Forecast 2016: Pakistan

Salma Malik

The tragic overhang of the army school massacre was the inheritance 2015 carried from the previous year. However, the silver lining to this dark macabre cloud was not only the collective resolve of the Pakistani nation to not bow to the terrorists and extremist mindsets but also the unanimity of decisions by key stakeholders with regard to a concerted counter-terrorism strategy. The efforts brought forth a 22-point National Action Plan (NAP) that comprehensively covered all areas through which terrorism and anti-state activities could be reduced and ended, such as private militias; financial regulations; border security; legislations; activities of banned outfits; intelligence sharing; border management; communication and media responses; networks and their activities; banning of hate speech as well as rehabilitation and post-conflict resettlement of displaced people. Consequently, the moratorium on death penalty was lifted and since then, several executions have taken place in both terrorism related and other cases.

Owing to the NAP as well as the military’s counter-terrorism operation, Zarb-e-Azb, 2015 was a relatively secure and calm year in comparison to the preceding years. Yet, the dozen plus major incidents that took place were a reminder that terrorists not only continue to possess the potential to defy the security forces but also to inflict heavy physical losses. Every strike was significant, be it an attack on paramilitary and law enforcement agents in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa or Balochistan; attacking religious institutions such as mosques or churches in the heart of Punjab; or the cold blooded murder of daily commuters and pilgrims in Karachi or Balochistan. The non-state actors chose soft targets to deter and terrorise. Each of these incidents drew public debate and criticism over what more needed to be done, the faith in the military’s ability to eradicate terrorism remained very strong.

More so, this unflinching faith and confidence is in the person of the army chief, who according to common people and media, solely holds the answers to all our problems.

However, counter-terrorism strategies can never be successful without significant support from allies and neighboring states. The upswing in Pak-Afghan relations, especially after December 2014 incident, unsurprisingly plummeted, when like a rabbit out of a hat, the news of the Afghan Taliban chief Mullah Omar’s death was “intelligently” reported and ended up predictably collapsing the dialogue facilitated by Pakistan between the Afghan government and the Afghan Taliban.

Notwithstanding the tall claims that the road to peace in Kabul passes through Islamabad, this development left few concerned neighbors and allies deeply relieved, as increasing cozy and congenial Islamabad-Kabul ties were not in anyone’s interests. The second and most concerning issue for keen observers, has been the setting up and progress on the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), which resulted in a lot of debate, speculations, foreign tours by a neighboring Chief Executive to all possible economic partners, and ironically, once again a resumption of terrorist activities.

Diplomacy

As regards significant diplomatic visits, firstly US President Barack Obama’s ‘only-to-Delhi’ trip, which was indeed a fascinating study in its own right, not to be rivaled by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s “surprise” 25 December stopover in Lahore to enjoy the double celebration of his counterpart’s birthday and granddaughter’s wedding. One must not underwrite this visit as trivial, given that it was the first in over a decade by an Indian prime minister, the previous being Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee’s, in 2004; and more importantly, Modi’s highly strategic official visits to Russia and Afghanistan, before visiting Lahore. The presence of top Indian steel magnet Sajjan Jindal in the highly exclusive meeting becomes logical, given India’s heavy investment in copper and iron mines in Afghanistan, of which several of Jindal’s companies hold significant shares. One must note that Jindal played a significant role in bringing about a rapprochement between the two leaders. By no means a small task, as, until mid-2015, it seemed that New Delhi had totally decided to ex-communicate Pakistan.

At the onset of 2016, two major setbacks were witnessed: first, very predictably, a terrorist strike at the Indian air force base in Pathankot, India, shortly followed by the attacks at the Bacha Khan University in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Once again, accusations were hurled, cross-border complicity immediately voiced and proven, with readily available evidence comprising telephone calls, receipts etc. The immediate casualty was the postponement of the scheduled foreign secretary level talks. Have these two events prophetically set the agenda for the rest of 2016? Can we optimistically forecast positive developments vis-à-vis key areas? Or a return to the older pattern of moving one step forward, two steps back.

As regards terrorism, many who held faith in the efforts by the government, now appear skeptical, criticising the establishment for being caught napping. The military has also deliberately kept the media’s access to Zarb-e-Azb fairly limited, which has again had people curious about how successful the military has been in weeding out terrorists. However, the adoration and love for General Raheel Sharif remain steadfast, with his popularity enhancing manifold, after the recent announcement of his not seeking extension in military service – a decision, which demonstrates that all the admiration did not turn his head, and is reflective of military professionalism. Where on one hand the message that it is the institution and not an individual who matters, it also puts the military on a timeline somewhat parallel to Obama’s withdrawal announcement from Afghanistan. Would this signify a wait and watch approach by the terrorists, who would, from time to time, carry out signature strikes and keep the situation turbulent?

Although countering terrorism can never be time-lined, 2016 has to be a year where all the stakeholders pool their genuine efforts to realise the goals of the NAP and exterminate terrorism and militancy for good.

 

Regional IssuesIndeed, a very clichéd and naïve wish list, given the umpteen domestic as well as external spoilers, ranging from legitimate political actors to interest groups, friendly, allied, as well as adversarial states, who stand to benefit from a strife-ridden Pakistan, which is never strong and stable enough to actualize and enjoy the benefits of promising projects such as the CPEC hold. Where on one hand the thrust and continuity of the military’s counter-terrorism strategy will be affected by the next army chief, on the other, the civilian establishment has to take the ownership of, and work hard to realise the NAP’s objectives. Otherwise, Pakistan would continue to remain domestically insecure – a scenario that could be exacerbated by the prospect of new terrorist threats emerging within and beyond the region such as the Daesh or its affiliates.

Afghanistan, Pakistan and IndiaTo that end, Afghanistan is extremely critical to achieve domestic stability in Pakistan. The improved institutional linkages with regards cooperation on terrorism, intelligence sharing, and other related aspects are welcoming. Yet, more is always better. Would Washington and New Delhi feel comfortable with a stronger Kabul-Islamabad bondage? Logically not. Yet, with India realising that Pakistan (and more specifically the Nawaz Sharif family enterprise) is critical to its successful access and speedy extraction of iron and copper from Afghanistan, there might actually be an economic route to stability and betterment in relations. Should we expect monumental breakthroughs? Not in the India-Pakistan case. Could there be more Pathankots? Unfortunately, the probability is high. The more these two countries or their leadership move towards rapprochement, more would be such stage managed episodes, or interventions by spoilers. Furthermore, the chances of the bilateral dialogue remaining a nonstarter and conditional, are high.

How would the US-Pakistan relationship progress in the coming months? Islamabad must keenly observe the trends shaping the US’ November 2016 presidential elections. Who the next commander-in-chief would be is important vis-a-vis Islamabad’s Kabul policy as also to the approach the new president and his team will take towards Saudi Arabia, Iran and Daesh. Pakistan is already in an extremely precariously balanced situation, where owing to a multitude of issues, it is committed to support the Washington-backed Riyadh alliance. Yet, it can neither afford to antagonise Iran, neither as a neighbor, nor as the custodian of Shia ideology, especially at a time when after decades, the lifting of nuclear-related sanctions have opened chances for economic exchange and energy sale.

The second important factor in the Washington-Islamabad bilateral would be the nuclear energy cooperation. Would Pakistan settle for a strategic partnership agreement? Most unlikely; but Pakistan would like to be judged for the positive measures undertaken in safety and security matters, as opposed to constantly be reminded of history.

Obama, in his last State of the Union address mentioned Afghanistan and Pakistan as likely to remain unstable in the coming decades. Should this be taken as an introduction of new factors of instability ensuring increased American military presence and turmoil for Afghanistan? With Pakistan remaining equally affected?

Overview
Despite opportunities such as the CPEC that has the potential for stabilising and enhancing Pakistan’s economic potential, for being highly instrumental in employment generation, to help increase support infrastructure that will strengthen energy potentials and minimise the grounds for extremism, 2016 can either steer Pakistan towards stability and progress or keep it deeply preoccupied with internal as well as external challenges.

With certain aspects such as a further drift in Saudi-Iranian relations, which are beyond its control, Islamabad has and can play a good mediator role. The need is to think prudently, strategise, and implement policies that defeat terrorism, instability and adversarial interests, and move towards the path to progress.

Europe Is Built On Corpses And Plunder

Andre Vltchek

Friends and Comrades, it is a great honor to be standing here – at the Chamber of Deputies of the Italian Parliament.

***

One year ago I was driving through the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon, monitoring the situation in the refugee camps there. Winter was approaching and the mountains on the Lebanese–Syrian border were covered by snow. It was cold, very cold.

Some 20 minutes, after leaving Baalbek, I spotted an extremely humble makeshift refugee camp, growing literally from the road, in the middle of nowhere.

I stopped. Together with my interpreter, I walked inside and engaged several people in conversation.

The situation was desperate. Children were hungry and could not register for schools through the UNHCR or through the Lebanese government, which, by that time, had almost collapsed. Many electronic food cards that were issued to the migrants did not function. Work permits were not offered, and without proper paperwork, local social services could not be used. In brief: a total disaster.

I was told that in this area, some Syrian migrants had already been starving.

This was Bekaa Valley, a tough place to start with, and full of ancient traditions, clans, gangs and narcotic-business. Refugees were expected to keep their heads down, or else…

Before I left, two little girls, two sisters, approached me. Both had swollen bellies, suffering from malnutrition. Both were dressed in rugs. Both looked deprived.

But after spotting my cameras, they were mesmerized, smiling at me, showing tongues, laughing.

Their country was in ruins, their future uncertain.

But these were just two little girls in the middle of the mountains, two girls excited about each and every little detail of life. Such innocence! Such hope! People are people, and children are children, everywhere, even during wars.

Unfortunately, I have witnessed too many of them; too many wars. Too many barbarities performed by NATO, by the Empire, by the United States and Europe.

Later, working on the Greek island of Kos and in Calais in France, I kept thinking about those two girls, again and again.

The West (or call it NATO, or anything you like – we all know what I mean!) has, in the most cynical manner, destabilized and destroyed the entire Middle East. As it has in virtually all the continents of the world, it ruined tremendous cultures, plundered all it could put its hands on, turned proud people into slaves. Libya and Iraq are no more! I can testify, as I work all over the Middle East.

And then the West enclosed itself into its gold-plated bunker, slowly and disgustingly digesting its booty!

How many refugees are there that Europe says: “it cannot accept”? 1 million? Tiny, miniscule Lebanon has 2 million, and it is coping; badly but coping!

And Lebanon did not destroy Syria, Libya, Afghanistan or Iraq.

You know how it all feels like? Like observing a woman who was gang-raped, whose husband was murdered in front of her own eyes, and whose beautiful house was looted. Now this woman, just in order to save her starving children from the rubbles, is forced to go to Europe, to the rapists and thieves who destroyed her life, asking for shelter and food. And they spit into her face! They say: “It is too much for us, too difficult to accommodate you and others like you! Woman, you came to take advantage of us. You came to have a better life at our expense!”

This is how it looks from the outside. This is how I see it.

And I want to puke. But there is no time… One has to work, day and night, to stop this madness.

The West, of course including Europe, is too hardened by its own crimes, too cynical, and too unrepentant.

It remains blind, because it simply does not pay to see!

***

There is no Left Wing in Europe, anymore. Not the Left as we understand the term in Cuba and other revolutionary nations.

To us, true left means “Internationalism”, solidarity!

True left is global, egalitarian, and color-blind.

European so-called Left is only concerned with the benefits of its own citizens. It does not care at all where the funds are coming from.

As long as French, Greek, Spanish or Italian farmers get their subsidies and perks, who cares that agriculture in Africa or Asia gets thoroughly ruined. The most important is that European farmers could drive their latest BMW’s, for producing something or not producing anything at all.

I saw absolutely grotesque concepts implemented in countries like Senegal, and other former French colonies: heavily subsidized French food produce flooded West Africa, supermarkets opened, local production collapsed. Then the prices spiked to 2-3 times higher levels than those in Paris. And so, in Senegal where incomes are perhaps only 10% of those in France, a yoghurt costs 3 times more than in Monoprix.

Who pays for those 35-hour workweeks? Who pays for socialized medical care and free education in the European Union? Definitely not the Europeans themselves! Most of the funds used to come from the colonies, from that unimaginable plunder of the world performed by the West.

Colonialism and imperialism are still there, but they often changed forms, although the toll on people in non-white countries continues to be the same.

The Belgian King Leopold II and his cohorts, in what is now Congo, massacred 10 million people, at the beginning of the 20th Century. Between 1995 and now, the West plundered the Democratic Republic of Congo once again, mercilessly, by using its closest allies in Africa – Rwanda, Uganda and Kenya. Again, between 7 and 10 million people died there, in just 20 years, and these are not some inflated numbers, these are numbers provided by the United Nations and its reports, including the so-called “Mapping Report”. All that horror, only so the West could have access to coltan (used in our mobile phones), to uranium, and other strategic materials. I compiled the evidence in my feature documentary film “Rwanda Gambit”.

All those ruined lives and countries, so that European citizens could have their benefits, long vacations, and social services.

When I discussed the issue with my friend, an Italian filmmaker from Naples, he snapped at me: “We don’t want to be like the Chinese. We don’t want to work hard like them!”

I replied: “Then live within your means! Do not allow your corporations and governments to massacre tens of millions of people, so that the companies could have their insane profits, and citizens those outrageous benefits.”

Recently, in Thailand, I overheard a group of unemployed Spaniards laughing about having a vacation in Southeast Asia, paid for by their unemployment benefits.

I know many countries, dependencies of the West, where losing one’s job is synonymous to a death sentence! But we are asked to feel sorry for Spaniards, Italians and Greeks. We are expected to see them as victims.

***

I am saddened to say, but it is not only the United States, but also Europe, which is totally, blissfully ignorant about its role in the world, and about the harm, about the horrors that it is spreading all over our Planet.

This discovery shocked me so much, that I spent 4 years crisscrossing the world, compiling the evidence and testimonies that illustrate the colonialist, neo-colonialist and imperialist legacy of the West, as well as the current neo-colonialist barbarities. The book is 840-pages long and it is called “Exposing Lies Of The Empire”. I hope, one day, it will be available in the Italian language!

The book has been receiving enthusiastic reception, but for me, this thick volume is not the end. Now I am compiling the second installment. The topic is just too enormous. The crimes, genocides, holocausts committed by the West on the people of our Planet, are too enormous.

Everything is linked to them! The entire arrangement of the world uses them as pillars.

In our book “On Western Terrorism – From Hiroshima to Drone Warfare”, written together with my friend Noam Chomsky, I was asked whether the Europeans actually realize what they have done to the world, during the last centuries.

(Just a side note – this book is now available in the Italian language “Terrorismo Occidentale”).

I replied to Noam: “They definitely don’t!”

And I repeat here, again: most of them, the great majority of them, do not realize it! They don’t want to see, to admit, that their opera houses, hospitals, museums, parks and promenades, are all constructed on the corpses of those who were robbed of everything: from Latin America and its open veins, to Asia and Africa. Slavery, unimaginable extermination campaigns, tremendous lists of horrors!

Before Noam and I began our discussion, I spent some time with several top statisticians, and our conclusion was chilling: directly or indirectly, the West massacred between 40 and 50 million people, between the Hiroshima A-bomb explosion, and the time of my long dialogue with Noam – in 2012.

The number of people, who were murdered throughout history, directly or indirectly, by European empires, all over the world, can only be calculated in hundreds of millions, and one of my statistician friends believes that the total accumulative number actually exceeds 1 billion.

***

When I was recently speaking at the China Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing, and later in Moscow, having been invited by Russian philosophers and by several members of the Russian Academy of Science, I publicly declared that I am fundamentally against “free medical care and free education in Europe”.

When asked “why?” I explained that the cost is too high, and those robbed and destroyed people, all over the world, are almost exclusively expected to cover it.

But I continued: “I am totally, decisively, supportive of universal free medical care, education and essential social benefits. Or as we say in Cuba: everyone dances, or nobody does!”

Of course I also can tolerate and support free medical care, education and benefits in those countries that do not plunder the world, like Cuba, China, Venezuela, Bolivia, South Africa or Ecuador.

***

Not only the West refuses to face its responsibility for, by now, the almost absolute total destruction of the world, it is also using all sorts of smoke screens and propaganda tactics to divert the attention of the people; it is spreading nihilist economic concepts, propaganda and outright lies.

It is using education as a weapon, offering scholarships to children of elites in the countries it is robbing and controlling. After being indoctrinated, they return home and continue violating their own countries on behalf of the United States and Europe.

And so the vicious cycle continues!

I encountered so many grotesque moments, when for instance, an Indonesian upper class family returning from its vacation in Holland, begins a long litany, about how great are the theaters, trains, museums and public spaces in Netherlands, compared to those in Indonesia.

Of course they are! All built from centuries of Dutch plunder of Indonesia, like those Spanish cathedrals stuffed with gold, growing from corpses.

As Noam Chomsky often says: “not to see all this truly takes great discipline!”

***

The brutality of the Western Empire is unmatchable. Its cynicism is monumental!

Look at those so-called “terrorists” in Muslim countries, scarecrows that Western governments and media keep waving in front of our eyes!

Islamic culture is greatly socialist and socially oriented. After World War II, secular, socialist, revolutionary and anti-Western governments ruled the most important Muslim nations: Egypt, Iran and Indonesia.

Within two decades, the West overthrew them all, implementing fascist regimes.

It then invented the Mujahideen and injected them into Afghanistan, in order to finish with the Soviet Union.

And once it felt the need for some monumental enemy to replace Communism, it manufactured and then armed, trained and educated groups like al-Qaida, al-Nusra and ISIS.

This move served two important goals: to justify astronomical military and intelligence budgets, and to portray the Western/Christian civilization as “culturally superior”, fighting “Arab terrorist monsters”.

Of course, the great majority of the people in Europe and North America are so indoctrinated, intellectually self-righteous and defunct, that they remain blind when faced with those Machiavellian pirouettes.

For the European public, there are plenty of “good reasons” to stick to those inherently racist beliefs, and to protectionism. There are even better reasons for hiding those millions of heads in the sand!

And so it goes.

***

I am here, in Italy, and today I do not want to discuss the United States, Israel, or other colonies and client states of the West. We can do it some other time, if I am invited back.

I spoke about Europe.

And I spoke about those two Syrian girls I met in Lebanon.

They are your responsibility, too, Italy! They suffer from malnutrition because your part of the world is ruining their country. It is because your country is a member of NATO, and NATO is behaving like a fascist thug with some clear mafia behavioral patterns.

I know you have heart!

I grew up on your films, on Fellini and de Sica, Rossellini, Antonioni and others. I greatly admire your poetry and music. They had tremendous influence on my work, and on how I see the world.

But your heart, it seems, lately goes only to your own people. It is not an internationalist heart. It does not believe that all people are equal.

I came here to say this, because not too many people dare to.

I came here because I still care for your country.

But as a determined socialist realist, I care about Italy as it “could and should be”, not “as it is” at this moment.

U.S. Now Overtly At War Against Russia

Eric Zuesse

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg announced on February 2nd that he approves of U.S. ‘Defense' Secretary Ash Carter's proposal to quadruple U.S. armaments and troops in Europe, against ‘Russian aggression.'

Secretary Carter said earlier that same day, in his announcement of America's arming for war against Russia:

We are reinforcing our posture in Europe to support our NATO allies in the face of Russia's aggression. In Pentagon parlance, this is called the European Reassurance Initiative and after requesting about $800 million for last year, this year we're more than quadrupling it for a total of $3.4 billion in 2017.

That will fund a lot of things: more rotational U.S. forces in Europe, more training and exercising with our allies, more preposition and war-fighting gear and infrastructure improvements to support all this.

And when combined with U.S. forces already in and assigned to Europe — which are also substantial — all of this together by the end of 2017 will let us rapidly form a highly capable combined arms ground force that can respond across that theater, if necessary. 

However, the truth is: Russia is not expanding to NATO's borders; NATO is expanding to Russia's borders. The baldness of the Western lie to the contrary is an insult to Westerners' intelligence.

The U.S. is preparing for an invasion of Russia.

“By the end of 2017,” the U.S. will be prepared to invade Russia.

Secretary Carter went on to say:

Russia and China are our most stressing competitors. They have developed and are continuing to advance military system[s] that seek to threaten our advantages in specific areas. And in some case[s], they are developing weapons and ways of wars that seek to achieve their objectives rapidly, before they hope, we can respond.

Because of this and because of their actions to date, from Ukraine to the South China Sea, DOD has elevated their importance in our defense planning and budgeting.

Since he is a Secretary of ‘Defense' instead of a Secretary of Offense, he immediately added:

While we do not desire conflict of any kind with either of these nations — and let me be clear.

That's all there was to the assertion there; he didn't finish the sentence, nor even the thought. He often makes grammatical errors, of which that's an example (and his leaving the “s”s off the words in the quoted passage there are others). But in this offhanded way, he did at least try to give the impression that the U.S. is never an aggressor — for example: that, though the U.S. is expanding NATO right up to Russia's borders, Russia is being the ‘aggressor' to move troops and weapons up to those borders — up to Russia's own borders (to counter the U.S. & NATO invasion-threat, of course; but, no: it's to threaten NATO, if you believe the West). In the statements by Ash Carter, Barack Obama, and Jens Stoltenberg, that's ‘Russian aggression.' In the allegory by George Orwell, 1984, America's rhetoric is called simply “Newspeak.”

It's as if during the Soviet Union (i.e., before 1991), when Nikita Khrushchev was the aggressor in 1962 and John Kennedy was the defender (against Soviet missiles in Cuba), Khrushchev had refused to yield and said that Soviet nuclear missiles near the U.S. had only a defensive, no offensive, purpose (no purpose for a blitz nuclear attack against the U.S. too fast for the U.S. to be able to get its missiles launched in retaliation). Kennedy said no to that idea then, and Putin says no to that idea (right on Russia's very borders) now. The U.S, in post-Soviet, post communist, Russia, has turned around and become the aggressor — against the now democratic nation of Russia. (And Putin's approval-rating from the Russian people is at least 80%, whereas Obama's approval-rating from the American people is near 50%.) We've switched roles. The U.S. has turned to dictatorship, while Russia has turned to democracy. It's a super-switcheroo. ‘Democracy' in the U.S has become, during recent decades, the election of Presidents and congresspersons who were campaigning on lies, and who then actually delivered more like the opposite, as their actual governmental policies.

A good example of this is that when Mr. Obama was campaigning for re-election to the Presidency in 2012, he outright mocked his opponent Mitt Romney's asserting (2:22 on the video) that, “Russia, this is without question our number one geopolitical foe.” But the moment that Obama became re-elected, Obama activated a 1957 CIA plan to overthrow Russia's ally Bashar al-Assad in Syria, and a more-recent CIA and State Department plan to overthrow the actually neutralist Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine and replace him with a rabidly anti-Russian government. The head of Stratfor called it “the most blatant coup in history,”and it was an extremely bloody coup, followed by a civil war — and economic collapse, and even more corruption there. In addition, Obama carried out a French plan to overthrow Russia's ally Muammar Gaddafi in Syria. All of these plans were strongly welcomed by Russia's main oil-market competitors, all of them fundamentalist Sunni Arab financial backers of jihadists: the Saud royal family of Saudi Arabia, and the Thani royal family of Qatar, as well as the Sabah royal family of Kuwait, and the six royal families of UAE. Those royals own most of the world's oil, and only Russia and its ally Iran are even in that league. All of those Sunni Arab royal families (especially the Sauds) are the main financial backers of Al Qaeda, ISIS, and other jihadist groups, all of which are fundamentalist Sunni terrorist groups, which especially aim to exterminate all Shiites — and Shiites just happen to be supported by Russia. (The U.S. overthrew the democratically elected progressive President of Iran and installed the tyrannous Shah, back in 1953, and Iranians have loathed the U.S. government ever since.)

President Obama, in his second Administration, ceased his previous focus against the Sunni group Al Qaeda, and refocused U.S. policy to be against Russia, even to the extent of his now supporting Al Qaeda, ISIS, and other rabidly anti-Russian Sunni groups, who are driving millions of refugees from Syria, Libya, etc., into Europe. (Of course, Obama's rhetoric remains against those Sunni extremists — just as his rhetoric was against Romney's policies that Obama ended up imposing in his second term.) All of those terrorist groups are allied with the Sunni Arab royal families against Shiite-led Iran, and Shiite-allied Syria. 

The fundamentalist Sunni beliefs of the Arab royal families have, since at least 1744, been committed to exterminating all Shiites. Now that Shiite and Shiite-allied nations are supported by Russia, the United States is more overtly than ever preparing to conquer Russia, for the benefit of the aristocracies of America, and of Arabia. 

And there are many other examples of President Obama's policies exposing him to be an example of “the election of Presidents and congresspersons who were campaigning on lies, and who then actually delivered more like the opposite, as policies,” such as his claiming to champion democracy in Syria when his actual demand regarding Syria is to block democracy there because all the evidence shows that it would result in an overwhelming electoral victory for Bashar al-Assad. And another example is Obama's supporting the right of self-determination of peoples regarding Scotland and Catalonia, but not in Crimea nor in Donbass nor in Abkhazia. The United Nations supports the right of self-determination of peoples everywhere, and Ban ki-Moon has clearly stated that America's demand for the removal of Bashar al-Assad from power is alien to the principles upon which the United Nations was founded.

So: the U.S. regime is moving toward a nuclear confrontation against Russia, as a ‘defensive' measure against ‘Russian aggression.'

Obama had previously used ‘The Iran Threat' as his basis for placing anti-ballistic missiles in European countries near and bordering Russia, but he can't do that anymore and so he's now doing it with what had been his actual motive all along: to ‘protect' Europe from ‘Russian aggression.'

What had led up to Romney's assertion that Russia “is without question our number one geopolitical foe” was his having been baited by CNN to comment upon a private statement that Obama had made to Vladimir Putin's representative saying that, “This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.” CNN didn't say what that matter was about, but simply baited Romney with it for Romney to play the Red-scare Joseph R. McCarthy role, which Romney did (McCarthy, of the anti-communist witch-hunts, being a Republican hero). Reuters explained what the context was, what Obama had been replying to there: Putin's concern was that placing anti-ballistic missiles (ABMs) in Europe to strip Russia of its ability to retaliate against a first-strike from NATO forces in Europe, by those ABMs eliminating Russia's ability to retaliate, was unacceptable. Obama was telling Putin's representative that Obama would “have more flexibility” against Republican hate-mongerers against Russia, after he'd win re-election. It was just another lie from him. He won re-election and turned out to be actually a black Mitt Romney. In fact, Obama had spent his entire first term deceiving the entire world to think that he rejected Republicans being “stuck in a Cold War mind warp,”as he put it. It was all merely an act for him. He should be in Hollywood, not in the White House.

If this cat gets much farther out of the bag, it's not just the cat but the whole world that will be lost.

The first priority for a President Bernie Sanders, or for a President Donald Trump, must be to undo the Bush-Obama foreign policy, because it certainly won't be undone by a President Hillary Clinton, nor by a President Ted Cruz, nor by a President Marco Rubio — and this is the main thing that's at stake in the current U.S. Presidential contest. What's at stake here is nothing less than whether civilization even survives another few decades. That's now seriously at question, and trillions are being spent right now to bring it to an end.

This isn't kid's stuff. And it's not really rocket science, either. It's instead a fundamental and stark moral issue, that's staring the entire world in the face right now. And it hasn't got a thing to do with religion (which is always morally irrelevant except for stirring up hatreds, which are immoral — religion is just a tool the aristocracy use to control the public to think that the aristocrats ‘deserve' to control the government), but it has a lot to do with restoring democracy where it has been eroded down to virtually nothing. 

Democracy requires a truthfully informed public. And that's the truth. Let's get with it, before it's too late to do so. 

The likelihood of a nuclear war has never been higher than it now is, except perhaps for the Cuban Missile Crisis, but the entire world was being informed about that then, and what about the situation now, after democracy's having been eroded away so much in the West? This time around, the situation is perhaps even more serious. The urgency of the situation is critical.

Is this the type of ‘news' coverage we'll continue to get on the world's top matter — that Russia is invading our territory, when we're actually constantly invading (and perpetrating coups) in theirs, and they're actually doing what they must  do in order to defend the Russian people themselves from NATO?

End NATO now. Or else it (and its cooperative ‘news' media in the West) will end us all. The whole expansion of NATO up to Russia's borders has been based upon U.S. President George Herbert Walker Bush's lie to Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990, which lie from Bush and his agents induced Gorbachev to end not just the Soviet Union but their equivalent of NATO, the Warsaw Pact — all of which Russia did do in 1991. Russia has consistently fulfilled its part of the bargain, but GHWB's vicious violation of his promise has been consistently followed, adhered to, by American Presidents ever since. The deceit goes on, and the U.S. is now heading towards culminating the most dangerous lie in world history.

The Ezubao scam: A sign of deeper problems in China’s financial system

Peter Symonds

The exposure of Ezubao, a high-profile Internet lending site, as a racket that allegedly raked in $7.6 billion from some 900,000 investors has not only cast a pall over China’s burgeoning online finance industry but raised questions about the broader stability of the country’s debt-laden financial system.

The state-run Xinhua news agency announced on Monday that Chinese police had arrested 34-year-old Ezubao founder Ding Ning and 20 others associated with the company, which shut its doors in December. Police reportedly used two excavators to recover hundreds of account books that were buried deep underground.

Ezubao was one of the more prominent peer-to-peer (P2P) lending sites that match lenders and borrowers over the Internet, and have branched out into other financial products. The company offered high-yield investments of between 9 and 14.6 percent and projected an image of wealth and stability. It paid out 800 million yuan ($US121 million) to staff in November to ensure they wore designer clothes and expensive jewellery. It advertised on high-speed trains and prime time on the state-owned CCTV channel, leading investors to believe that it was government-backed.

In reality, Ezubao was in the words of former company executive Zhang Min, “a complete Ponzi scheme.” It made few real investments but relied on the constant flow of incoming funds to pay off those seeking to withdraw their money. Yong Lei, former director of the company’s risk management department, was quoted by Xinhua as saying that “95 percent of Ezubao’s investment projects were fake.”

Many of those who were duped into handing their savings over to Ezubao were reportedly small investors from rural areas. More than 1,000 sales agencies were established across China to promote the company.

Angry investors began protesting in December after the company was shut down. A recent online post declared: “We need to rise up across the country and let the government know that the people’s bottom line is the return of their capital.”

To forestall social unrest, Chinese authorities detained demonstrators and clamped down on discussion in Internet sites. At the same time, officials announced this week that Ezubao clients could register their grievances on the Ministry of Public Security web site.

The government announced draft regulations for P2P lending sites in late December, limiting their operations to acting as intermediaries between borrowers and investors, and banning them from selling wealth management products, insurances and trust products. Even if the regulations come into effect, companies will have a grace period of 18 months to comply.

The online finance industry boomed over the past two years as China’s speculative property bubble stalled and investors began looking for high rates of return elsewhere. The slump in share prices last year only further fuelled the growth of P2P lending, which nearly quadrupled in 2015 to reach 982 billion yuan ($149 billion), up from 253 billion yuan in 2014. Ezubao was only launched in July 2014.

According to the China Banking Regulatory Commission, as of November, 2,612 P2P lending firms were operating normally, but more than 1,000 additional lenders were considered problematic. The New China News Agency reported that around 800 Internet lenders shut down last year, three times the figure for 2014. In December alone, 106 online P2P lenders absconded, suspended business, suffered liquidity problems or were subject to investigations.

In its latest report on China’s shadow banking, the credit rating agency Moody’s identified P2P lending as a “fast-growing component” of the sector. While downplaying its potential for posing “systemic risks” because of its relatively small size, the agency did note that it had “attracted attention for its high default rates and because it carries the risk of social tensions given the large presence of retail investors.”

The highly volatile and speculative character of the online finance sector raises questions about the stability of the broader shadow banking system, which in turn is intimately connected to the banking and financial sector as a whole. According to a report last year by the US-based Brookings Institution, the size of shadow banking sector in China is estimated at anything from $769 billion to $7 trillion.

P2P lending is not the only area that rests on shaky financial foundations. A UBS analysis last month highlighted the growing practice of mid-tier Chinese banks packaging loans into complex financial instruments known as Directional Asset Management Plans or Trust Beneficiary Rights that are shown on their books as low-risk loans to mask rising levels of bad debt as the economy slows.

UBS estimated that the size of the “shadow loan” book rose by a third in the first half of 2015 to $1.8 trillion. UBS financial analyst Jason Bedford told Reuters: “These are now the fastest growing assets on the balance sheets of most listed banks, excluding the Big Five [state-owned banks], not just in percentage terms but absolute terms. The concern is that the lack of transparency and mis-categorisation of credit assets potentially hide considerable non-performing loans.”

Shadow banking’s expansion has been fuelled by the vast expansion of cheap credit by the Chinese regime following the 2008–09 global financial crisis. Lacking any profitable outlet in productive activity, the money was used by speculators, local and regional governments and companies to speculate in the property market, in particular. With restrictions on lending by state-owned banks, the shadow banking system facilitated the speculative binge.

Now the property market is cooling, concerns are being expressed about the potential for a systemic crisis. Writing in Bloomberg View, commentator Noah Smith warned: “This shadow banking system has enabled a large buildup of bad debt, much of it related directly or indirectly to real estate. If property prices fall, trust companies will go broke, and banks—having invested in the trust companies—will be on the hook. That will create the conditions for a really destructive crash.”

While the collapse of Ezubao or other P2P lenders might not be the trigger for a meltdown, it could well be a harbinger of far deeper problems in the Chinese financial system.

Oil price fall brings significant losses for big producers

Nick Beams

The initial response of economic “conventional wisdom” to the slide in oil prices over the past 20 months—down from $110 per barrel in June 2014 to levels approaching $30—was that, whatever the impact on oil-exporting countries, it would aid the global economy because it would lift consumption and other spending.

It was argued that the falling oil price could not possibly be the harbinger of a global recession because all the previous downturns over the past 70 years—in particular the recessions of 1974–75 and 1981–82—were preceded by rising oil prices, while the period of growth in the 1990s was characterised by low oil prices.

That soothing scenario has been shattered over the recent period. The International Monetary Fund all but abandoned it last month, saying “the pickup in consumption in oil importers has so far been somewhat weaker than evidence from past episodes of oil price declines would have suggested.”

It has become increasingly clear that, far from providing a boost to the world economy, the precipitous drop in the oil price, together with other major industrial commodities, is symptomatic of deep recessionary trends.

The “conventional wisdom” ignored two major changes in the structure of the global economy over the past decade. First, that so-called emerging markets, many of which depend on the export of oil and other industrial commodities, now comprise about 40 percent of global gross domestic product, double their share in 1990, and so any decline in their revenues has a much bigger impact than previously. And, second, that the financial crisis of 2008–2009 was not merely a conjunctural downturn in the business cycle but signified a breakdown in the functioning of the global economy.

The downturn in oil prices is not only contributing to the lack of global demand—Apple pointed to the decline in demand from emerging markets as one reason for the expected first-ever decline in iPhone sales—it is working to create the conditions for a renewed financial crisis if oil-exporting countries default on their debts.

Venezuela could be the first in line. If oil prices continue at their January lows, Venezuela’s export revenues for this year will be $18 billion, compared to debt servicing charges of $10 billion. This leaves just $8 billion to finance imports, which came in at $37 billion last year. The economy contracted 10 percent last year, following a fall of 4 percent in 2014.

Other oil-exporting countries are being caught in the price vortex. World Bank and International Monetary Fund officials are holding talks with Azerbaijan over a $4 billion bailout and Nigeria is seeking a similar loan from the World Bank and the African Development Bank.

The falling oil price is now showing up in the profit and loss reports of the world’s major oil companies as they cut jobs and capital investment plans. Last month, the US producer Chevron, the second-largest US oil group, reported its first quarterly loss since 2002.

Chevron suffered a loss of $588 million in the fourth quarter of last year, compared to a $3.5 billion profit for the same period in 2014. Oil and gas production in the US, where production costs are higher than the company’s international sites, was the weakest division, reporting a loss of $4.1 billion, compared to a profit of $3.3 billion in 2014. Profits from production outside the US came in at $2.1 billion, but this was a drop of 85 percent on the previous year’s results.

ExxonMobil, the world’s largest oil company, recorded a smaller drop in profits than its rivals. Its profits came in at $2.78 billion, a fall of 58 percent compared to 2014. However, the company committed itself to a further 25 percent reduction in capital spending this year, following a 19 percent reduction in 2015.

Shell reported that it will sell off $10 billion worth of assets, following an 87 percent collapse in its annual profits to $1.9 billion. Shell chief executive Ben Van Beurden said the company would make “substantial changes” in the face of the falling oil price. It has eliminated 7,500 jobs and intends to cut the workforce by a further 2,800.

Further “restructuring” could flow from Shell’s takeover of rival BG, a deal valued at £35 billion. The merger is based on calculations that the price for crude will be at least $60 per barrel, compared to the present level of near $30 and predictions that it will remain at these levels for a considerable period.

The worst-placed of the oil majors appears to be BP. It recorded a loss of $5.2 billion for 2015, its worst-ever result, compared to an $8.1 billion profit for 2014. Following write-downs on the value of its North Sea fields, where many of its operations are unprofitable at current prices, it made a loss of $2.2 billion in the fourth quarter alone, compared to a loss of $969 million during the same period in 2014. BP announced that it will axe about 7,000 jobs across its operations over the next two years, amounting to 9 percent of its workforce.

Overall, the energy sector is expected to cut spending to $522 billion this year, following a 22 percent reduction to $595 billion in 2015. This will be the first time since 1986 that the industry has reduced spending two years in a row.

The downturn in oil prices led to a decision by Standard & Poor’s to cut the credit ratings of leading US oil and gas companies, including Chevron. The rating agency downgraded three US shale oil and gas producers—Continental Resources, Southwestern Energy and Hunt Oil—from investment grade to “junk” status.

Exxon kept its triple A credit rating but S&P put it on watch for a possible downgrade, saying it will make a decision within the next 90 days. S&P said it will use longer-term projections in determining its credit ratings. The impact of the slump can be seen in those projections. In December 2014, S&P based its calculations on a long-term price for Brent crude of $85 per barrel. That has been cut to $40 for this year, rising only to $50 by 2018.

Apart from lowered credit ratings, the fall in the oil price is impacting on the financial system, especially via US banks, notably smaller regional banks, which have funded shale oil operations. Figures for January reveal that the main contributor to the 5 percent drop in Wall Street’s S&P 500 share index was the fall in bank stocks.

The impact of lower prices has yet to be fully felt because oil producers have been able to cover their position by taking out future selling contracts at higher than current market prices. As those contracts expire, however, some shale producers will become unprofitable unless there is a significant upturn in oil prices.

More recalls of Takata exploding airbags

Shannon Jones

Automaker Honda said it is expanding its recall of vehicles equipped with defective Takata airbags. The decision comes in the wake of another fatal crash in which an airbag exploded, killing the driver.

Joel Knight of South Carolina was killed in December after his vehicle, a 2006 Ford Ranger, struck a stray cow. The airbag ruptured, sending metal debris into his throat. According to the family’s attorney, if not for the rupture the crash would have only been moderate, and Knight likely would have survived. The driver’s side airbag on his vehicle had not been subject to recall until last month.

So far 14 carmakers have recalled 28 million airbag inflators in 24 million vehicles. However, millions of additional vehicles with potentially defective inflators are still being driven. About 54 million airbag inflators in total have been shipped to the US. Takata controls some 30 percent of the worldwide airbag market.

The explosive, ammonium nitrate, contained in the airbag inflator may break down over time when exposed to moisture and pose a danger. When a vehicle is recalled it receives a new inflator, a metal casing enclosing explosives that help the airbag expand in the event of a collision.

At least 10 deaths, nine of those in the United States, are tied to the defect. Honda recently expanded its recall of vehicles equipped with the defective airbags by more than one-third in North America. The latest action involved 2.23 million vehicles in the US. Honda alone has now recalled 8.5 million Honda and Acura vehicles.

At the time of Knight’s death his Ranger vehicle had not been the subject of a recall. Ford has since recalled 400,000 Rangers built between 2004 and 2006 to replace defective airbags.

A New York Times report in September 2014 reported 139 injuries related to the defect across all automakers.

Recalls of Takata airbags have proceeded in piecemeal fashion ever since 2008 when Honda first alerted regulators to the problem. A general pattern has emerged: the issue subsides for a time, then another widely reported death linked to the airbags occurs and more recalls are ordered.

Repairs have taken place at a tortoise pace due to shortages of replacement parts. As of late December only 27 percent of recalled vehicles had the problem corrected.

The death of Knight prompted calls by Democratic Senators Edward Markey of Massachusetts and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut for the Obama administration to expand the recall of Takata airbags.

Meanwhile, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the federal agency that oversees vehicle safety, has given Takata another three years to prove that ammonium nitrate inflators are safe. This continues a pattern of extreme indulgence shown by the agency to carmakers.

NHTSA imposed a token $70 million fine on Takata in November for providing incomplete or misleading data about defective airbags to the agency since 2009. The company could face another $170 million in additional penalties if it violates terms of the settlement. The company has yet to provide a root cause for the airbag ruptures.

Takata reported profits of $69 million in the quarter ending in December 2015. That represented a nearly 300 percent increase over the same period last year. Sales for the quarter totaled some $1.5 billion. The company recorded $89 million in recall-related costs in the preceding nine-month period. The company’s fiscal year ends in March.

In 2004, Honda first alerted Takata about the airbag problem, but it did not issue a recall or notify NHTSA. In 2008 Honda issued a recall for just 4,205 vehicles, and six months later expanded it to 510,000 cars. At the time, NHTSA belatedly opened an investigation, but did not take any action.

In 2014, NHTSA issued a recall for 7.8 million vehicles, but in a bizarre twist limited it to a few states in areas of high humidity. Owners of defective vehicles in non-recall states were not notified and not eligible for repairs.

A review panel commissioned by Takata released a report Tuesday on the exploding airbag issue. The panel, composed of engineers and former government regulators, issued a toothless report calling for better quality-control systems. Highlighting the revolving door between the auto industry and the US Department of Transportation, the panel included Samuel Skinner, transportation secretary in the administration of President George HW Bush.

Takata has also hired new public relations personnel and reshuffled management in response to the continued revelations.

In a related development, another airbag manufacturer, Continental Automotive Systems, said it is recalling 5 million airbag control units. The devices are fitted to vehicles manufactured by Honda, Fiat Chrysler, Mercedes-Benz and a Chrysler-based Volkswagen.

It follows a recall by Mercedes-Benz in October last year of certain 2008 and 2009 models because the Continental-manufactured control units could corrode. The defect would cause the airbag to expand unexpectedly or not at all in the event of a crash.

NHTSA began a safety investigation in August after 19 complaints from drivers that airbags failed to inflate in older model Honda Accords.

Meanwhile, General Motors will face at least 16 death and injury lawsuits this year for defective ignition switches linked to a minimum of 169 deaths. Last year GM agreed to pay 124 death and 275 injury claims related to defective ignition switches on lower end vehicles, a defect it had known about since 2001, but covered up until 2014. The victim compensation fund received a total of 474 death claims and another 289 claims for category one injuries, including quadriplegia, paraplegia, double amputation, permanent brain damage or pervasive burns. In addition, GM agreed to pay civil damages in cases involving another 45 deaths.

GM officials avoided all criminal charges in relation to its more than decade-long cover-up of the ignition defect, receiving a $900 million fine instead. This continues the record of the Obama administration of shielding corporate criminals, from the BP oil disaster to the bankers responsible for the 2008 financial crash.

North Korea announces satellite launch

Ben McGrath

North Korea announced on Tuesday that it intends to launch an observation satellite between February 8 and 25. The announcement drew immediate condemnations from the US and its allies, as well as expressions of concern from Beijing. The proposed launch has already further raised tensions following Pyongyang’s nuclear test on January 6 and, if conducted, will undoubtedly be seized upon by Washington to justify its continuing military buildup in the region.

The proposed trajectory of the rocket will take it from the Sohae Satellite Launching Station, located on northwestern coast of the country, south across the Yellow Sea. Pyongyang said the satellite will be used to collect weather information and other data. A previous launch in 2012 used a three-stage rocket to place into orbit a satellite that is reportedly not operating

The US issued a sharp rebuke, demanding new and tougher sanctions against North Korea if it carries out the launch, which Washington claims is a disguised ballistic missile test. State Department spokesman John Kirby stated: “This latest announcement further underscores the need for the international community to send the North Koreans a swift, firm message that its disregard for UN Security Council resolutions will not be tolerated.”

Japan is using the foreshadowed launch as the pretext to flex its military might in the region. It deployed Aegis destroyers at sea equipped with SM-3 missiles and has Patriot PAC-3 missiles standing by on land. On Wednesday, Japanese Defense Minister Gen Nakatani instructed the military to shoot down any part of the missile should it come into Japanese territory.

Citing anonymous government sources, Japan’s NHK public broadcaster claimed on Thursday that North Korea was preparing for a separate ballistic missile test from a mobile launch pad on its east coast.

South Korea also issued a statement saying its military would shoot down any rocket parts that entered its territory, while also threatening Pyongyang with “searing consequences.” In another statement, the presidential office declared: “We strongly warn that the North will pay a severe price … if it goes ahead with the long-range missile launch plan.”

These statements point to the danger that the launch could be used to stage a provocation by shooting down the rocket, supposedly in self-defense. Such an action would enormously intensify the already acute tensions on the Korean Peninsula.

The US military is also on high alert. “We will, as we always do, watch carefully if there’s a launch, [and] have our missile defense assets positioned and ready,” US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said. A US navy spokesman confirmed to Reuters that the missile tracking ship USNS Howard O. Lorenzen arrived in Japan this week.

Washington is already exploiting North Korea’s announcement to intensify the pressure on Beijing to take tougher action to rein in Pyongyang following last month’s nuclear test. President Barack Obama spoke to Chinese President Xi Jinping yesterday “to emphasize the importance of a strong and united international response to North Korea’s provocations”—in other words, insisting that China accept the US demands to move against North Korea.

Last week in Beijing, US Secretary of State John Kerry reportedly pressed Chinese officials on “what China on a unilateral basis, as North Korea’s lifeline, as North Korea’s patron, will choose to do.” The US is demanding that China block North Korea’s only access to oil and other supplies, as well as its already limited access to the international financial system—moves that could provoke a severe economic and political crisis in Pyongyang.

The sharp differences between Washington and Beijing were evident in Kerry’s joint press conference with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi. While condemning North Korea’s nuclear test, Wang declared that “sanctions are not an end in themselves” and urged a return to “the path of negotiation and consultation. Beijing is fearful that a collapse in Pyongyang will be exploited by Washington to install a pro-US regime on China’s northern borders.

As a result, China also expressed concern over the upcoming satellite launch and called for restraint from all sides. Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Lu Kang stated: “North Korea of course has rights to use space, but it is currently under sanctions of the UN Security Council.” After a senior Beijing envoy visited Pyongyang this week, Foreign Minister Wang said China had told North Korea it did not want anything to happen that would further raise tension.

Like its fourth nuclear test last month, there is nothing progressive about Pyongyang’s proposed rocket launch. It is designed as an occasion for nationalist grandstanding and to deflect mounting political tensions within the regime. Far from preventing an imperialist intervention, the nuclear tests and rocket launches simply provide the US and its allies with a pretext for accelerating their military build-up against China as part of Washington’s “pivot to Asia.”

Following the fourth nuclear test, Washington immediately stepped up its push for a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) battery to be stationed in South Korea. As a Center for Strategic and International Studies report released last month made clear, the stationing of THAAD and other anti-missile systems in the region is ultimately aimed at China.

According to a Wall Street Journal article on January 28, the US and South Korea are nearing agreement on the system. “Behind the scenes it looks like THAAD is close to a done deal,” stated a former US official who has been in talks with senior South Korean officials. THAAD consists not only of missiles to shoot down an incoming ballistic missile but also a radar system known as the AN/TPY-2 X-band.

China is concerned that the AN/TPY-2 radar will be used to monitor Chinese territory. The purpose of such an anti-ballistic missile system is not defensive, as the US argues. It is an integral component of the Pentagon’s war plans, involving a nuclear first strike on China. Whatever missiles Beijing could launch in a counterattack could be knocked out by THAAD or other systems.