Category Archives: politics

Outraged at Sean Spencer’s appearance?

If you outraged about Sean Spencers appearance this years’s Emmy Awards then understand that “there [is] nothing whatsoever surprising about any of this, as it is the logical and necessary outcome of the self-serving template of immunity which D.C. elites have erected for themselves.”

So if initiating an aggressive war (which the Nuremberg Tribunal called “the supreme international crime”), instituting an international torture regime (which Ronald Reagan called “an abhorrent practice” that no circumstance can justify), and embracing the full model of presidential lawlessness does not result in ostracization, sanction, or exclusion from polite society, why on earth would anyone expect that Sean Spicer would face any sort of actual recrimination or consequence?

Glen Greenwald, The Intercept

Read the full article here. Highly recommended!

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

The man who saved the world

‘I was just doing my job’: Soviet officer who averted nuclear war dies at age 77

https://www.rt.com/news/403625-nuclear-soviet-officer-died/

Leave a comment

Filed under politics, Quote of the day

Quote of the day

It is no longer unusual to hear leftwing activists turn FBI or CIA apologists, since these agencies became a home for a covert opposition to Trump and the source of many leaks.

Serge Halimi, https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/as-bellicose-as-ever

Leave a comment

Filed under politics, Quote of the day

Does Nikki Haley want to speed up Armageddon?

The US seems to be determined to escalate the conflict in Syria. Meanwhile the world is discussing the origin of the gas attack at best, the questions of the true motives receive little focus.

Regime change is the official goal of Nikki Haley, the United States’ ambassador to the United Nations. Fighting ISIS the alleged second. But it is a strange coincidence that the US just bombed the Shayrat Military Airport that is one of the Syrian Air Force’s most important installations in the fight against the Islamic State due to its proximity to the Palmyra and Deir Ezzor fronts.” [AMN] In other words the US is supporting ISIS in order to weaken Syrian President Assad.

Remembering the neocons in the 2006 Lebanon war that had “goosebumps” when hearing about it in Middle East, Nikki Haley might not just be aiming at regime change but at all out chaos to speed up the ‘second coming of Christ’. As Trump badly needs a distraction from his incompetence and failures, a war in the middle east comes in rather handy. As I wrote here, war might be the one thing that can change Trump’s standing in the world and hide his inexorable coming failures. The media celebrates Trump’s illegal air-strike against Syria1 and proclaims that Donald Trump has finally “become president”, even lauding this act of aggression as an emotional act by a man suddenly aware that the world’s problems were now his”2 while ignoring that the same  ‘man of heart’ keeps the borders close to the very children he pretends to care for.

True Christianity

True Christianity demands

  • a humanitarian response towards all the refugees. ALL Syrians have to be allowed to enter the US.
  • helping people – especially children – in the refugee camps in and around Syria. Instead of spending about $300 million to launch an illegal air-strike that only escalates the conflict, use this money where it will benefit children and saves lives.
  • to end arming and training ‘rebel groups’ that only prolong the war and have no prospect of ever bringing peace to region. Even if the so-called rebel groups were successful in regime change, Syria would immediately become another Libya were different fractions fighting each other. The chaos would continue endlessly.
  • respect for international law. International law and the UN is the base to solve conflicts.

 

But with the current US government, we can not expect true Christian values but rather more bloodshed for power.

***

1 The military strike was against international law – a war of aggression – and probably against US law, too.

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

Due process

In a 2002 article, respected linguist and dissident Noam Chomsky asks:

What is the proper response to the crime? Whatever the answer, it must at least satisfy a moral truism: If we propose some principle that is to be applied to antagonists, then we must agree — in fact, strenuously insist — that the principle apply to us as well.

A reaction or response to the chemical weapon incident in Syria a few days ago therefore demands due process, i.e. that international law (and domestic law) is respected. Reacting to a war crime with another war crime would would violate the above principle.

To find an appropriate response, we first have to assess the situation: The origin of the chemical weapon incident has not been proven. It might have been an accident when a stock of chemical weapons was hit. It might have been one of the many terrorist groups (euphemistically called “rebels” in the western media) or even ISIS to evoke a reaction by the US. It might even have been a false flag operationa tactic well known to be used by the US especially since Iraq 2003 but also before (Gulf of Tonkin incident). Therefore, until the origin is proven without any doubts, any military strike is unlawful and against the moral standards of the West.

A military strike against another country is only legal if the UN gives its approval or if a country is in danger and the military action can prevent more violence. In this case, there was no UN approval at all—not even a demand—and the US was in no way in any danger. The military strike against Syria by Donald Trump is therefore a war crime.[1]

Thirdly, a military action should reduce future violence. Often an attack worsen the conflict as in the case of the Balkan wars in the 1999[2]. An action that leads to an entirely predictable attack on the civilian population can not be an appropriate response to an (alleged) war crime. The strike might pressure Assad and lead to increased violence. It could even escalate into a confrontation with Russia. A highly risky action therefore—strategically and as well from the humanitarian perspective.

The way to peace

Let’s have a look at “the grand chess board” of the Middle East: The US wants a regime change in Syria to redraw the borders as John Bolton has expressed[3]. In addition, the there are plans to build a pipeline through Syria that will transport gas to Europe. This pipeline is nothing less than an economic weapon against Russia as it threatens Russia’s income from gas exports. Russia therefore will do anything to prevent a regime change by the US.[4]

The only way to peace is therefore that the US gives up its imperial strategy and stops “arming and training rebel groups” (i.e. supporting terrorism). Then a diplomatic option might have a chance and after a truce, an established peace, a transition period (with Assad in power), free and fair election could take place.

But first and foremost, the US has to give up its imperial aims in the region.

***

1 It is even a war of aggression. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_aggression

2  NATO commander Wesley Clark reported «that on March 6 he had informed Secretary of State Madleine Albright that if NATO proceeded to bomb Serbia, “almost certainly” the Serbs would “attack the civilian population” and NATO would be able to do nothing to prevent that reaction on the ground.», Noam Chomksy, Hegemony or Survival, p. 59

3 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/25/opinion/john-bolton-to-defeat-isis-create-a-sunni-state.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region

4 If you look at Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, Russia can morally defend their action to a certain extend as leaving the ground to the US will most likely lead to chaos. Syria would just become another failed state.

2 Comments

Filed under politics

The refugee crisis as victory of neoliberalism

When the Spanish Jews had to flee Spain in 1492, Sultan Bayezid II issued a formal invitation to Jews expelled from Spain. This was only partially a humanitarian gesture as it had economic reasons, too. The Muslim Ottomans were mostly disinterested in business enterprises and were more than happy to leave these to members of the religious minorities.

Ye call Ferdinand a wise king he who makes his land poor and ours rich!“ the Sultan is said to have said.[1]

The Migration in 2015/16 to Germany has deep economic aspects. The export-oriented, German economy is in dire need of man power. The German magazine Der Spiegel quoted a study of the Bertelsmann Stiftung, claiming that Germany needs more than 500’000 immigrants per year to compensate for the shortage. The same study demanded that measures be taken "so that Germany as a country of immigration will also become more attractive to third country nationals". [2]

This stands in sharp contrast to the US Treasury’s criticism in October 2013, which criticized Germany’s export-intensive economy:

Germany’s anemic pace of domestic demand growth and dependence on exports have hampered rebalancing at a time when many other euro-area countries have been under severe pressure to curb demand and compress imports in order to promote adjustment. The net result has been a deflationary bias for the euro area, as well as for the world economy.“[3]

Others share this criticism, but go even further. Economist Prof. Heiner Flassbeck in an interview:

We generally have far too low wages in Germany. A minimum wage would have a positive effect on the entire tariff range. This would enable wages to approach the level at which they would have to be in order not to jeopardize the European monetary union.[4]

[emphasis added]

The hard core neo-liberal inclination was already displayed during the rescue of the banks and during the Greek crisis. Germany not only works against the Greek population by saving the banks from losses, it works against its own people, too, by not raising salaries. In addition, it threatens the cohesion of the European union and works tirelessly to increase exports for maximisation of profit for the top %1.

In short, a thoroughly neo-liberal policy.

The slogan wir-schaffen-das“ («we’ll make it») is therefore just means to an end. Flattering the liberal-left by suggesting effort to actively provide humanitarian aid, the left was silenced. Who can critique a «we’ll make it» that is the only reasonable statement when human lives are stake.

The actions of the German government were, however, very far from we’ll make it. Instead of calling out a state of emergency, the burden to deal with the refugee crisis was left to the countries. In Berlin, refugees had to wait for weeks until they were registered. The necessary emergency aid was largely provided by volunteers and countrywide coordination was lacking.

Threats such as closing swimming pools[5] or remarks that refugees astonishingly have the money to drive hundreds of kilometers through Germany by taxi[6], do not correspond at all to the above maxim but foster xenophobic tendencies.

The shift to the right in Germany – with massive gains of the far right party Alternative for Germany (AfD) – is no threat to the neo-liberal agenda. The AfD represents through and through neo-liberal positions.[7] Calls for the abolishment of the euro are secondary as certain demands will never be implemented and serve only as propaganda. But other positions have majority appeal and thus the AfD could become the ‘kingmaker’ of further social dismantling. And if the Alternative should no longer be perceived as an alternative in the future, the confused and disoriented voters will most likely return repentantly to classic neo-neoliberal parties (CDU and FDP).

The elections are in 2017 and the refugee crisis had its maximum in 2015 so the CDU had enough time to change from «we’ll make it» to «the borders are tight». The EU-Turkey deal de facto abolished asylum law and "Queen Angela" has done what the conservative voters expected from her: close the borders. Therefore the right is pleased.

The refugee crisis as a whole becomes a triumph of neo-liberalism: A Syrian war – not unrelated to global neo-liberal word order[8] – creates refugees that become welcomed economic fodder for the German export-industry, an industry that threatens other economies with its surplus. The high immigration numbers lead to a swing to the right, which hits the Social Democrats (SPD) more than the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and brings a party into being that is completely neo-liberal at its core. With the new workforce Germany becomes even stronger economically forcing other counties to adapt neo-liberal policies to remain competitive. With the influx of ‘fresh slaves’ the aggressive German economy can set the race to the bottom in Europe to a new level.[9]

The result is presentable Islamophobia and xenophobia and a laughing, neo-liberal economy which has not only received the desired man power but also a society that argues about immigration and Islam instead looking at of the root problem of our time – the neo-liberal agenda.

***

3Report to Congress on International Economic and Exchange Rate Policies, October 30, 2013, p. 4, https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/international/exchange-rate-policies/Documents/2013-10-30_FULL%20FX%20REPORT_FINAL.pdf

8 US foreign policy is based on neo-liberal capitalism. The situation in Syria is at least partially the result of US interventions that are based on furthering economic interests.

9 The expression fresh slaves is in no way intended as derogatory towards refugees but expresses that fact that refugees are easily exploitable. A refugee will take any job that prevents him from perishing.

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

The daily Trump resistance

Do not try to cure one evil with an even worse:

And it is important to resist them. And there are lots of really great ways to resist them, such as getting courts to restrain them, citizen activism and, most important of all, having the Democratic Party engage in self-critique to ask itself how it can be a more effective political force in the United States after it has collapsed on all levels. That isn’t what this resistance is now doing. What they’re doing instead is trying to take maybe the only faction worse than Donald Trump, which is the deep state, the CIA, with its histories of atrocities, and say they ought to almost engage in like a soft coup, where they take the elected president and prevent him from enacting his policies. And I think it is extremely dangerous to do that. Even if you’re somebody who believes that both the CIA and the deep state, on the one hand, and the Trump presidency, on the other, are extremely dangerous, as I do, there’s a huge difference between the two, which is that Trump was democratically elected and is subject to democratic controls, as these courts just demonstrated and as the media is showing, as citizens are proving. But on the other hand, the CIA was elected by nobody. They’re barely subject to democratic controls at all. And so, to urge that the CIA and the intelligence community empower itself to undermine the elected branches of government is insanity. That is a prescription for destroying democracy overnight in the name of saving it. And yet that’s what so many, not just neocons, but the neocons’ allies in the Democratic Party, are now urging and cheering. And it’s incredibly warped and dangerous to watch them do that.

Glenn Greenwald, Democracy Now

cf: http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/02/17/rogue-elephant-rising-the-cia-as-kingslayer/

Leave a comment

Filed under politics, Uncategorized