined Joint Special Operations Task Force (CJSOTF) are also there as well as well as thousands of civilian contractors in neighborhoods charmingly called “KBR-land.”

Balad and other major bases are enormous in size and on the order of small towns. They encompass 15 - 20 square miles with double runways as long as 12,000 feet, and Balad’s air traffic operates round the clock and is comparable in number of takeoffs and landings to Chicago’s O’Hare that along with Atlanta’s Hartsfield are the world’s two busiest airports.

In addition, they have their own neighborhoods and kinds of amenities found back home. They include department store-sized post exchanges, fast food outlets, movie theaters with the latest films, swimming pools, miniature golf courses, elaborate gymnasium and sports facilities, satellite internet access, cable TV, air-conditioning, international phone service and more. All the comforts of home including takeout pizza and Monday night football in the middle of a war zone.

Other major facilities are at al-Talil near Nasiriya in the South; the largest Marine base at al-Asad in Western Anbar province; al-Qayyara, 50 miles southeast of Mosul in the North; the US military command HQ at Camp Victory/Camp Liberty near Baghdad International Airport; Camp Marez near Mosul Airport; Camp Cook north of Baghdad; and a new base near Irbil in the North. In addition, another new Forward Operating base is being built near Zurbatiya near the Iranian border to be completed in November. It’s location is provocative as the centerpiece of a new border control surveillance, monitoring and logistical support strategy called “Combat Outpost Shocker.”

Then, there’s what critics call “Fortress Baghdad” or the “ultimate gated community” inside the city’s four square mile fortress-like Green Zone. It’s surrounded by thick blast-proof concrete walls, and to enter visitors must pass through up to eight checkpoints. Inside, security is intense and includes full body searches, electronic scanners, explosive-sniffing dogs and every other human and high-tech measure imaginable for security.

The US embassy compound is there as well that when finished will be the largest in the world. It’s Vatican-sized in dimensions and hugely fortified atop 104 acres, or six times larger than the UN complex in New York. Reports vary on whether 21 or 27 buildings are planned but their cost plus all facilities and perimeter security will top $1 billion. Construction is continuing, far behind schedule, it’s reported to be shoddy, and it’s already way over budget as predicted so the final cost remains uncertain but will be plenty.

The compound has everything - its own water, electricity, sewers, apartment buildings, swimming pool, shops, Marine barracks and will house more than 1000 civilian staff plus a large private and military security contingent. For the Iraqi people, it’s a hated symbol of imperial occupation Washington intends to be permanent, but it may in the end go the way of the Saigon embassy in 1975. That’s where the last US Vietnam remnants were frenetically rooftop-helicoptered out of the country in humiliating drawdown defeat. It ended visions of permanence then the way history may one day repeat in Iraq.

Imperial Genocide in Iraq

By any estimate, the human toll in Iraq is horrific from all that happened after Saddam’s August 2, 1990 Kuwait invasion. Four days later, Operation Desert Shield was launched. It began with US-led UN-imposed economic sanctions, large US and other troop deployments to the region, and a sweeping Kuwait-funded PR campaign to win public support for Operation Desert Storm that began January 17, 1991.

Before it ended six weeks later on February 28, US forces committed grievous war crime violations of the Hague and Geneva Conventions and UN and Nuremberg Charters. They included gratuitous mass killings as well as bombing and destroying essential to life facilities that included:

– power generating stations;

– dams;

– water purification capabilities;

– sewage treatment and disposal systems;

– telephone and other communications;

– hospitals;

– mosques;

– residential areas affecting 10-20,000 homes, apartments and other dwellings;

– irrigation sites;

– food processing, storage and distribution facilities;

– hotels and retail establishments;

– transportation infrastructure;

– oil wells, pipelines, refineries and storage tanks;

– chemical plants;

– civilian shelters like Al Ameriyya that was attacked February 13, 1991 by two laser-guided “smart bombs” killing around 400 civilians including 142 children;

– factories and other commercial operations;

– government offices;

– historical sites; and more in a willful malicious effort to return the country to a pre-industrial age and punish its people horrifically.

Lost was power, clean water, sanitation, fuel, transportation, medical facilities and medications, adequate food, schools, private dwellings and places of employment. Early post-war estimates placed the number of civilians killed at 113,000 (mostly children) according to the Red Crescent Society of Jordan. In addition, US CENTCOM commander, General Schwarzkopf and others, estimated 100,000 or more Iraqi military deaths plus thousands more killed gratuitously as they were retreating in disarray.

What then followed was 12 years of the most comprehensive genocidal sanctions ever imposed on a country as an act of vengeance and US-imposed imperial arrogance. They were first adopted in UN Resolution 661 four days after Iraq invaded Kuwait. They included a full trade embargo that crippled the country economically but initially allowed in food, medical and other essential humanitarian needs. UN Resolution 670 followed in September, 1990 that imposed an air blockade and measures to enforce it.

After the war in April, 1991, UN Resolution 687 was adopted. It required Saddam accept cease fire terms and comply with Geneva protocols banning biological and chemical weapons. It also affirmed Kuwait’s sovereignty, but it wasn’t good enough for US officials who wanted sanctions to remain in force until Saddam was removed.

Later on, the oil for food and medicine program was adopted under UN Resolution 986 in 1995 but was hopelessly inadequate by design. An internal UN report in 1999 revealed it delivered only $74 of food per annum per person (about 21 cents a day) and $15 worth of medicines (about 4 cents a day) with vitally needed items banned or in short supply like syringes, anesthetics, vaccines, antibiotics and other drugs. Everything with potential “dual use” was blocked - chlorine to purify water, vital medical equipment, chemotherapy and pain-killing drugs, ambulances, and anything Washington wished to deny the country punitively with horrific consequences.

Further complicating things, all Iraqi funds were frozen and administered through a US-controlled Development Fund for Iraq. In addition, UN Resolution 661 stipulated all goods entering the country had to be approved by a 15 member committee that included the five permanent Security Council members. Approval had to be unanimous with every member having veto power. The US representative abused his authority by blocking items or causing long delays in importing others. The practice became so extreme, on one occasion baby food was denied on the grounds adults might consume it. At other times, items on the World Health Organization (WHO) humanitarian priority list were blocked such as rice, school books, paper, agricultural pesticides, medical journals and catheters for babies.

The results were predictable and devastating. Normal life was impossible and became a daily struggle to survive. It became apparent by the mid-1990s many didn’t or wouldn’t:

– the UN World Food Program (WFP) reported 2.4 million Iraqi children were severely at nutritional risk in September, 1995;

– in December, 1995, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) said 12% of Baghdad children were “wasted, 28% stunted and 29% under weight;”

– by year end 1995, FAO reported 567,000 Iraqi children sanction-related deaths;

– by March, 1996, WHO noted a six-fold mortality rate increase among children under five;

– in October, 1996 UNICEF reported 4500 monthly Iraqi children deaths from sanction-caused starvation and disease;

– by 1999, the under five child mortality rate rose three-fold from 1989, malnutrition doubled, and the entire young child population was affected;

– UN Secretary-General Boutras-Boutras-Ghali noted how health conditions deteriorated dramatically by the mid-1990s, and by 1997 the WHO Director General said Iraq’s health care system was systemically broken; in addition, malaria, typhoid, cholera and other life-threatening and communicable diseases were rampant.

These actions were committed willfully and are war crimes under relevant Geneva Conventions and other international law. They also constitute genocide under provisions of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide that “means any (acts like those listed above) committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, the national, ethnical, racial or religious group (by) killing (its) members; causing (them) serious bodily or mental harm; (or) deliberately inflicting (on them) conditions (that may destroy them in whole or in part).”

US administrations under GHW Bush, Bill Clinton and GW Bush are criminally liable under “the genocide convention” and other relevant international law. Up to the March, 2003 attack and invasion, more than 1.5 million Iraqis, including over one million children, likely died from the combination of war and economic sanctions. Two UN heads of Iraqi humanitarian relief resigned under them in anger and frustration with Dennis Halliday saying in 1998 he did so because he “had been instructed to implement a policy that satisfies the definition of genocide: a deliberate policy that has effectively killed well over one million individuals, children and adults” including 5000 Iraqi children monthly in his judgment.

To date, most members of Congress are mute on the Iraq genocide and continue funding it with hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars. Yet on October 10, the House Foreign Relations Committee hypocritically passed a non-binding resolution calling the 1915 - 1923 Armenian holocaust (taking 1.0 to 1.5 million lives) genocide with a full House vote on the measure still scheduled for November in spite of waning support for it and uncertainty where it will go in the Senate.

Speaker Pelosi still backs the measure and in 2006 as Minority Leader pledged to support legislation “that would properly acknowledge the Armenian Genocide. It is imperative that the United States recognize this atrocity and move to renew our commitment to eliminate genocide whenever and wherever it exists.” Today, Speaker Pelosi is mute on Iraq, Afghanistan and fully supports AIPAC’s agenda and its top priority of war with Iran. She’s not bothered by her own government’s genocide that far exceeds the Ottoman and post-Ottoman Turkish Armenian slaughter during and after WW I. The data below estimates as many as four million Iraqis have perished from 1990 - 2007, but speaker Pelosi’s condemnation of it is nowhere in sight.

Dr. Gideon Polya is a well-published biological scientist who’s book, “Body Count: Global avoidable mortality since 1950,” came out this year. It “documents….non-reported (worldwide) avoidable death(s) of 1.3 billion people since 1950″ including in Iraq and Afghanistan. He also published his data on millions of violent and non-violent deaths under the three most recent US administrations in articles like his October 7 one on Countercurrents.org. In it, he cites data on Iraq from the Lancet, UN and British polling firm ORB. His “Asian Wars” totals in Iraq, Afghanistan, Occupied Palestine and Lebanon are horrific, and, if correct, exceed any others published to date. A summary of his data follows.

– Eight million total violent and non-violent deaths in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and Lebanon breaking down as follows:

– 70,000 “US-backed” Israeli-caused deaths in Lebanon from 1978 - 2006, 10,000 of which were violent killings “by Israelis” or their “surrogates;”

– 300,000 1967-2007 Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) deaths plus another 10,000 violent deaths;

– 200,000 violent 1990-91 Gulf war deaths;

– 1.7 million 1990-2003 Iraqi sanctions-caused deaths including 1.2 million children under age five;

– 3.2 million 2001-2007 US Afghanistan war deaths including UN Population Division data totaling 2.5 million plus 700,000 children under age five;

– 2.0 million 2003-07 US Iraq war deaths including 1.2 million UK polling firm ORB violence-related estimates plus 800,000 children under age five from UNICEF data; and

– 500,000 2001-07 opiate drug-related deaths resulting from the resurgent Afghan opium industry under US-UK occupation; the UN Office on Drugs and Crime estimates its output at 93% of world production.

Polya cites the failure of occupying powers to supply essential “life-sustaining requisites” as a major cause of preventable deaths. He also notes his eight million estimate exceeds the Nazi-inflicted Jewish holocaust total of about six million. And he rightly observes that major media misreporting, denying or “ignoring of this horrendous, ongoing mass” slaughter is the equivalent of Jewish holocaust denial and doing it endangers security for “both….victims and….perpetrators.”

There’s no denying the toll on victims, but consider the cost at home post-9/11:

– a nation with no outside enemies permanently at war and claims the right to wage preventive wars under the doctrine of “anticipatory self-defense” using first strike nuclear weapons even against non-nuclear states;

– world stability and peace further threatened by the administration’s abandoning NPT, ending Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty protection, rescinding and subverting the Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention, deploying so-called “missile defense” for offense, and plans to weaponize space toward the goal of “full-spectrum (unchallengeable) dominance” of all land, surface and sub-surface sea, air, space, electromagnetic spectrum and information systems plus as much of the world’s energy resources as possible;

– a military budget hugely exceeding the rest of the world combined; The Independent Institute analyst Robert Higgs estimates the true FY 2007 budget exceeds $1 trillion with all defense-related items included;

– a rogue government operating outside constitutional and international laws and norms with the Congress and courts criminally complicit;

– an unprecedented wealth disparity in an omnipotent corporatist state;

– growing social decay and poverty in the richest country in the world;

– a secretive, intrusive, repressive administration under a president who disdains the public interest and is a serial liar and war criminal;

– condoning and operating secret torture-prisons around the world as a weapon of cruelty, vengeance and social control; and

– a cesspool of corruption stemming from incestuous business-govenment ties that defile democracy and mock any notion of government of, for and by the people.

The toll in Israel is evident as well. Angela Godfrey-Goldstein is an Israeli Jew, based in Jerusalem, and the Action Advocacy Officer with the Israeli Committee Against (Palestinian) House Demolitions (ICAHD). On August 30, 2007, she delivered an address at the UN Conference at the EU Parliament in Brussels commemorating the fortieth anniversary of Occupied Palestine. In it, she noted part of the toll on Israeli society caused by 40 years of Palestinian repression:

– around one million Israeli Jews “voted with their feet and left the country;”

– an estimate by some that up to 50% of Israeli youths refuse mandatory Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) service plus a “grey” Air Force refusal rate of around 30%;

– a significant recent observation from John Pilger that “something (around the world) is changing. (There’s a) swell of a boycott….growing inexorably….an important marker (may have) been passed, reminiscent of the boycotts (preceding) sanctions against apartheid South Africa” that led to the fall of its white-supremicist government; and

– her experience working with “diplomats, politicians and aid workers in Israel and Palestine (shows) that, on an individual basis, there’s enormous personal support and empathy for the Palestinian cause” because decades of abuse against them are intolerable and must end.

Push eventually will come to shove. We better hope it arrives soon. The world can’t wait much longer.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Steve Lendman News and Information Hour on TheMicroEffect.com Mondays at noon US central time.