31 Jan 2020

Amazon employees defy management and publicly protest corporate policies

Kevin Reed

More than 350 Amazon employees defied an external communications directive and spoke out publicly on Sunday both against corporate policies and in defense of fellow workers who had previously criticized the company’s climate practices.
The comments of the Amazon employees have been published on Medium, the social journalism and online publishing platform. As of this writing 363 comments have been posted by Amazon staff from departments across the company. Further comments can also be read at the Twitter hashtag #AMZNSpeakOut.
Amazon employees in Turin, Italy participating in the climate strike on September 20
The employee statements criticize a wide range of corporate policies and practices including Amazon’s collaboration with the fossil fuel industry, discrimination in the workplace, the mistreatment of warehouse workers and the company’s complicity with the US Department of Homeland Security Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
The organized defiance of Amazon’s recent threat against speaking publicly about company policy is a response to an appeal by a group of employees organized under the Twitter account Amazon Employees for Climate Justice. Their January 20 statement said, “You may have read the news about Amazon threatening to fire a few people for violating the newly updated external communications policy by speaking publicly about Amazon’s impact on the climate crisis.”
The group’s statement also says, “Our strength is in numbers. The idea is to intentionally break the communications policy so prolifically that it is unenforceable. As Martin Luther King Jr. said, ‘One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.’” The employees encouraged their fellow workers to sign on to Medium and endorse one of the already published statements or to write their own. They said they would not publish any of the quotes until the total number of posts reached at least 100 people.
Among the most popular endorsed statements says, “I disagree with AWS [Amazon Web Services] enabling Palantir and ICE to surveil and separate children from their parents at the border.” Another popular statement reads, “Amazon’s supply chain should not be built at the expense of warehouse workers who work at a pace that causes higher-than-industry-average injury rates. It’s not humane to have people scared to go to the bathroom.”
In a Tweet on January 27, the group published a two-minute video with numerous Amazon employees identified by their first names and holding up handwritten signs that read, “We will not be silenced #AMZNSpeakOut.” The Tweet reads, “Hundreds of us decided to stand up to our employer, Amazon. We are scared. But we decided we couldn’t live with ourselves if we let a policy silence us in the face of an issue of such moral gravity like the climate crisis.”
The present conflict at Amazon is the latest development in a series of escalating events that go back to last fall. On September 20, nearly 5,000 Amazon employees in 25 cities and 14 countries walked off the job to protest the company’s inaction on climate change. The strike included 3,000 workers who walked out at the company’s Seattle headquarters, and was part of the week-long Global Climate Strike that involved 4 million people worldwide.
The day before the protests took place, billionaire Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos made an announcement in Washington DC—alongside former UN climate chief Christiana Figueres—that he was the first signatory of the newly created “Climate Pledge,” a pact that commits Amazon to meet the goals of the Paris climate agreement ten years early.
Responding to Bezos’ preemptive public relations initiative, the group Amazon Employees for Climate Justice demanded that Amazon set more aggressive targets and called for the company to be carbon neutral by 2030. The group also demanded that Amazon end its web services contracts that help energy companies accelerate hydrocarbon extraction and stop funding politicians and lobbyists who are climate deniers.
Amazon is a massive consumer of electrical energy at its cloud computing centers and has a significant carbon footprint, delivering an estimated one billion packages to consumers each year in the US alone. Meanwhile, it has been reported by the New York Times that Amazon has contributed financially to Competitive Enterprise Institute, a Washington DC think-tank that disputes the dangers of climate change on behalf of the fossil fuel industry.
In response to the both the walkout and the demands of the employee activists—as well as widespread skepticism about Bezos’ commitment to the environment or issues related employee working conditions or its development of facial recognition software for police surveillance—the company issued a policy manifesto on October 10.
In an article in the Bezos-owned Washington Post reporting on the manifesto, the Amazon Employees for Climate Justice was quoted as saying “Amazon’s position is based on false premises and distracts from the fact that Amazon wants to profit in businesses that are directly contributing to climate catastrophe.” The Post article attributed the statement to two employees by name, Jamie Kowalski, an Amazon software development engineer, and Maren Costa, a principal user-experience designer.
On January 2, the Post reported that Kowalski and Costa had both received a letter from a company lawyer in the employee relations department that accused them “of violating the company’s external communications policy.” Costa, the Post report said, also received an email that warned that future violations of the company policy could “result in formal corrective action, up to and including termination of your employment with Amazon.”
In an email to the Post, Costa wrote that she spoke up originally “because I’m terrified by the harm the climate crisis is already causing, and I fear for my children’s future.” She also wrote, “It’s our moral responsibility to speak up—regardless of Amazon’s attempt to censor us—especially when climate poses such an unprecedented threat to humanity.”
The latest confrontation between Amazon employees and the company is part of a growing wave of opposition among tech workers to the policies and practices of the giant tech monopolies. In June 2018, Google announced it would not seek to extend its contract with the US military on the Project Maven artificial intelligence initiative, after thousands of employees signed an open letter denouncing the company’s participation in “the business of war.”
Employees at Google, Amazon and Microsoft have all spoken out against the development at their respective companies of facial recognition software for police and military purposes.
The fact that Amazon employees are now drawing together demands on climate change, the company’s participation in illegal attacks on immigrants and the use of artificial intelligence by the police and military, and calling for a change in the working conditions of the super-exploited warehouse workers, is an important development.
What is needed to move the struggle forward is a recognition that all of these issues are important aspects of the unified struggle of the working class internationally against capitalism. Tech workers need a global strategy—in cooperation with workers in other sectors of the economy—based on a socialist program that will remove the critical resources of the internet, digital communications and logistics infrastructure for consumer product distribution from private ownership and place them under the democratic control of the working class.

Multiple countries curtail travel to mainland China as fears mount over coronavirus

Benjamin Mateus & James Cogan

International concern is growing over the 2019-nCoV coronavirus that was identified in the Chinese city of Wuhan in December of last year. The number of person-to-person transmissions being reported is increasing. With 7,183 confirmed cases in less than a month—of which just 68 are outside China—the number of people infected has already surpassed the 2003 SARS coronavirus pandemic during the same time frame. The lethality of the present epidemic is lower at this point, however, with SARS causing 349 deaths in mainland China compared with 170 deaths thus far caused by 2019-nCoV.
On January 23, the Chinese government took the extraordinary step of effectively placing the entire city of Wuhan and its population of 11 million under quarantine. It has since extended the measure to neighboring cities in Hubei province, restricting the movement of up to 50 million people.
According to the mayor of Wuhan, however, as many as five million people had already left the city before the quarantine, primarily to visit family in other parts of China or the world for the Lunar New Year celebrations. In some cases, it is believed that people who were infected with 2019-nCoV left to seek medical care because they could not get treatment in overwhelmed hospitals and clinics.
Thai people wearing face masks walk in a overhead bridge in Bangkok, Thailand, Wednesday, Jan. 29, 2020. [Credit: AP Photo/Gemunu Amarasinghe]
The governor of Hubei province, Wang Xiadong, informed reporters that the epidemic was now severe in Huanggang, a city of 7.5 million neighboring Wuhan, with over 1,000 confirmed and suspected cases. He echoed previous officials who have reported significant shortages in medical supplies. Medical teams are being deployed and makeshift hospitals are being erected to handle the growing number of infected individuals.
Cases have now been confirmed in at least 17 countries, including a number of Asian countries, the United States, Canada, Australia, France and Germany. The United Arab Emirates has reported the first case of 2019-nCoV in the Middle East.
Dr. Michael Ryan, the head of the World Health Organization (WHO) Health Emergencies Program, told a press conference yesterday: “The continued increase in cases and the evidence of human-to human transmission outside China are of course most deeply concerning. Although the numbers outside China are still relatively small, they hold the potential for a much larger outbreak.”
The United Nations’ agency UNICEF has rushed six tons of respiratory masks and protective suits for use by the Chinese medical workers on the front line of treating victims. UNICEF executive director Henrietta Fore stated in a press release: “This coronavirus is spreading at a breakneck speed and it is important to put all the necessary resources into halting it. We may not know enough about the virus’s impact on children or how many may be affected, but we do know that close monitoring and prevention are key. Time is not on our side.”
The 16-person WHO expert committee that has been monitoring the virus will meet again today to consider whether to officially declare the outbreak a global public health emergency. Prior to such a declaration, however, countries and international airlines have moved to restrict movement in and out of China.
On Tuesday, Hong Kong placed a ban on entry for anyone traveling from the mainland. Cross-border transit has been severely limited and ferry and rail services to China halted. British Airways has suspended all flights to China while the UK government has warned British citizens against unnecessary travel during the epidemic. South Korea’s Seoul Air and Singapore’s Jetstar Asia have suspended or curtailed flights.
American Airlines has been the latest US carrier to announce it will cut back on flights between the US and China until the end of March. The White House is considering a complete ban on travel, while the US State Department has escalated its travel advisory warning for travel to Hubei province, the epicenter of the outbreak.
The governments of a number of countries have already, or are preparing to, evacuate their citizens from Wuhan. US diplomats and selected citizens who were flown out of China were cleared through Anchorage, Alaska, and arrived in California. European states are arranging flights for their citizens, while the European Union is partially paying for two flights.
The Australian government has announced that its citizens in Wuhan can leave if they choose one dedicated flight, but they will be taken and quarantined on the remote Christmas Island in the Indian Ocean. The island has become infamous around the world as it is the location of a detention center where refugees seeking to reach Australia were imprisoned.
On Monday, markets tumbled due to fears of the economic impact of the spread of the epidemic. These include forecasts by Forbes that there will be at least a 75 percent decline in passenger traffic between the US and China. San Francisco can expect 344,000 fewer passengers and Los Angeles, 702,000, if the restrictions on flights last for six months. The disruption to economic activity across China has already led to production shutdowns by major transnational corporations and export industries and is likely to slash its overall growth—which accounts for one-third of all global economic expansion each year.
The head of the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Alex M. Azar II, told a press briefing on January 28: “The president and I have been speaking regularly about this outbreak, and I have been speaking with the senior officials at HHS and the White House multiple times each day since the outbreak began to represent an international threat. … We are working hard to keep you safe, we are constantly preparing for the possibility that the situation could worsen, and your health and safety has been and will be our top priority.”
These remarks are contradicted by the fact that President Trump’s federal budget proposal has recommended huge cuts across the federal government, including a 12 percent cut to the HHS and a 10 percent cut to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention.
The disregard and unpreparedness of national governments for the threat of global pandemics poses immense dangers to the world’s population. The cholera pandemic of 1910–1911 killed more than 800,000 people. The Spanish flu of 1918 claimed anywhere from 20 to 50 million lives. The Asian flu in the mid-1950s killed more than two million. The flu pandemic of 1968 took another one million lives. At least 36 million people have died from HIV/AIDS and the disease continues to claim lives despite the achievements in retroviral drug treatment, because the cost is so high people in less developed countries cannot afford it.
While the coronaviruses that have broken out over recent decades—such as SARS, MERS and now 2019-nCoV—have not caused such massive death tolls, scientists expect they will continue to emerge and there is always the potential for a severe strain to develop.
Zheng-Li Shi, a Wuhan Institute Virologist and expert on the SARS pathogen, and her colleague Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth Alliance, a private research organization based in New York, told the New York Times: “We’ve been raising the flag on these viruses for 15 years, ever since SARS.” Their work demonstrated that the SARS pathogen was common to local bats but had been able to move into people and use them as hosts.
At this point, 2019-nCoV is believed to have originated in either bats or snakes that were sold for human consumption at live food markets in Wuhan and then mutated to transmit from human to human.
With the sheer scale of the movement that takes place of people between regions and countries in a globally integrated and interdependent economy, the premium must be on international scientific collaboration to identify new viruses as quickly as possible and develop vaccines that can be made freely available as rapidly as possible. The chief obstacle to such work is the capitalist profit system and nation-state divisions.

The Chanciness of Squirming Back from the Brink of Nuclear War

Vijay Shankar

Stanislav Yefgrafovich Petrov, Colonel Second Rank of the Soviet Strategic Air Defence Forces, stood as watch-in-charge at the Oko nuclear early warning surveillance system at the top secret Serpukhov-15 complex in a South Moscow suburb. His duty was to monitor remote sensing data coming in from the Molinya satellite for an early warning of ballistic missile launches from the North Dakota plains, the location of Minuteman III inter-continental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) of the US' 455 Strategic Missile Wing. If a launch targeting the USSR was detected, he was to alert the Kremlin for release of a retaliatory strike. The process was rigid and beyond recall. At civil twilight (US Central Time) on 25 September 1983, the system reported the launch of multiple Minuteman missiles. Allowing for a flight of 25 minutes and decision-making-cum-retaliation time of 20 minutes, Petrov had less than five minutes to sound the alarm and set in motion the chain of a possible nuclear holocaust.
There was neither time for a re-check nor the luxury of second source validation. Given the gravity and tensions intrinsic to the situation, it must have taken enormous fortitude to make the judgement that he did. Petrov classified the six sequential 'missile attack warnings' as false alarms even though he had no authority to do so. This decision prevented a possible retaliatory nuclear attack and escalation to full-scale nuclear war. Investigation of the Molniya system later determined that it had malfunctioned.
The Stanislav episode occurred amidst three seemingly unrelated geopolitical events that sent the USSR and the US hurtling to the brink of a nuclear war. The deployment of US Pershing II intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBMs) in Europe in the autumn of 1983 heightened fears in the Kremlin of an accelerated (six minutes) decapitation nuclear strike, thus fanning the hysteria of imminent war. It was briskly followed by 'Able Archer 83' – NATO war manoeuvres intended to validate concepts for transition from conventional to strategic nuclear war. Sandwiched between these two events was the shooting down of Korean Airlines 007 on 1 September 1983 in Soviet air space, the run-up to which was marred by tensions caused by three US Carrier Battle Groups aggressively patrolling the North West Pacific. The background noise of Reagan’s Strategic Defence Initiative stoked a distressing strategic restlessness. Stanislav was an exceptional symptom of what went fortuitously right despite the paranoia that pervaded super-power relations.
The sub-continental nuclear context hardly echoes the scenario of 1983. However, when enquiring into relations between nuclear-armed states, there are three points that bear notice. First, a high operational state of military alert in a strategic fog of mistrust tends to generate a combative stimulus that places weaponry on a hair-trigger. While this may be unavoidable in the case of conventional ordnance, it must be sworn-off when it comes to the nuclear arsenal. The fact that it took one 'sane' man, ironically not in the chain-of-command, to avert a nuclear holocaust, is a chilling reminder of the hazards of a hair-trigger.
Second, states possessing nuclear weapons are faced with an awkward paradox: that of the vulnerability of both weapon systems and their command and control, and therefore, the continuous infusion of technology. With tactical nuclear weapons, there is strong motivation to counter vulnerability by sub-delegation of release authority; enhancing the likelihood of an unintended nuclear exchange. Third, the probability of a successful decapitating nuclear first strike is not only low on account of redundancies in the target state, but also ill-founded in the premise that it can annihilate leadership all together. These considerations are a vexing part of the sub-continental milieu.
Contemporary nuclear politics is also under stress for the want of stability in Pakistan’s body polity, clarity in command and control of the nuclear arsenal, and ambiguity in doctrinal underpinnings. These must be unwavering and transparent. Inconsistencies of any nature will result in unpredictability and increase the temptation to take pre-emptive action. Even in a crisis, conventional or sub-conventional, the propensity to reach for the nuclear trigger must be abhorred. At the same time, recognition of having arrived at a threshold must be conceded. Against this backdrop, no attempt has been made to reconcile the predicament caused by intrusion of technology into the nuclear calculus and its impact on the arsenal as it compresses readiness and enhances lethality. From this standpoint, or from any, the significance of a policy of no first use (NFU) remains irrefutable.
No meaningful scrutiny of the sub-continental nuclear situation can avoid looking at either the tri-polar nature of the playing field or Pakistan's internal dynamics. China has provided intellectual, material, and technological motivation for the Pakistan nuclear programme. Its purpose is singular: to keep India-Pakistan nuclear relations on the boil while using terror organisations as instruments of misshapen military policies towards Kashmir and Afghanistan. The fear that elements of their arsenal could fall into extremist hands is real. State involvement in terror activities such as their damnable hand in the 26/11 Mumbai assault, sanctuary provided to Osama bin Laden, and Dr AQ Khan’s proliferation networks remain alive, and inspires little confidence of Pakistan’s intent.
The iconic Doomsday Clock has ticked its way to 100 seconds to midnight – the closest to disaster it has ever been in its 73-year history. It signals that the world faces an unprecedentedly high risk of nuclear catastrophe caused not only by the dismal state of global nuclear relations and uncontrolled proliferation but also by the menacing presence of terrorists. Military collaboration with a potential adversary is not a concept that comes naturally. Nonetheless, it is nobody’s case to argue that political objectives can be subsumed to military destruction, and when nuclear-armed, destruction would be of the very purpose of polity.
The world stands today on the cusp of an extremely dodgy situation; in part caused by reluctance to control the manner in which technology and political events are driving nuclear arsenals. Knee-jerk politicking of the moment shapes the arsenal of the future, while barriers to a nuclear exchange are lowered and political will to prohibit nuclear war erodes. This is the predicament that is faced by nuclear planners. There does not appear to be any other answer than to readjust postures and re-tool doctrines with the aim of holding back on nuclear weapons as primary instruments of military strategy – and a Stanislav Petrov can hardly be expected to make his appearance on-call.

29 Jan 2020

New Zealand Development Scholarships 2020/2021 for African and Developing Countries’ Students

Application Opens: Opens Saturday 1st February 2020, 12.01 am NZ Time.

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible African countries: Algeria, Angola, Botswana, Cameroon, Djibouti, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Tunisia, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

To be taken at (country): New Zealand

About Scholarship: New Zealand Development Scholarships (NZDS) give candidates from selected developing countries an opportunity to gain knowledge and skills through study in specific subject areas which will assist in the development of their home country. Awardees are required to return to their home country for at least two years after the completion of their scholarship to apply these new skills and knowledge in government, civil society or private business organisations.

Fields of study: Preference will be given to candidates who apply to study in academic disciplines relating to one or more of the following:
Agriculture development
  • Agri-business Management, AgriComerce, Agriculture Economics, Agricultural and Environmental Systems, Agriculture Systems, Agriculture Systems extension and innovation; Dairy Systems;
  • Agriculture and/or Horticulture Management, Rural Development, Agriculture and/or Horticulture Domestic Supply Chain Management and Distribution, Natural Resource and Environmental Impact Assessment
  • Public Policy, Administration, Finance, or Governance directly related to one of the above areas
Renewable energy
  • Geothermal, Solar, Hydro-electric and Wind Energy, Energy Engineering and Renewable Energy Distribution Systems
  • Market reform and sector management, including Energy Economics and Energy Efficiency
  • Public Policy, Administration, Finance, or Governance in the above areas
Who is eligible to apply? Applicants must meet the following conditions to be eligible for a New Zealand Scholarship:
  • Be a minimum of 18 years of age at the time of commencing your scholarship.
  • Be a citizen of the country from which you are applying for a scholarship.
  • Not have citizenship or permanent residence status of New Zealand, Australia, USA, Canada, European Union countries, United Kingdom, Japan, Israel, South Korea, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia. Have resided in your home country for at least two years immediately prior to commencing your scholarship. Have at least 2 years of work experience (part time or fulltime, paid or voluntary).
  • Not be serving military personnel.
  • Be able to satisfy Immigration requirements for international student entry to New Zealand or the country in which you will undertake your scholarship (i.e. medical checks, police clearances/character checks, etc.)
  • Be academically and linguistically able to obtain an Offer of Place for the proposed programme of study from the tertiary institute where you will undertake your scholarship.
  • Not have been previously terminated from a New Zealand Government Scholarship
  • Seek a qualification that will contribute to the sustainable development of your home country
  • Commit to return to your country for a minimum of 2 years at the end of your scholarship.
Number of Scholarship: Several

What are the benefits? New Zealand has first-rate education institutions that offer world-recognised qualifications. Successful applicants will have access to excellent academic knowledge in quality facilities. The scholarships include financial support for tuition, living costs while in New Zealand, and airfares. The partners of students are eligible for a work visa that allows them to live and work in New Zealand for the duration of their partner’s study.

Duration of sponsorship: New Zealand Development Scholarships are available for the following qualifications:
  • Postgraduate Certificate (6 months)
  • Postgraduate Diploma (1 year)
  • Master’s Degree (1 – 2 years)
  • PhD (3 – 4 years)
How to Apply: If you are interested in applying for a scholarship, we encourage you to go through and complete the required Steps way before application deadline.

View Webpage

The World Demands Us Out of the Middle East

Kevin Zeese & Margaret Flowers 

The world is saying no to war with Iran and US out of the Middle East. Hundreds of protests were held in the United States and around the world on Saturday with a unified voice of “No War.” These protests are in solidarity with massive protests in Iraq calling for the US to get out where it is now an occupying force as the government has asked it to leave.
These protests and the uprising over the US remaining in Iraq are not being covered in the US corporate media. Millions of people participated in the memorials for General Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandes after the US assassinated them. Now, millions have protested the refusal of the US to leave Iraq. The Pentagon knows the reality is that US troops in Iraq are at increasing risk every day the US stays in that sovereign nation.
The warnings have been sent. i24 News reports that up to five missiles struck near the US Embassy in Baghdad today. “Sunday’s attack was the second night in a row that the Green Zone was hit and the 15th time over the last two months that US installations have been targeted.”
The Pentagon will need to tell President Trump that he has two choices to protect US troops. The first choice is to abide by the law and the demands of the Iraqi government by leaving Iraq. The second choice is to escalate and bring in tens of thousands of more troops as well as anti-missile systems. Iran showed the US that even when they warned them they would be attacking a base with several hours’ notice so personnel could leave, the US military was unable to stop the Iranian missiles. Iran has also shown that it can shoot down US drones over the Strait of Hormuz.
The US needs to leave Iraq and the Middle East and stop threatening Iran or it risks spending hundreds of billions of dollars and risking the lives of US troops. All this for oil that President Trump says the US does not need. In this era when the fossil fuel economy must come to an end, it is time for the US to get out of the Middle East.
Massive Protests in Iraq Demand the US Leave
Telesur reports, “According to estimates of the Iraqi police commander Jaafar Al-Batat, over 1 million people Thursday demanded the departure of U.S. troops from Iraq with a march in Baghdad, which was convened by cleric Muqtada Al-Sadr three weeks after the murder of Iran’s General Qasem Soleimani.”
The message of the protest was very clear from the signs and actions of the protesters.  Banners included “No, No to the U.S. and Yes to Iraqi sovereignty,” “The willingness of free nations is stronger than the U.S. aggression,” and “Global terrorism is made in the U.S.” Another sign sent a very clear message “To the Families of American soldiers Insist on the Withdrawal of Your Sons from Our Country, or Prepare their Coffins.” [Emphasis in Original] Protesters carried burned images of Donald Trump, others raised photos of the US president’s face crossed out with a red “X”. On the speaker’s stage, a large sign read, “Get Out America.”
Shia Cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr, who helped organize the protest said, regarding the demand of the government that the US leave Iraq, “If the U.S. meets these demands, then it is not an aggressor country” but the US will become a “hostile country” if it fails to do so. Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani, the highest Shiite religious authority in Iraq said, “the need to respect the sovereignty of Iraq, the independence of its political decision, and its territorial unity.”
The Prime Minister and the Parliament called for US troops to leave Iraq. In a telephone call, Prime Minister Abdel Mahdi told Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to prepare to leave Iraq. Article 24 of the agreement between the US and Iraq regarding troops states that the “US recognizes the sovereign right of the government of Iraq to request the departure of the US forces from Iraq any time.”  Pompeo gave a foolish answer, turning the US into an occupying force by saying, “The US shall not withdraw from Iraq” but inconsistently said it “respects its sovereignty and decisions.” President Trump threatened Iraq saying he would impose “sanctions like they’ve never seen before” and “its Central Bank account held at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York with $35 billion could be shut down.” US Ambassador to Iraq Mathew Tueller delivered to Iraqi officials a copy of all the possible US sanctions Iraq could face.
These responses led to mass protests. The threat to US troops is very real. Sources in Prime Minister Mahdi’s office said the US is “bringing war upon itself and transforming Iraq into a battlefield” if it fails to leave. He warns, “The US will be faced with strong and legitimate popular armed resistance.”
The current conflict needs to be viewed in the context of Iraq being devasted by US actions. The Clinton administration sanctions killed 500,000 children, and the US invasion and occupation, which followed in 2003, resulted in the deaths of over one million Iraqis. More recently, the US tried to extort Iraq by demanding half its oil profits in exchange for damages the US war caused. When the Prime Minister turned to China for assistance instead, Trump threatened Iraq. The Iraqi people have had enough of US intervention. It is time for the United States to leave.
The World Joins Opposition To War With Iran, Calls For US Out of The Middle East
On January 25, a Global Day of Protest was called in solidarity with the people of Iraq and Iran. There were protests in more than 210 cities in 22 countries. The protest was organized by numerous antiwar organizations including the United National Antiwar Coalition (UNAC), the ANSWER Coalition, CODE PINK, Black Alliance for Peace, the International Action Center, Popular Resistance and many more.
UNAC pointed out that Iran has been a victim of US aggression since the 1953 coup against the democratically-elected president Mohammed Mossadegh. This was followed by the brutal rule of the US-supported Shah of Iran until the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Sanctions were immediately imposed on Iran and from 1980-1988 the US fueled the Iran-Iraq war, which killed more than one million people. In 1988, the US shot down an Iranian civilian passenger plane, killing more than 290 Iranian civilians, for which the US has still not apologized for or explained. The US has imposed escalating crippling sanctions that have devastated Iran’s economy and the lives of its citizens. Trump’s unilateral withdrawal from the nuclear agreement has led to even more sanctions. Donald Trump’s order to assassinate General Soleimani was the culmination of his campaign of “maximum pressure” against the Islamic Republic of Iran supported by both Democrats and Republicans.
CODEPINK sent an open letter to the people of Iran expressing that the people of the United States are “horrified by the actions of our government to provoke a war…” and apologizing for the reckless actions of President Trump. They expressed opposition to the withdrawal of the United States from the nuclear agreement, the maximum-pressure campaign and the assassination of General Soleimani writing, “Poll after poll reveals that the American people do not want a war with Iran. We want to end the Middle East wars that the U.S. has engaged in for far too long.”
This weekend’s massive protests were the second protests since the US reignited the risk of war in Iraq and war against Iran. One day after the January 3 assassination of Qassem Soleimani, the renewed antiwar movement called for protests and thousands of protesters rallied in more than 82 cities in 38 states involving tens of thousands of people.
The world saying, “US out of the Middle East and no war on Iran”, and governments are also siding with Iran to end US hegemony. There are many countries coming to the side of Iran, perhaps most important are the Chinese-Iranian economic agreements, which have undermined US sanctions and integrated Iran into a Chinese-led Eurasian Belt and Road Initiative. The US deems this an imminent threat. In 2016, Iranian President Hassan Rohani announced during a visit from China’s President Xi Jinping that Iran and China had created a $600 billion dollar, 25-year political and trade alliance.
The military alliance developing between China, Russia, and Iran is another major threat to US domination. Iran, China, and Russia held joint naval drills in the Gulf of Oman, a “normal military exchange” that reflected the nations’ “will and capabilities to jointly maintain world peace and maritime security,” just days before the murder of Soleimani.
China and Russia have been critical to multiple countries under economic attack and military threats by the United States. This includes Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, North Korea, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia, and many others. A new balance of power is developing. The US peace movement needs to understand these realities and join a global movement against US imperialism.

Pipeline or a Pipedream: Israel, Turkey Hydrocarbon Conflict is Brewing in the Mediterranean

Ramzy Baroud

Massive natural gas discoveries off the eastern coast of Israel and Palestine is slated to make Tel Aviv a regional energy hub. Whether Israel will be able to translate positive indicators of the largely untapped gas reserves into actual economic and strategic wealth is yet to be seen.
What is certain, however, is that the Middle East is already in the throes of a major geostrategic war, which has the potential of becoming an actual military confrontation.
Unsurprisingly, Israel is at the heart of this growing conflict.
“Last week, we started to stream gas to Egypt. We turned Israel into an energy superpower,” Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, bragged during a cabinet meeting on January 19.
Netanyahu’s self-congratulating remarks came on the heels of some exciting financial news for the embattled Prime Minister, as both Jordan and Egypt are now Tel Aviv’s clients, receiving billions of cubic meters of Israeli gas.
For Netanyahu, pumping Israeli gas to two neighboring Arab countries constitutes more than just economic and political advantages – it is a huge personal boost. The Israeli leader is trying to convince the public to vote for him in yet another general election in March, while pleading to Israel’s political elite to give him immunity so that he can stay out of prison for various corruption charges.
For years, Israel has been exploiting the discovery of massive deposits of natural gas from the Leviathan and Tamar fields – located nearly 125 km and 80 km west of Haifa respectively – to reconstruct regional alliances and to redefine its geopolitical centrality to Europe.
The Israeli strategy, however, has already created potentials for conflict in an already unstable region, expanding the power play to include Cyprus, Greece, France, Italy, and Libya, as well as Egypt, Turkey, Lebanon, and Russia.
On January 2, Netanyahu was in Athens signing a gas pipeline deal, alongside Greek Prime Minister, Kyriako Mitotakis, and Cyprus President, Nicos Anastasiades.
The EastMed pipeline is projected to travel from Israel to Cyprus, to Greece and, ultimately, to Italy, thus transporting eastern Mediterranean gas directly to the heart of Europe.
A few years ago, this scenario seemed unthinkable, as Israel has, in fact, imported much of its natural gas from neighboring Egypt.
Israel’s Tamar field partly rectified Israel’s reliance on imported gas when it began production in 2003. Shortly after, Israel struck gas again, this time with far greater potential, in the massive Leviathan field. On December 31, 2019, Leviathan began pumping gas for the first time.
Leviathan is located in the Mediterranean Sea’s Levantine Basin, a region that is rich with hydrocarbons.
“Leviathan is estimated to hold over 21 trillion cubic feet of natural gas—enough to fill Israeli power-generation needs for the next 40 years, while still leaving an ample supply for export,” wrote Frank Musmar in the BESA Center for Strategic Studies.
Egypt’s share of Israeli gas – 85 billion cubic meters (bcm), with an estimated cost of $19.5 billion – is acquired through the private Egyptian entity Dolphinus Holdings. The Jordanian deal was signed between the country’s national electricity company NEPCO, and American firm, Noble Energy, which owns a 45% stake in the Israeli project.
Jordanians have been protesting Israel’s gas deal en-masse, as they view economic cooperation between their country and Israel as an act of normalization, especially as Tel Aviv continues to occupy and oppress Palestinians.
The echoes of the popular protests have reached the Jordanian parliament which, on January 19, unanimously voted in favor of a law to ban gas imports from Israel. Israel is diversifying beyond exerting regional economic dominance to becoming a big player on the international geopolitical stage as well. The EastMed pipeline project, estimated at €6bn, is expected to cover 10% of Europe’s overall need for natural gas. This is where things get even more interesting.
Turkey believes that the deal, which involves its own regional rivals, Cyprus and Greece, is designed specifically to marginalize it economically by excluding it from the Mediterranean’s hydrocarbon boom.
Ankara is already a massive energy hub, being the host of TurkStream, which feeds Europe, with approximately 40% of its needs of natural gas coming from Russia. This fact has provided both Moscow and Ankara not only with more than economic advantages but geostrategic leverage as well. If the EastMed pipeline becomes a reality, Turkey and Russia will stand to lose the most.
In a series of successive, and surprising moves, Turkey retaliated by signing a maritime border deal with Libya’s internationally-recognized Government of National Accord (GNA), and by committing to send military support to help Tripoli in its fight against forces loyal to General Khalifa Haftar.
“Turkey will not permit any activity that is against its own interests in the region,” Fuat Oktay, Turkey’s Vice-President, told Anadolu News Agency, adding that “any plan that disregards Turkey has absolutely no chance of success.”
Although European countries were quick to condemn Ankara, the latter has succeeded in changing the rules of the game by staking a claim to vast areas that are also claimed by Greece and Cyprus as part of their so-called exclusive economic zones (EEZ).
Not only will Turkey be drilling in Libya’s territorial waters for natural gas, but in disputed water near Cyprus as well. Ankara is accusing Cyprus of violating “the equal claim to discoveries”, an arrangement that followed the military conflict between both countries in 1974.
If the issue is not resolved, the EastMed pipeline project could potentially turn into a pipedream. What seemed like a lucrative deal, with immense geopolitical significance from an Israeli point of view, now appears to be another extension of the wider Middle Eastern conflict.
While the EU is eager to loosen Russia’s strategic control over the natural gas market, the EastMed pipeline increasingly appears unfeasible from every possible angle.
However, considering the massive deposits of natural gas that are ready to fuel struggling European markets, it is almost certain that the Mediterranean natural gas will eventually become a major source of political disputes, if not a war.

The Destruction of Libya: Posturing Predators; Lethal Lies

Robert Snefjella

Premeditated criminal violence has been around for a long time.
Deliberate criminal violence has motive, involves planning, and is cruel and harmful. The motive often involves the attempt at some real or imagined gain, or forceful seizure. Surprise attacks are favored.
Because the evil of such violence is obvious if in clear view, criminals usually attempt to hide such acts, or to obscure their crime with lies. Secrecy and dishonesty are generally indispensable basic tactics for the success of violent criminality. An exception historically is the criminal violence of those who rule tyrannically; their crimes are sometimes brazen, ‘in your face’.
Wars of aggression are criminal violence on a massive scale. During the period after the 2nd WW, the last seventy five years that is, there have been lots of those. There is as yet no effective justice served to those who wage wars of aggression. Once a war has been initiated, one can surrender, or fight back, and hope for the best. Prevention is the best cure.
Curiously enough, wars of aggression are often undertaken by countries that are members of the United Nations, and who are sworn to refrain from wars of aggression. The very words United Nations are of course misleading, as the member nations are not united, but in any case, they are all supposed to “refrain from … the threat or use of force against … any state.” (part of UN Article 2.4)
When intending or conducting a war of aggression, apart from the prerequisite war machines and logistics and soldiers, a basic disinformation template is habitually deployed: The public in the aggressor countries are subjected to propaganda, a blizzard of lies and distortions and spin, with tactical censorship of unhelpful info. The intent of preparatory and ongoing propaganda is to program the ‘home team’ to at best support, or at least not oppose, the impending or actual war of aggression.
The leader of the designated target country will be denounced repeatedly as a monster, and accused of a compendium of personal defects, dastardly intentions, and vile deeds. The country itself will be subject to serial vilification by the intended predators, and usually, whatever can be done will be done to weaken the intended prey. Then, as preface to launching the war, one or more incidents will be staged, or declared, the now proverbial ‘false flag event’, and this will be used to ‘galvanize’ the aggressor’s public, and ‘justify’ the ‘response’. Public fear, anger, desire for revenge, and ‘war fever’, will all be cultivated. But a further effort to dignify and even sanctify the criminal violence is often employed. Sometimes even prior to the atrocities, but usually after the fact, outstanding perpetrators of atrocity will be ceremoniously honored. Warmonger Obama’s Nobel Prize for Peace is an example of the former. This entire process will call forth the fullest repertoire of the human capacity for hypocrisy and emitting falsehoods and sanitizing evil with simulated sincerity.
I’ve chosen Libya as the particular focus for the rest of this article. Its history and present circumstances are illustrative and instructive pertaining to the general observations above.
At the time of its founding in 1954, Libya was a very poor and very large (17th largest on Earth) monarchy with a population of just over a million people. In 1959 the great blessing and curse of oil was discovered in Libya, and the corporations moved in. Libya became ‘significant’ in planetary corporate, financial and power politics calculations. King Idris III of Libya was no hindrance to the flow into corporate pockets of the considerable profits to be made from the Libyan oil. The people of Libya remained poor.
In 1969 a young Colonel, Muammar Gaddafi, led a bloodless coup in Libya, and soon thereafter nationalized the oil: the profits now flowed towards the Libyan people and state.
This nationalization occurred after a post 2ndWW period of extensive de-colonization in many parts of Earth, and no immediate savage response was unleashed against the Libyan people. But the Powers That Be were not amused, and began a perpetual process of covert and overt hostile acts.
In the decades that followed, Libya was subjected to calumny, subversions, attacks, sanctions and the like, but even so made great general progress in many respects. To jump forwards a bit, by 2010 Libya had achieved really remarkable progress, leading the UN’s human development index for Africa. Many other counties could only dream of what Libya had achieved. But before getting into that, let’s retrace our steps back to 1986, and examine just one episode of the denigrating depictions and criminality that Libya so frequently faced.
We learn from former Mossad agent and whistleblower Victor Ostrovsky, in his book The Other Side of Deception, that in 1986 the Israelis surreptitiously set up a transmitter near Tripoli in Libya and used this device, called Trojan, to transmit false terrorism messages. The Americans were duped into thinking that they were listening in on Libyan terrorism plots. A terrorist attack in Berlin was duly blamed on Libya, and ‘the world’s policeman’, at that time led by acting United States President Ronald Reagan, ‘took action’. In April of 1986 over a hundred American planes dropped tens of tonnes of bombs on various locations in Libya. Some reports have given the number of people killed at over a hundred, and unknown numbers were wounded by the attack.
But we also learn from former CIA official and whistleblower John Stockwell in his book The Praetorian Guard that Gaddafi and Libya were deliberately demonized preceding the bombing. The American people were repeatedly polled to make sure they had been primed sufficiently to accept or cheer an attack on Libya. Stockwell notes that Reagan harbored a visceral personal animosity towards the accomplished Libyan leader. Stockwell cites author Lloyd DeMause in the book Reagan’s America as describing Reagan’s reaction to the 1986 bombing of Libya as “exultation”. Given Reagan’s background as actor, was the exultation feigned or genuine? In any case, it is reminiscent of American Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s cackling approval of the brutal murder of Gaddafi in 2011. Serious personality and spiritual disorders do not seem a hindrance to political prominence.
Ostrovsky notes that the bombing of Libya by Israel’s useful idiot the United States also elicited self-congratulatory glee in Israel.
By 2010, as noted, Libya had created an extraordinary national success story, despite the never ending animosity and subterfuge from so many directions.
And here we introduce to our narrative two outstanding, truly honorable, brave citizens of the United States. JoAnne and Jimmy Moriarty were American business people who had developed an effective technology and substances to clean up oil spills and oil messes, and furthermore, their technology could increase oil production efficiency. They had first gone to Libya on business in 2007, and made several trips there for the following four years, developing their business.
Much of the information that follows is gleaned from one of their films and many interviews and lectures they have given over the past several years, including an interview they granted me, as well as from their website libyanwarthetruth.com. In the midst of the NATO 2011 war upon Libya the Moriartys went to Libya as part of a fact-finding commission, and they became trapped in Libya for over 100 days.
They witnessed night after night NATO bombing of civilian housing and infrastructure, and the weapons used included the use of ‘illegal’ weapons such as horrific fuel air explosives. The bombing continued for months, and along with critical infrastructure and civilians, even targeted hospitals and schools. Many tens of thousands of heavily armed mercenaries were brought into the country from ships. The mercenaries committed atrocities, mass murder and mass rape along with mutilation and beheadings. The country was left in ruins and hundreds of thousands of Libyans were killed or wounded. Many fled the country.
The Libya that the Moriartys experienced prior to the NATO and mercenary war upon it had been one of the most hospitable and successful countries on Earth, and they had grown to deeply admire and love the country and the people. The vast majority of then nearly six million Libyans, by 2010, were happy participants in a unique and independent and quite incredible experiment in societal and political development.
Many development projects were underway in housing and infrastructure and agriculture in a society that was not debt based. Mortgages were paid at the rate of 10% of income, and completed in twenty years. Marriages received a 46,000 dollar marriage gift, and births were rewarded by several thousand dollars. Gasoline and transportation was extremely inexpensive, and health care and education were free. The latter included expenses paid for health care or education out of country.
Women were emancipated, literacy was very high, and religious extremism discouraged.
The bank of Libya was independent of the western private banking cabal, and Libya had built up savings worth hundreds of billions of dollars. By 2010, Libya was making preliminary steps towards establishing a gold based currency and alternative credit and financial system for Africa, with the intent of facilitating beneficent, not parasitic, financial help for the many financially-beleaguered countries of Africa.
Muammar Gaddafi had stepped down from power in 2006, and taken up the role of wise elder statesman in the country. As a reflection of Gaddafi’s personal political philosophy, elements of direct democracy had been woven into Libya’s political proceedings.
The Moriartys were captured by the mercenaries while on their fact-finding commission during the NATO bombardment and learned from an Arab speaker that their captors had slated them for execution, dismemberment, and burning of their remains. They just managed to escape Libya by the skin of their teeth, thanks to good luck and some friendly people. Upon returning ‘home’ the Moriartys first turned with naiveté to any US government official they could manage to contact, in order to tell them what was actually happening in Libya. But they were rebuffed at just about every turn, and those who appeared to respond with friendly overtures usually turned out to be “poisonous snakes in the grass”, in the words of the Jimmy Moriarty. They are wiser today.
Despite all this, and their own government’s subsequent success at destroying their livelihood, the Moriartys have continued their work of telling the truth about Libya and explaining current events in Libya. Go to their website for real current information about what is happening in Libya. They need support. The Moriartys have been granted the status of official spokespeople in the United States for the Tribes of Libya, and have remained in constant touch with the suffering, brave people of Libya since 2011.
In the words of Jimmy Moriarty: “Here’s what actually happened; here’s what we witnessed: A beautiful country destroyed, atrocities by the attackers; lies piled on lies.”
In a just world, Libya should have been respected and even honored, not preyed upon. Libya offered practical instruction to us all. Libyan cultural and political arrangements were unique and highly successful. They were a very peaceful society. Their form of Islam was moderate. They had built, and were further building, an admirable country.
The destruction of Libya was planned years previous to the actual war upon it in 2011. In 2007 General Wesley Clark, in an interview on Democracy Now, told us that he had been informed that Libya was among a whole series of countries in the Middle East and surrounding areas that would over the next several years be ‘regime changed’.
The western public was told that NATO was there to save the Libyan people from Gaddafi’s atrocities. A UN Security Council Resolution, based on lurid lies about the Libyan government and what was happening in Libya, established a no-fly zone over Libya. This no-fly zone was used to bomb and commit mass murder and mass maiming and mass destruction in Libya.
The so-called “Arab Spring” in Libya existed only in the fantasies and duplicities of mass media and propagandistic agents of government. There was no popular uprising in Libya. There was no civil war. The ‘peaceful protesters’ in the words of the western propaganda system were actually murderous orchestrated saboteurs. Lurid lies were told to the global public that Libyan soldiers were harming their own people and that Libya was a terrible place. There was however a supremely evil attack by external forces on Libya, a war of aggression, defined in International Law as the Supreme Crime.
In 2018 an investigation by a British Parliamentary Commission into the destruction of Libya found that the reports of Libyan and Gaddafi atrocities, prior to the NATO war upon Libya, were falsehoods. This confirmed Russian satellite surveillance of Libya in 2011, which saw no evidence for the lurid descriptions of Libyan atrocities invented to stoke ‘humanitarian’ war against Libya.
The mass media of the west set the stage for the atrocities through decades of demonizing propaganda; and they gave the NATO atrocities the supreme phony facelift, describing a murderous war of aggression and the destruction of Libya as the salvation of the Libyan people. This is eerily reminiscent of the doctrine of destroying villages and exterminating the villagers of Vietnam, in order to ‘save’ the villages.
We learned from Wikileak’s that then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in her emails indicated that one main motive for destroying Libya was to destroy the gold backed Libyan banking initiative, and thus in effect to destroy their financial independence.
Under pressure from sanctions and propaganda, Libya had in the years before being attacked eliminated much of their military. This was yet another vile tactic to make them easier prey for the planned predation.
Gaddafi had initiated a lawsuit on behalf of Africans, suing the colonial powers for trillions of dollars of compensation for their egregious exploitation and harm of Africa. This too was put to at least a temporary end by the destruction of Libya.
Now, in January of 2020, we have the very perpetrators of the destruction of Libya, meeting in Berlin to decide what to do about the Libya problem, without the Libyan people being asked or being present, let alone empowered there. And we have Turkey recently sending thousands more mercenaries into Libya in support of those trying to prevent Libyans from retaking full control of their country.
Despite so many obstacles, beginning from such a difficult place, over the course of two short generations a successful and unique modern societal arrangement was achieved in Libya by 2011. That was a wonderful admirable accomplishment. The destruction of lovely humane Libya, however, is not just about Libya and the horrific suffering of the Libyan people. It is symptom of much more extensive pathology.
The years-long planning of a war upon Libya, and the onset of the attack in 2011, and the many countries directly and indirectly complicit, and the absence of condemnation of it to this day, are yet again proof of a deeply pathological criminality dominating western political processes and societies. This pathological criminality is not being held accountable for its atrocities. Until now, it has not been effectively stymied, let alone overcome. And this pathology seeds dysfunction and danger in every direction, in all places it touches, including close to home. Can we not do better than to remain complicit with and subject to this?