Agent Orange Funding Opens Door To US Militarism And Covert Action In Vietnam

Kevin Zeese & Margaret Flowers

Is the United States finally accepting responsibility for the devastating ongoing effects of Agent Orange in Vietnam, or is this funding just a way to get USAID in the door to meddle in the country's affairs as part of Obama's “Asian Pivot” strategy?

WASHINGTON --- The use of Agent Orange constitutes a war crime with devastating effects on the people in Vietnam not only during the war but even today. The U.S. military knew that its use of Agent Orange would be damaging, but, as an Air Force scientist wrote to Congress “because the material was to be used on the enemy, none of us were overly concerned.”

Ecocide was committed when “the U.S. military sprayed 79 million liters of herbicides and defoliants over about one-seventh of the land area of southern Vietnam.” The 2008-2009 President's Cancer Panel Report found that nearly five million Vietnamese were exposed to Agent Orange, resulting in "400,000 deaths and disabilities and a half million children born with birth defects."

No one has been held accountable for this crime. U.S. courts have blocked lawsuits brought by the people of Vietnam, and the United States has never paid adequate war reparations to assist in caring for the victims of Agent Orange or to clean up the environment.

In recent years, however, the U.S. has begun to fund cleanup and treatment programs for Agent Orange victims. The timing of this change in policy comes as the U.S. military has been building a relationship with the Vietnamese military as part of the so-called “Asian Pivot.” Yet this relationship has been impaired by the United States' failure to properly deal with Agent Orange.

Funding for Agent Orange damages is being used to open the door to greater U.S. military involvement and influence in the region, but it will also allow an expansion of U.S. covert operations in Vietnam that set the stage for the U.S. to install a “friendlier” government, if necessary for U.S. hegemony in the region.

This funding is coming through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which has close ties to the CIA and a long history of covert intelligence and destabilization. Vietnam is experiencing a greater U.S. military presence along with USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy, also known for fomenting regime change.

Drawing Vietnam into US militarism

With its Asian Pivot, the U.S. intends to surround and isolate China by moving 60 percent of its Navy to the Asia-Pacific region, developing military agreements with countries there, and conducting joint military exercises with Pacific countries. The U.S. is also negotiating a massive corporate power-expanding treaty, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which excludes China.

Vietnam has been a focal point for the U.S. military since the end of the George W. Bush administration, a prelude to the Asian Pivot that was formally announced by President Obama. For the last five years, the U.S. and Vietnam have been involved in joint military exercises. The U.S. has also started to sell weapons to Vietnam, seeking to transition the Vietnamese from Russian weapons to American weapons. And there has been a series of high-level meetings between the two countries.

In June 2013, The Diplomat reported, “the Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff hosted the first visit by the Chief of the General Staff of the Vietnam People's Army (and Deputy Minister of National Defense), General Do Ba Ty. Ty's delegation included the commander of Vietnam's Air Force and the deputy commanders of the Navy and General Intelligence Department. His trip included a visit to the Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Washington state suggesting future possible joint activities.”

On July 25, 2013 Obama met with President Truong Tan Sang in Washington to form a U.S.-Vietnam Comprehensive Partnership, covering a range of concerns including war legacy and security issues. They agreed to cooperate militarily through the U.S.-Vietnam Defense Policy Dialogue and the bilateral Political, Security, and Defense dialogue to discuss future military cooperation.

That meeting was followed by two high-level meetings between the U.S. and Vietnamese militaries. On Oct. 1, 2013 they held the 6th U.S.-Vietnam Political, Security and Defense Dialogue. The U.S. delegation included representatives from the State Department, Defense Department, USAID and the U.S. Pacific Command, while the Vietnamese delegation included representatives from the foreign affairs, public security and national defense ministries. The agenda included counterterrorism, counternarcotics, human trafficking, cyber law enforcement, defense and security, disaster response, search and rescue, war legacy and cooperation in regional organizations.

On Oct. 28 to 29, 2013 a second meeting was held in Washington. The 4th U.S.-Vietnam Defense Policy Dialogue was a deputy minister-level meeting and involved officials from their respective defense ministries. The Diplomat reported that “both dialogues were held within the framework of the Memorandum of Understanding on Advancing Bilateral Defense Cooperation signed on September 19, 2011 and the U.S.-Vietnam Joint Statement of July 25, 2013.”

“What was new?” The Diplomat continued. “The two sides agreed to step up cooperation between their navies and their respective defense academies and institutions.”

Yet the Vietnamese are continuing to move slowly in building a military relationship with the U.S. Vietnam limits the U.S. Navy to one port call per year and continues to bar U.S. Navy warships from entry to Cam Ranh Bay. Further, Vietnam has yet to approve a request made by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta in June 2012 to set up an Office of Defense Cooperation in the U.S. Embassy in Hanoi.

A key factor holding back a closer military relationship is the inadequate cleanup of Agent Orange and the United States' insufficient commitment to dealing with war legacies. After the 4th Defense Policy Dialogue, Vietnamese Deputy Defense Minister Nguyen Chi told Voice of Vietnam, “A better defense relationship should be based on the efficiency of practical cooperation, including overcoming [the] war aftermath… General speaking (sic), the U.S. has offered Vietnam active cooperation in the issue, but it is not enough as the consequences of war are terrible.”

Bloomberg reported last year on the fifth year of joint military operations, tying them to the Asian Pivot: “Two U.S. Navy ships began six days of non-combat exercises with the Vietnamese military as the U.S. seeks to bolster its presence in Asia at a time of growing tension between China and its neighbors.” Lt. Comm. Clay Doss, a Navy public affairs officer, described the evolution, saying: “The quality and depth of the exchanges is increasing each year as our navies get to know each other better.”

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey visited Vietnam in August – the first visit of a Joint Chiefs chairman since 1971. Dempsey's trip came amid an escalation in conflicts between China and Vietnam. Among other things, he visited a U.S. military base where toxic defoliants had been stored.

In October, the U.S. eased a ban on lethal weapons sales to Vietnam. The U.S. said the arms sales would improve the maritime military capabilities of Vietnam so it could be more effective in conflicts in the Asia-Pacific region. In December 2013, Secretary of State John Kerry announced $18 million in assistance to Vietnam to provide its coast guard with five unarmed, high-speed patrol boats.

An October commentary in the People's Daily, the flagship newspaper of China's Communist Party, described these acts as destabilizing and “a clear extension of America's interference with the balance of power in the region.” Maritime conflicts between Vietnam and China have been increasing as the U.S. adds military strength to Vietnam's navy and coast guard. China maintains that disputes should be resolved through negotiations. Citing the Declaration of the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea, the Chinese side maintains that “related countries should solve maritime disputes peacefully.”

Meanwhile, in Vietnam there are also concerns about an escalation of disputes: “Some senior Vietnam Communist Party leaders have worried over the years that moving to upgrade military-to-military ties with the US would provoke China to increase its pressure on Vietnam and its assertiveness in the South China Sea.”

In addition to challenging China, the U.S. also seeks to undermine the relationship between Vietnam and Russia. Russia, an arch rival of the U.S., has been the main weapons supplier for Vietnam since 2009. The U.S. wants to reorient Vietnam's military away from Russia, which holds multi-billion dollar arms sales contracts with Vietnam, including the sale of submarines and fighter jets.

Sputnik, a Russian government-owned news media outlet, reported earlier this month that the U.S. “bullied” Vietnam to stop allowing Russia to use the Cam Ranh Bay naval base. The State Department says it has “urged Vietnamese officials to ensure that Russia is not able to use its access to Cam Ranh Bay to conduct activities that could raise tensions in the region.” Igor Korotchenko, director general of the Russian Center for Analysis of World Arms Trade, described the U.S. as stirring up tensions, instituting an arms race and creating regional instability.

Agent Orange funding a tool for US militarism -- and what else?

The Vietnamese government told the U.S. that one thing preventing a closer relationship between the U.S. and Vietnamese militaries is the failure of the U.S. to deal with the lasting effects of Agent Orange. After 50 years of the Agent Orange crisis the U.S. is finally beginning to fund some cleanup efforts. This funding is coming from USAID, which has a sordid history of serving as a cover for U.S. militarism and the CIA in Vietnam and around the world.

In William Blum's 2004 book “Killing Hope,” John Gilligan, director of USAID under the Carter administration, describes the depth of the CIA-USAID relationship: “At one time, many AID [USAID] field offices were infiltrated from top to bottom with CIA people. The idea was to plant operatives in every kind of activity we had overseas, government, volunteer, religious, every kind.”

Likewise, The Washington Post reported in 2010 that, “In South Vietnam, the USAID provided cover for CIA operatives so widely that the two became almost synonymous.”

During the Vietnam War, USAID operated a police training program that was tied to death squads. Former New York Times correspondent A. J. Langguth wrote that “the two primary functions” of the USAID police training program were to allow the CIA to “plant men with local police in sensitive places around the world,” and bring to the U.S. “prime candidates for enrollment as CIA employees.”

The covert role of USAID has persisted. As The Washington Post reported in 2010, then-CIA Director Leon Panetta promised spies “new cover” for secret ops, and agencies that provide such cover include USAID and the State Department.

USAID has recently used health crises as cover for its covert operations. In 2011, Pakistan had a polio crisis, recording the highest number of polio cases in the world; it was a spiraling health catastrophe. USAID used a vaccination program organized by Save the Children, which had operated for 30 years in Pakistan, as cover to find Osama bin Laden.

The USAID-funded vaccination program used a Pakistani doctor and a local group, Lady Health Workers, to gain entrance to bin Laden's home by going door-to-door to administer vaccinations. When vaccinations were administered to bin Laden's children and grandchildren USAID tested the DNA of the used needles. It is likely that the doctor and two organizations were not aware they were being used by USAID. Save the Children staff members were expelled from Pakistan and the doctor was sentenced to 33 years in prison. His lawyer was murdered last week, and 74 health care workers have been killed since December 2012.

Last year, The Associated Press uncovered a USAID HIV-prevention program in Cuba used for covert operations. Beginning in October 2009, USAID, working through the Washington-based Creative Associates International, sent “Venezuelan, Costa Rican and Peruvian young people to Cuba in hopes of ginning up rebellion. The travelers worked undercover, often posing as tourists, and traveled around the island scouting for people they could turn into political activists.” They created an HIV-prevention workshop that “memos called ‘the perfect excuse' for the program's political goals.” Cuba uncovered the covert mission when the youth were questioned about their funding.

Noting that USAID has “a long history of engaging in intelligence work and meddling in the domestic politics of aid recipients,” Foreign Policy reported on another USAID program in Cuba, also exposed in 2014, where USAID covertly launched a social media platform in 2010, creating a Twitter-like service that would spark a “Cuban Spring.” The digital Bay of Pigs failed to spark a revolt, but it did expose the political leanings of 40,000 Cubans. This was reportedly not a CIA project, but a USAID project meant to undermine the Cuban government. Indeed, USAID has evolved to carry out its own meddling in the affairs of governments.

A 2006 State Department cable, released by WikiLeaks in 2013, outlined the United States' strategy for undermining the Venezuelan government of Hugo Chávez by “Penetrating Chavez' Political Base,” “Dividing Chavismo,” and “Isolating Chavez internationally.” The same office responsible for the digital Bay of Pigs in Cuba, USAID's Office of Transition Initiatives, also carried out the program in Venezuela.

Bolivia expelled USAID in 2013 because it was meddling in Bolivian politics. President Evo Morales was upset that USAID money reached lowland regional governments that attempted to overthrow him in 2008. A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request showed that USAID provided “$10.5 million for ‘democracy-building' awarded to Chemonics International in 2006 ‘to support improved governance in a changing political environment.'” (Democracy development is a common cover for programs to foment rebellion.)

Bolivia is one of the many countries that have recently expelled USAID over the organization's meddling in internal politics. The Los Angeles Times reported in 2013 that “about 50 countries have adopted laws to limit foreign funding of civic groups or more strictly control their activities. About 30 other countries are considering restrictions.”

Meanwhile, U.S. covert actions in Vietnam have not ended. A blogger and lawyer who spent a year in the U.S. as a fellow the National Endowment for Democracy was arrested in December 2012 for pro-democracy activities. The National Endowment for Democracy has been providing hundreds of thousands of dollars to various Vietnamese projects related to changing the government in recent years. USAID has a major presence with 38 ongoing projects in Vietnam.

It may be that regime change activities are already beginning in Vietnam. In 2014, there were large anti-China protests and attacks on Chinese businesses in Vietnam. Some speculated that the Vietnamese government was behind the protests, but David Koh, a reporter for Singapore's Straits Times, who works with NGOs in Vietnam, interviewed officials and businessmen in Vietnam and reported that the government was surprised by the protests.

The protests were also against economic conditions and other issues in Vietnam, and it remains unclear who planned and funded the events. Researchers in Singapore who interviewed people on the ground in Vietnam wrote:

“A large number of Vietnamese ?ags and T-shirts had been purchased before the demonstrations suggesting that the attacks were not spontaneous. Even maps locating Chinese and Taiwanese factories had been photocopied in large numbers. The leaders of the riots have been reported to have been using walkie-talkies to communicate with each other. The fact that the violence affected as many as 200 factories in a single day already suggests that a high level of professionalism and organization was involved. This suggests that the riots were premeditated, although unlike the earlier peaceful demonstration of the patriots, they were not announced openly. Workers were believed to receive from VND50,000 to VND300,000 VND (equivalent to US$2.3 to US$14) to follow the agitators. This begs the question: where did the money come from?”

It's important to note that people were paid more than a day's labor to participate.

The Singapore researchers ultimately concluded that the Vietnamese government was the big loser:

“However, for now, the notion that the riots and violence were simply the result of a wave of blind nationalism and anti-Chinese sentiments must be re-examined. The current crisis presents major challenges for not only Vietnam-China relations, regional stability and ASEAN's unity, but most of all, for Vietnam's political system.”

Agent Orange Trojan Horse compounds war crimes

In addition to opening up Vietnam to a deeper relationship with the U.S. military – which is dangerous enough for Vietnam, China, Russia and the broader Asia-Pacific region – what else will USAID do with its foothold in Vietnam? As USAID so routinely involves itself in the affairs of foreign governments, it would be foolish to assume that USAID does not have other plans for Vietnam.

Rather than paying war reparations, the U.S. is using Agent Orange as a Trojan Horse to further U.S. militarization in Vietnam, escalate conflict with China and break the Vietnamese relationship with Russia. It may also be laying the groundwork for regime change if Vietnam does not comply as a tool of U.S. Empire.

Vietnam should continue to demand war reparations that are adequate for the problems the U.S. created and keep the U.S. military at arm's length. Vietnam should kick out USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy, and demand that payments be made directly to Vietnam to keep U.S. meddling out of their country. Indeed, the U.S. should not be allowed to leverage the war crime of its use of Agent Orange as a tool for more U.S. militarism and intervention.

Obama Now Sides w. Poroshenko & EU To End Ukraine's War

Eric Zuesse

To understand the recent signs that are pointing toward a final settlement of Ukraine's civil war, this war's background must first be summarized:

Petro Poroshenko became elected as Ukraine's President on 25 May 2014, in an election that was held virtually only in the anti-Russian northwestern half of Ukraine. That's the area which had not voted for his predecessor, Viktor Yanukovych, in Ukraine's last, 2010, election — the man who was violently overthrown on 22 February 2014, in what the head of Stratfor, the ‘private CIA' firm, has called “the most blatant coup in history.” Before Poroshenko became elected, however, the region in the far east bordering Russia, Donbass, had broken away from Ukraine, and its residents were dubbed by the post-coup government as 'terrorists,' for rejecting their rule. That region had voted 90% for Yanukovych, the man who had been overthrown in the coup. This new Ukrainian government invaded Donbass, using bombers, tanks, rocket-launchers, and everything it had; and, when Poroshenko gave his victory speech on May 25th, he promised, and it was very clear from him, that: "The anti-terrorist operation cannot and should not last two or three months. It should and will last hours.” (Another translation of it was "Antiterrorist operation can not and will not continue for 2-3 months. It must and will last hours.”) But it did last months — Poroshenko's prediction was certainly false; and, moreover, he lost first ONE round of the war, and then another — his prediction of its outcome was likewise false.

Quickly, the hard-line anti-Russian leaders in Ukraine STARTED talking about overthrowing Poroshenko. One of them was Ihor Kolomoysky, a billionaire governor of one of Ukraine's regions, who had been appointed by Oleksandr Turchynov, who had been appointed by Arseniy Yatsenyuk, who had been appointed by Victoria Nuland, who had been appointed by Barack Obama. Kolomoysky also had hired Joe Biden's son Hunter Biden to the board of one of his companies. So, Kolomoysky was connected directly to Obama. By contrast, Poroshenko was not, at all — he had been elected, by the residents in the now-rump Ukraine. Poroshenko wasn't appointed by anybody. Kolomoysky said, as early as 21 June 2014 (when the first round of Poroshenko's war was lost), "I'll never obey Poroshenko,” and "My private army will finish off the separatists.” He was saying that he would achieve what Poroshenko and Ukraine's regular army could not. Kolomoysky's faction in Ukraine's parliament is almost as influential as is Poroshenko's. Moreover, on December 2nd, all three of the far-right parliamentary factions (including Kolomoysky's) joined together in an alliance whose aim was specifically to remove Poroshenko.

By this time, Poroshenko, now the loser of TWO rounds of this war, was the leader of the Ukrainian government's moderate or peace faction. The leader of the war faction is still Arseniy Yatsenyuk, the Prime Minister of Ukraine, the man who had been appointed on 4 February 2014 (18 days before the coup) by Victoria Nuland of the U.S. State Department. Whereas Yatsenyuk was directly beholden to Obama, Poroshenko was not. 

Germany's Angela Merkel and France's Francois Hollande, as well as several other EU leaders, wanted the war to end at this point, but America's Barack Obama still did not; he wanted yet another, third, round of the war, just as did Yatsenyuk and the other hard-line anti-Russians. So: Merkel and Hollande decided to fly to Moscow and negotiate on their own with Russia's Vladimir Putin; and, on February 7th, they announced agreement on a plan, with or without the U.S. President. Though Obama had previously said that he would send weapons to Ukraine, he now said that he would place on hold his decision about sending weapons, so as not to obstruct the efforts of those EU leaders — not embarrass and antagonize leaders whose cooperation he was seeking.

A peace-summit was then held at Minsk on February 11th, attended by Merkel, Hollande, Putin, and Poroshenko; and it resulted in the signing of a new package of peacemaking measures, called Minsk II, on February 12th.

The big question, since then, has been whether the United States would press on with its arming of Ukraine. Would Obama support Yatsenyuk, whom his own person Victoria Nuland had SELECTED to run the country? Or would he instead switch now to support Poroshenko — whom he had never chosen?

The first big shoe to fall was on March 19th, when Poroshenko removed Kolomoysky from control of a company whose majority owner is the Ukrainian government, and when Kolomoysky sent some of his toughs into its headquarters in order to seize back control of it, and when the American Ambassador to Ukraine — the very same person who had carried out Victoria Nuland's appointment of Yatsenyuk to become Ukraine's Prime Minister — publicly reprimanded Kolomoysky for that action. The U.S. White House, which had SELECTED Yatsenyuk, who then indirectly selected Kolomoysky, was now publicly renouncing Kolomoysky. This was huge. (Subsequently, on March 25th, Poroshenko removed Kolomoysky from the governorship to which Yatsenyuk — via Turchynov — had originally appointed him.)

The second big shoe to drop was on March 23rd, when, as announced in a headline,"Ukrainian Parliament May Check Yatsenyuk for Corruption.” It reported: "MP Sergei Kaplin, a member of the largest faction in the Ukrainian parliament — 'Petro Poroshenko Bloc' — suggested creating a special commission in Verkhovna Rada – Ukraine's Parliament – to investigate the activities of the current Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, who was accused of concealing corruption schemes.” In other words: Poroshenko has Obama's approval to GET rid of Yatsenyuk — who had previously been Obama's man. Poroshenko is now free to follow through with the Merkel-Hollande peace-plan.

Apparently, Obama, who had started this war, has finally given up on pursuing it any further, because doing so would split the Western alliance.

Obama has other fish to fry with them — such as his proposed Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), to grant international corporations effective control over the environmental, labor, and product-safety regulations of participating countries. He seems to have decided (at least for the time being) to pursue — via other routes than Ukraine — his war against Russia.

Rejecting Revisionist History

Ron Jacobs

A popular understanding of history in today’s world involves blaming the most radical revolutionaries of France in the late 18th century and Russia in 1917 for many of the modern ills. This trend is espoused in intellectual and popular culture and is the foundation on which much of modern politics is based. For the wealthy and the currently powerful, it is a self-serving and incredibly useful understanding. Hence, any popular attempts to alter this view are ruthlessly belittled and denied. It was exactly this that took place in the 1960s and the 1970s when colonized peoples, young people, workers and others reconsidered their role in history and took to the streets, forever changing the political/cultural landscape we live in.

In the years since, however, it is the historical understanding that serves the powerful that has been on the ascendant. Most commonly known among historians as revisionism, this understanding not only blames revolutionary forces for humanity’s murderous excesses, it also urges a return to a semi-feudal situation that stratifies people in terms of class, race and gender, allowing different levels of economic and political freedom according to a hierarchy designed by those in power. In effect, it wishes to legally create the political world already being formed economically through neoliberalism.

Revisionism is a liberal approach to history. It equates the colonialism, racism and anti-Semitism of Nazism with the anti-colonial, anti-racist and liberationist foundations of communism. In doing so, it also ignores essential indisputable facts of western capitalist development. Foremost among these denials are the role the African slave trade played in every European nation that was involved, its fundamental role (along with slavery itself) in the United States, and colonialism. By ignoring colonialism’s essential role—and because of the racism inherent in the revisionist analysis—wars against colonized peoples are not even considered wars. In other words, unless Europeans are dying on a massive scale, there is no war. This is especially the case in those situations (for example, the massacre by German settlers of the Herero and Nama peoples in southern Africa or the US in Grenada, Panama and the first Gulf War) where the number of dead at the hands of the victor far outweighs the number of the victorious army’s dead.

In the conduct of war, all governments involved are more alike than different, more genocidal than peace seeking, more authoritarian than rights protecting. Total war means total mobilization and imprisonment or even death to those who disagree. God forgive the soldier unwilling to participate: Losurdo writes of an Italian general during World War One who “carried out trench inspections with an execution squad in tow” to save time. The battle is the most important thing, after all. The unwilling cannon fodder had best be aware.

The end of the 1970s did not mean an end to the non-revisionist understanding of history made popular by the masses in the streets. It did, however, signal a renewed effort to stifle that particular strain. This was in line with the times. Thatcher and Reagan were presiding over neoliberal capitalism’s opening salvos on the Keynesian economic state and re-arming their already powerful militaries. The Soviet Union was heading towards a demise fostered by political and economic miscalculation intensified by a war against its 1917 revolution that began before the revolution had the means to solidify. In the face of the neoliberal attack, socialist and social democratic governments in Europe were beginning to become their opposite, remaining socialist or social democrat in name only. Ever since then, the Left has been either fighting to regain a sense of possibility or signing up with the neoliberal offensive pretending it can still be leftist while embracing monopoly capitalism’s most inhumane incarnation to date.

Domenic Losurdo is an Italian Marxist and philosopher. He is also one of today’s most acute critics of liberalism. His latest work to be translated into English, War and Revolution: Rethinking the Twentieth Century, is an intellectual rebuke to the revisionist historians masquerading as objective arbiters of the past when in reality their words serve finance capital and its ravaging of the planet. Losurdo rejects the West’s portrayal of itself as civilized and humane in contrast to Russia and the East. Philosopher by philosopher, historian by historian, he dissects those western intellectuals’ attempts to mythologize these lies cleverly and decisively. Losurdo takes the attempts by various revisionist historians to blame the Bolsheviks and French Jacobins for the history of terror and turns them on their head. Instead, he writes, It is the reactionary and liberal capitalist regimes whose policies of total war and forced removal of populations (the Native Americans and the Africans, most notably) which created the reaction of the revolutionary governments. In other words, it was not the revolutionary forces as represented by the Jacobins and the Bolsheviks who brought mass murder, ethnic cleansing and slavery into this world, but the governments against which they revolted. Furthermore, Losurdo includes the phenomenon of twentieth-century fascism in the western colonial tradition. In other words, Hitler’s plans to colonize Eastern Europe were not outside of the West’s previous colonialist endeavor. In fact, as Losurdo repeatedly mentions, Hitler admired the totality of the American settlers’ eradication of the indigenous peoples whose land they stole and saw it as a model for his brand of fascism.

Losurdo argues that in the reactionary system there is no war but “racial” war. He cites the propaganda used by the capitalist nations to mobilize the citizens in their respective states, turning the twentieth century wars against communism into wars against foreign, “Asiatic,” even Jewish ideologies. One finds a similar scenario in the twenty-first century where wars against nations with large Muslim populations have become “racialized” wars against the Muslim world itself. As Losurdo makes clear, this racialization has helped create a mindset allowing for what he calls “the rehabilitation of colonialism.” In other words, the powers that be promote their self-serving idea that there are parts of the world—mostly non-white—that could benefit from being colonized by those powers. In what can only be described as an ironic instance, I heard this sentiment expressed by two African-American men in Greenwich Village’s Washington Square Park on September 11, 2001 while the smoke from the burning Twin Towers scraped the nostrils and throats of every one present.

War and Revolution: Rethinking the Twentieth Century is a relentless document. It is dense and disconcerting. This is precisely why it should be considered one of the most important history books written since the events known as 9-11. After all, it was those events which took the revisionist project already underway since the late 1970s and put it into hyperdrive. By intention, there has not been a day of peace since. This fact is not an accident. That is the essence of Losurdo’s text.

My Hands, My Tools

Cesar Chelala

The 20th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP20) that took place in Lima, Peru in December 2014 was the appropriate background for Vickie Frémont, a Cameroonian/French artist and entrepreneur. She took advantage of the event to conduct a series of workshops called “Citizen Workshops” with participation of people from all ages.

Ms. Frémont’s workshops combine a hands-on approach for the transformation of rejects or trash into useful everyday objects. Included in her workshops –which take place in schools, community centers, universities and even in commercial malls- are lectures on the destructive effects that trash of every kind has on the environment and on climate change.

She conducted her workshops using recycled materials at The Fashion Institute of Technology, The Bank Street School for Children, The Henry Street Settlement in New York City, Community Works, and numerous museums, libraries and public and private schools. She particularly remembers the time during one of her workshops when an elderly lady came up to her and asked her, “So, Vickie, what are we going to do next week?”

Ms. Frémont was born in Cameroon but left that country at an early age. She lived in Morocco with her parents, and afterwards also in the Ivory Coast and in France. Ms. Frémont has a dual background –a Cameroonian mother and a French father- which she believes has considerably enriched her view of the world and allowed her to see the points of contact of different cultures.

She has been designing and creating objects from recycled materials since she was eight years old, without any formal education. When she was 12, she began making dolls for her little sister. That initial work developed later into a passion for creating new objects out of recycled materials.

She focuses on what she loves: creating jewelry, bracelets, necklaces, earrings, sculptures, and children’s toys and art objects out of different materials such as hangers, plastic baskets, paper, cardboard, old wood objects, and rope, in short, anything that can be re-used. When I asked her what was her guiding emotion she told me, “To keep a part of my childhood, and to center myself.”

Despite all her teaching activities she considers herself much more than a teacher. As she said, “Much more than a teacher, I think of myself as someone who opens doors –the doors that exist inside us that make possible to discover and develop our own creativity and to be able to have a better, richer communication with other people and other cultures.”

Her program of working and creating hand made objects has a set of goals which Ms. Frémont describes as: providing materials for practical work which will lead to awakening the students’ creativity, restoring their self-esteem, developing their capacity to transmit their experience and new knowledge to others and getting training for commercial and business activities. As part of this last activity participants are taught business techniques such as adequate packaging, sales techniques, and bookkeeping.

After working in different countries she settled in New York, where she was the manager in charge of purchases at the Museum of African Art and continued expanding her activities as a jewelry designer. That activity brought her great recognition and international brands bought her creations. Talking about this activity she said, “My jewelry speaks about beauty as a source of empowerment. Each of my pieces is unique, as each woman is also unique.”

Her Recycling Art Program teaches students how to create artistic objects from materials as diverse as stones, wooden sticks and scraps of fabric. She told me, “Creating something from ‘nothing’, art that some people would consider trash, is not only a worthwhile undertaking but one that brings personal pleasure and understanding.”

That program has so far been adapted to be carried out with primary school children, high school and college students, teachers, parents and seniors. For people working in stressful situations, it can provide them with entertainment and a way out of their routine work and a way to express their natural talents. As she says, “Beauty can be found everywhere. Transformation of objects is like a miracle, a re-creation. This activity helps people to restore their self-esteem and it opens a door into the unlimited world of creativity.”

At the heart of her work is a powerful, personal vision of Africa, a vital, energetic continent of hard working men and women, a continent of beautiful children and young men and women, a continent of humor and a continent of hope.

Violence and Chaos in Yemen

Stephen Lendman

Yemen is one of many examples of what happens following lawless US intervention.

Obama waged drone war on Yemen throughout his tenure – indiscriminately killing many hundreds of defenseless victims, mostly civilians.

Like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya and Palestine, Yemen is a cauldron of violence and instability threatening to spin entirely out-of-control.

In January, Houthi forces ousted US-backed Ab-Rabbu Mansour Hadi’s regime. They took over the presidential palace.

They extended control to other parts of the country. Last year, Obama ludicrously touted Yemen as a success story.

Saying US strategy “of taking out terrorists who threaten us, while supporting partners on the front lines, is one that we have successfully pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years.”

US interventionist strategy created violence, instability and chaos in both countries – much like virtually elsewhere else Washington intervenes lawlessly.

Houthis control the capital Sanaa, Taiz (Yemen’s 3rd largest city), other areas, and head toward seizing Aden.

In February, Hadi fled there from Sanaa. Declared himself still president.

Reports now indicate he fled the country after Houthi forces approached Aden.

They seized al-Annad air base near Lahij – about 60 km from Aden. Hadi established it as a temporary capital.

US personnel were evacuated from the country. Witnesses saw a convoy of presidential vehicles leaving Hadi’s residence on a hill overlooking the Arabian Sea.

Reports indicate he fled by boat as Houthis advanced. AP said he left with aides around 3:30PM local time Wednesday – in two vessels under heavy security.

His destination wasn’t disclosed. He’s scheduled to attend an Arab summit this weekend in Egypt.

AP reported Houthis “closing in on Aden…(T)he city’s fall appears imminent” as of midday Wednesday.

Yemen heads toward exploding in full-blown civil war. Involving IS fighters for good measure – US proxies used to help Washington regain control.

If things turn out like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria, years of fighting may follow on top of what’s already happened.

Hadi asked UN officials to authorize foreign military intervention.

Saudi Foreign Minister Saud Al Faisal warned Riyadh may take “necessary measures” if Houthis don’t resolve things peacefully – with no further elaboration. More on this below.

Hadi’s Gulf State allies evacuated their Aden-based diplomatic personnel. Earlier they relocated them from Sanaa.

Houthis occupied Yemen’s capital last August. Seizing the presidential palace in January forced Hadi’s resignation.

Houthi leader Abdel Malik al Houthi leader’s cousin Mohammed Ali al Houthi was declared new president.

Hadi was placed under house arrest. He escaped, fled to Aden, organized supportive military forces, and now apparently fled Yemen altogether.

The Houthi Supreme Revolutionary Committee called on security forces and civilians to fight what it called “terrorist forces across the country.”

Obama bears full responsibility for Yemeni chaos. Drone warfare followed his December 2009 missile attack on Al Majan village.

It killed dozens of civilians, including women and children.

UN special advisor on Yemen Jamal Benomar addressed an emergency Security Council session on Yemen via video conference.

Things are headed for a “rapid downward spiral,” he said.

“Emotions are running extremely high and, unless solutions can be found, the country will fall into further violent confrontations.”

“Events in Yemen are leading the country away from political settlement and to the edge of civil war.”

Humanitarian crisis conditions affect over 60% of the population. UN sources call Yemen “a patchwork of simmering feuds.”

On March 20, suicide bombers targeted Sanaa mosques during Friday prayers – killing at least 126, injuring scores more.

Yemen grows increasingly violent and chaotic. A meaningless Security Council statement said:

“(T)he solution to the situation in Yemen is through a peaceful, inclusive, orderly and Yemeni-led political transition process that meets the legitimate demands and aspirations of the Yemeni people for peaceful change and meaningful political, economic and social reform.”

Violence continues unabated. Last weekend, Saudi and other Gulf states issued a statement backing Hadi’s regime.

They announced their willingness to use “all efforts” to defend it.

Saudi Arabia deployed heavy weapons along its border with Yemen. A porous 1,800 km border separates the two countries.

Conditions remain chaotic. Houthis claim they seized Aden. Reuters said Hadi’s defense minister was arrested.

So far, Saudi forces haven’t moved cross border. Air strikes may be planned – maybe joint ones with Washington.

Hadi wants Security Council authorization for force – “to provide immediate support for the legitimate authority by all means and measures to protect Yemen and deter the Houthi aggression,” he said.

Yemeni military officials calling themselves the Higher Committee to Preserve the Armed Forces and Security reject foreign intervention, saying:

“We express our total and utter rejection of any external interference in Yemeni affairs under any pretext and in any form and from any side.”

“All members of the armed forces and security and all the sons of the proud people of Yemen with all its components will confront with all their strength and heroism any attempt to harm the pure soil of the homeland, its independence or its sovereignty or to threaten its unity and territorial integrity.”

Last month, Houthi leader Abdel Malik al Houthi accused Saudi Arabia of wanting Yemen divided along sectarian lines, saying:

“Our elder sister, the Saudi kingdom, doesn’t respect the Yemenis and wants to impose here in Yemen the sequence of events and divisions that happened in Libya.”

Whether Saudi forces intend attacking Yemen remains to be seen. What Obama has in mind matters most.

He’s engulfed large parts of the region in conflict and chaos. Maybe he’ll compound it by greater intervention in Yemen.

The US is Pushing The World Towards Nuclear War

Colin Todhunter

NATO countries are to all intents and purposes at war with Russia. The US knows it and Russia knows it too. Unfortunately, most of those living in NATO countries remain blissfully ignorant of this fact.

The US initiated economic sanctions against Russia, has attacked its currency and has manipulated oil prices to devastate the Russian economy. It was behind the coup in Ukraine and is now escalating tensions by placing troops in Europe and supporting a bunch of neo-fascists that it brought to power. Yet the bought and paid for corporate media in the West keeps the majority of the Western public in ignorance by depicting Russia as the aggressor.

If the current situation continues, the outcome could be a devastating nuclear conflict. Washington poured five billion dollars into Ukraine with the aim of eventually instigating a coup on Russia’s doorstep. Washington and NATO are supporting proxy forces on the ground to kill and drive out those who are demanding autonomy from the US puppet regime in Kiev. Hundreds of thousands have fled across the border into Russia.

Yet it is Washington that accuses Moscow of invading Ukraine, of having had a hand in the downing of a commercial airliner and of ‘invading’ Ukraine based on no evidence at all – trial by media courtesy of Washington’s PR machine. As a result of this Russian ‘aggression’, Washington slapped sanctions on Moscow.

The ultimate aim is to de-link Europe’s economy from Russia and weaken Russia’s energy dependent economy by denying it export markets. The ultimate aim is to also ensure Europe remains integrated with/dependent on Washington, not least via the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and in the long term via US gas and Middle East oil (sold in dollars, thereby boosting the strength of the currency upon which US global hegemony rests).

The mainstream corporate media in the West parrots the accusations against Moscow as fact, despite Washington having cooked up evidence or invented baseless pretexts. As with Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and other ‘interventions’ that have left a trail of death and devastation in their wake, the Western corporate media’s role is to act as cheerleader for official policies and US-led wars of terror.

The reality is that the US has around 800 military bases in over 100 countries and military personnel in almost 150 countries. US spending on its military dwarfs what the rest of the world spends together. It outspends China by a ratio of 6:1.

What does the corporate media say about this? That the US is a ‘force for good’ and constitutes the ‘world’s policeman’ – not a calculating empire underpinned by militarism.

By the 1980s, Washington’s wars, death squads and covert operations were responsible for six million deaths in the ‘developing’ world. An updated figure suggests that figure is closer to ten million.

Breaking previous agreements made with Russia/the USSR, over the past two decades the US and NATO has moved into Eastern Europe and continues to encircle Russia and install missile systems aimed at it. It has also surrounded Iran with military bases. It is destabilising Pakistan and ‘intervening’ in countries across Africa to weaken Chinese trade and investment links and influence. It intends to eventually militarily ‘pivot’ towards Asia to encircle China.

William Blum has presented a long list of Washington’s crimes across the planet since 1945 in terms of its numerous bombings of countries, assassinations of elected leaders and destabilisations. No other country comes close to matching the scale of such criminality. Under the smokescreen of exporting ‘freedom and democracy’, the US has deemed it necessary to ignore international laws and carry out atrocities to further its geo-political interests across the globe.

Writing on AlterNet.org, Nicolas JS Davies says of William Blum’s book Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions since World War II: if you’re looking for historical context for what you are reading or watching on TV about the coup in Ukraine, ‘Killing Hope’ will provide it.

Davies argues that the title has never been more apt as we watch the hopes of people from all regions of Ukraine being sacrificed on the same altar as those of people in Iran (1953); Guatemala(1954); Thailand (1957); Laos (1958-60); the Congo (1960); Turkey (1960, 1971 & 1980); Ecuador (1961 & 1963); South Vietnam (1963); Brazil (1964); the Dominican Republic (1963); Argentina (1963); Honduras (1963 & 2009); Iraq (1963 & 2003); Bolivia (1964, 1971 & 1980); Indonesia (1965); Ghana (1966); Greece (1967); Panama (1968 & 1989); Cambodia (1970); Chile (1973); Bangladesh (1975); Pakistan (1977); Grenada (1983); Mauritania (1984); Guinea (1984); Burkina Faso (1987); Paraguay (1989); Haiti (1991 & 2004); Russia (1993); Uganda (1996);and Libya (2011).

Davies goes on to say that the list above does not include a roughly equal number of failed coups, nor coups in Africa and elsewhere in which a US role is suspected but unproven.

The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) is a recipe for more of the same. The ultimate goal, based on the ‘Wolfowitz Doctrine, is to prevent any rival emerging to challenge Washington’s global hegemony and to secure dominance over the entire planet. Washington’s game plan for Russia is to destroy is as a functioning state or to permanently weaken it so it submits to US hegemony. While the mainstream media in the West set out to revive the Cold War mentality and demonise Russia, Washington believes it can actually win a nuclear conflict with Russia. It no longer regards nuclear weapons as a last resort but part of a conventional theatre of war and is willing to use them for pre-emptive strikes.

Washington is accusing Russia of violating Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty, while the US has its military, mercenary and intelligence personnel inside Ukraine. It is moreover putting troops in Poland, engaging in ‘war games’ close to Russia and has pushed through a ‘Russian anti-aggression’ act that portrays Russia as an aggressor in order to give Ukraine de facto membership of NATO and thus full military support, advice and assistance.

Washington presses ahead regardless as Russia begins to undermine dollar hegemony by trading oil and gas and goods in rubles and other currencies. And history shows that whenever a country threatens the dollar, the US does not idly stand by.

Unfortunately, most members of the Western public believe the lies being fed to them. This results from the corporate media amounting to little more than an extension of Washington’s propaganda arm. The PNAC, under the pretext of some bogus ‘war on terror’, is partly built on gullible, easily led public opinion, which is fanned by emotive outbursts from politicians and the media. We have a Pavlov’s dog public and media, which respond on cue to the moralistic bleating of politicians who rely on the public’s ignorance to facilitate war and conflict.

Former US Ambassador to Ukraine John Herbst has spoken about the merits of the Kiev coup and the installation of an illegitimate government in Ukraine. Last year, he called the violent removal of Ukraine’s democratically elected government as enhancing democracy. Herbst displayed all of the arrogance associated with the ideology of US ‘exceptionalism’. He also displayed complete contempt for the public by spouting falsehoods and misleading claims about events taking place in Ukraine.

And now in Britain, the public is being subjected to the same kind of propaganda by the likes of Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond with his made-for-media sound bites about Russia being a threat to world peace:

“We are now faced with a Russian leader bent not on joining the international rules-based system which keeps the peace between nations, but on subverting it… We are in familiar territory for anyone over the age of about 50, with Russia’s aggressive behaviour a stark reminder it has the potential to pose the single greatest threat to our security… Russia’s aggressive behaviour a stark reminder it has the potential to pose the single greatest threat to our security.”

In a speech that could have come straight from the pen of some war mongering US neocon, the US’s toy monkey Hammond beats on cue the drum that signals Britain’s willingness to fall in line and verbally attack Putin for not acquiescing to US global hegemonic aims.

The anti-Russia propaganda in Britain is gathering pace. Defence Secretary Michael Fallon has said that Putin could repeat the tactics used to destabilise Ukraine in the Baltic states. He said that NATO must be ready for Russian aggression in “whatever form it takes.” He added that Russia is a “real and present danger.” Prior to this, PM David Cameron called on Europe to make clear to Russia that it faces economic and financial consequences for “many years to come” if it does not stop destabilising Ukraine.

Members of the current administration are clearly on board with US policy and are towing the line, as did Blair before. And we know that his policy on Iraq was based on a pack of lies too.

If Putin is reacting in a certain way, it is worth wondering what the US response would be if Russia had put its missiles in Canada near the US border, had destabilised Mexico and was talking of putting missiles there too. To top it off, imagine if Russia were applying sanctions on the US for all of this ‘aggression’.

What Russia is really guilty of is calling for a multi-polar world, not one dominated by the US. It’s a goal that most of humanity is guilty of. It is a world the US will not tolerate.

Herbst and his ilk would do well to contemplate their country’s record of wars and destabilisations, its global surveillance network that illegally spies on individuals and governments alike and its ongoing plundering of resources and countries supported by militarism, ‘free trade’ or the outright manipulation of every major market. Hammond, Fallon and Cameron would do well to remember this too. But like their US masters, their role is to feign amnesia and twist reality.

The media is dutifully playing its part well by keeping the public ignorant and misinformed.  A public that is encouraged to regard what is happening in Syria, Iraq, Ukraine, Afghanistan and Libya, etc, as a confusing, disconnected array of events in need of Western intervention based on bogus notions of ‘humanitarianism’ or a ‘war on terror’, rather than the planned machinations of empire which includes a global energy war and the associated preservation and strengthening of the petro-dollar system.

Eric Zuesse has been writing extensively on events in Ukraine for the last year. His articles have been published on various sites, but despite his attempts to get his numerous informative and well-researched pieces published in the mainstream media, he has by and large hit a brick wall (he describes this here).

This is because the corporate media have a narrative and the truth does not fit into it. If this tells us anything it is that sites like the one you are reading this particular article on are essential for informing the public about the reality of the aggression that could be sleepwalking the world towards humanity’s final war. And while the mainstream media might still be ‘main’, in as much as that is where most people still turn to for information, there is nothing to keep the alternative web-based media from becoming ‘mainstream’.

Whether it involves Eric’s virtually daily pieces or articles by other writers, the strategy must be to tweet, share and repost! Or as Binu Mathew from the India-based Countercurrents website says: “It is for those who want to nurture these alternative communication channels to spread the word to tell the world about these avenues. ‘Each one reach one, each one teach one’ can be a good way to sum up.”

The US in Yemen

Eric Walberg

The world’s bastion of peace is packing up its bombs and tanks in a humiliating retreat from the desert of Yemen. How could this be? After all, the US has been directing events in Yemen, more or less, since WWII, dominated by US dictator Ali Abdullah Saleh. After the collapse of the Arab world’s only communist state, South Yemen, in 1991, it looked like clear sailing. But sadly, fantasy and reality have little in common in the intractable Middle East.

Yemen is most celebrated as the fatherland of jihadist Osama Bin Laden (his father was a Yemeni-born Saudi construction billionaire with close ties to the Saudi royal family). Osama was energized in his tender youth in the 1970s to travel the Middle East exhorting independence fighters to fight the kufar with increasingly alarming tactics—and success. But that is ancient history now. He was gunned down unarmed by US special forces in Pakistan in 2011 and dumped unceremoniously in the ocean, in yet another US insult to the Muslim world.

Hillary got into gear shortly after in 2011, visiting Yemen to explain the anomaly of the Arab Spring as due to a “youth bulge”, not anything to do with assassinating the local folk hero, dropping hundreds of bombs on innocent civilians, etc. To pare down the “bulge” Obama provided a soupcon of US-style democracy, including an end to Saleh’s dreams of lifetime dictatorship, passing his legacy on to the equally corrupt but spineless vice president Abd Rabbuh Mansur al-Hadi.

“We support an inclusive government,” Clinton replied when asked how the Obama administration could support Saleh’s government and human rights at the same time. “We see that Yemen is going through a transition. And you’re right: it could one way or the other. It could go the right way or the wrong way.” (I’m not making this absurd statement up.)

Hillary just made it home in time to read CNN reports of Yemen’s mass uprising, which Obama petulantly hailed not as a yearning for freedom, but as “an obstruction to be neutralized”. Al-Qaeda capitalized on Saleh’s distraction in the cities to expand its ranks and territorial control in Yemen’s southern governorates; Saleh’s US-trained counter-terrorism forces made things worse by targeting revolutionaries and tribesmen eager to rid Yemen of the US, rather than any pesky al-Qaeda terrorists. After all, what use is Yemen if it becomes independent and kicks out the real sponsors of terrorism—Washington and its allies, namely Saudi Arabia and European partners?

Hadi of course approves of US drone strikes in Yemen, as part of the White House and State Department’s “Partnering with the People of Yemen”. Yemen’s revolution is effectively over in the eyes of UN, EU and GCC powers, and they have stopped at nothing to control its current “transition”. There has been mounting violence by rival armed groups in Yemen, including Houthi rebels, al-Qaeda and IS. The UN Security Council is holding an emergency meeting, perhaps hoping for a Pascal resurrection of a peaceful Yemen (long ago crucified by US lust). President Hadi already fled to the southern port city of Aden after the capital was taken over by Houthis last month.

Late on Saturday, US State Department spokesman Jeff Rathke confirmed the start of the US Stalingrad retreat: “Due to the deteriorating security situation in Yemen, the US government has temporarily relocated its remaining personnel out of Yemen,” though it would continue to support Yemen’s “political transition” and monitor terrorist threats emanating from the country, adding in a Hillaryesque nonsequitur: “There is no military solution to Yemen’s current crisis.” On Friday, President Hadi resolutely demanded that the rebels withdraw from Sanaa in his first televised address since fleeing the city.

The Muslim world has had more than its share of US-backed coups—Syria (1949+), Iran (1953), Turkey (1960, 1971, 1980), Iraq (1963), Libya (1969), Pakistan (1977), Yemen (1978). And they all backfired. Yemen’s travails are merely the latest in this sordid litany.

Just as communism arose out of the contradictions of imperialism a century ago, Islamic revolution is the inevitable result of today’s version of imperialism. IS may be harsh and uncompromising, but it should be treated with respect, not vilified. The caliphate project, implementing sharia, the determination to overthrow the Saudi monarchy, the rejection of fiat money—these are legitimate goals and deserve serious analysis. The caliphate project is now on track after almost a century of Muslim humiliation; the corrupt Saudi Arabia is identified as the Muslim world’s ‘enemy at home’. Given the continually exploding financial crises in the West, ISIS says the new gold-backed currency will take the group out of “the oppressors’ money system”, and return control over the money supply from bankers to the state.

They are the bottom line for Muslims.

Opposition parties promote anti-immigrant New Zealand First

John Braddock

A by-election this Saturday in New Zealand’s Northland electorate has again revealed the profound shift to the right by the entire political establishment. In the seat that has been held by the conservative National Party for 67 of the last 70 years, Winston Peters, leader of the populist anti-immigrant New Zealand First Party, has emerged as a major contender. That is largely thanks to support from the opposition Labour Party, the Greens, the Maori nationalist Mana Party and numerous “left” media commentators.

The by-election follows the resignation of National MP Mike Sabin in January amid rumours about a police investigation into an assault. National currently holds 60 of the 121 seats in parliament and relies on small right-wing parties, ACT, United Future and the Maori Party, to govern.

The government is deepening its assault on workers’ living standards, with plans to sell off a large tranche of public housing, open more charter schools and impose further cuts to spending on welfare, health care and education, in order to return a budget surplus. National has committed troops to Iraq and expanded the powers of the state’s spy agencies. It is pursuing the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement, which is part of Washington’s “pivot to Asia,” designed to isolate China.

Northland is ONE of the most deprived parts of the country. Economist Shamubeel Eaqub has likened social conditions to East Timor, one of the world’s poorest countries. Among general electorates, Northland had in 2013 the second-lowest median family income ($51,400), and the lowest proportion of wage and salary workers (31.5 percent).

Northland is also extremely unequal, with enclaves of considerable wealth in the Bay of Islands. National has maintained its grip on the electorate because most working people are either enrolled on the separate Maori electoral roll for the Te Tai Tokerau seat, or are totally alienated and have stopped voting.

NZ First is the fourth largest party in parliament with 11 MPs and 9 percent of the vote in the September 2014 election. It is seeking to divert, in a reactionary direction, the widespread hostility to the government and Labour, which shares National’s austerity agenda. If Peters, who currently holds a NZ First list parliamentary seat, WINS Northland it will allow his party to install another member of parliament.

Peters founded NZ First on an openly xenophobic and anti-immigrant platform in 1993, following his resignation from the then-National government. The party formed coalition governments in 1996 with National, and in 2005 with Labour, which appointed Peters as foreign minister.

Since 2012, NZ First, along with the Greens, the Maori nationalist Mana Party and Labour, has joined in nationalist protests against Chinese INVESTMENT . Peters and his colleagues have repeatedly made racist attacks on Chinese and Indian immigrants, including foreign students, blaming them for the housing shortage, unemployment, gambling, prostitution, organised crime, and for putting pressure on pensions and the education system. The party has also targeted Muslims, slandering them as potential terrorists.

This chauvinist campaign dovetails with US moves to incorporate New Zealand more fully into its anti-China operations, particularly in intelligence and military cooperation. National has attempted to balance New Zealand’s trading relationship with China against longstanding defence and financial ties with the US. Peters is being promoted by sections of the ruling elite, represented by Labour, who favour a more overtly pro-Washington stance against Beijing.

Prime Minister John Key initially dismissed Peters’ bid for the Northland seat, saying he had “no chance,” but has cut short a state visit to Japan for the last week of the campaign. In a sign of alarm, the government has suddenly found tens of millions of DOLLARS to upgrade roads and bridges in the long-neglected region.

Far from opposing the government, however, Peters told TV3’s “The Nation” last week that he could support National’s proposed changes to the Resource Management Act. The changes are designed to boost corporate profits, particularly in the building and construction sector, by cutting environmental protections and making it easier for speculators to undertake property developments.

Following a poll on March 5 showing 35 percent support for Peters, against 30 percent for National’s candidate Mark Osborne, the entire opposition bloc endorsed Peters as a “lesser evil.” Labour, the Greens and the Mana Party—and the opposition’s backers in the trade unions and the media—are drumming up support for the racist party, despite Labour and Mana fielding their own candidates.

Labour Party leader Andrew Little effectively instructed Northlanders to vote for Peters, telling TVNZ that while Labour would not pull out its candidate, Willow-Jean Prime, voters should be “realistic” if they wanted “to send a message to the government.”

The Green Party is not standing a candidate and also supports Peters. Speaking to Radio Waatea on March 11, Greens co-leader Metiria Turei enthused that “Winston” had really “freaked National out.” While stating that “Winston and the Greens don’t always agree on everything,” she made no criticism of NZ First’s xenophobia and stressed that “we don’t have a bad relationship ... our MPs GET along really well ... and I have a lot of time for Winston, I really do.”

During the 2014 election campaign the Greens emphasised their willingness to govern in a coalition with NZ First and Labour.

In February, when Peters was still considering whether to contest the by-election, Mana Party leader Hone Harawira all but endorsed him. “He is a home boy, he could take it … He is a Northland boy,” Harawira told Fairfax Media.

Mana is a profoundly nationalistic party, representing Maori capitalists. Like NZ First, it has campaigned for foreigners to be restricted from BUYING houses and for the government and Maori-owned businesses to “prioritise the employment of New Zealand residents” over immigrants.

The pseudo-left groups, Fightback, the International Socialist Organisation and Socialist Aotearoa—which work within the Unite Union and Mana—are complicit in the promotion of NZ First. Peters was invited to speak at Unite’s annual conference last November, where he blamed insecure working conditions and low pay on “record levels of immigration.” The pseudo-lefts have not criticised Mana or Unite for embracing Peters.