Archive for Juni 12th, 2016

12. Juni 2016

The US Is Preparing to Oust President Evo Morales (Strategic Culture)

US intelligence agencies have ramped up their operations intended to remove Bolivian President Evo Morales from office. All options are on the table, including assassination. Barack Obama, who sees the weakening of Latin America’s “hostile bloc of populist states” as one of his administration’s foreign-policy victories, intends to buoy this success before stepping down.

Washington also feels under the gun in Bolivia because of China’s successful expansion in the country. Morales is steadily strengthening his financial, economic, trade, and military relationship with Beijing. Chinese businesses in La Paz are thriving – making investments and loans and taking part in projects to secure a key position for Bolivia in the modernization of the continent’s transportation industry. In the next 10 years, thanks to Bolivia’s plentiful gas reserves, that country will become the energy hub of South America. Evo Morales sees his country’s development as his top priority, and the Chinese, unlike the Americans, have always viewed Bolivia as an ally and partner in a relationship that eschews double standards.

The US embassy in La Paz has been without an ambassador since 2008. He was declared persona non grata because of his subversive activities. The interim chargé d’affaires is currently Peter Brennan, and pointed questions have been raised about what agency he truly works for. He was previously stationed in Pakistan, where “difficult decisions” had to be made about assassinations, but most of his career has been spent handling Latin American countries. In particular, Brennan was responsible for introducing the ZunZuneo service into Cuba (an illegal program dubbed the “Cuban Twitter”). USAID fronted this CIA program, under the innocent pretext of helping to inform Cubans about cultural and sporting events and other international news. Once ZunZuneo was in place, there were plans to use this program to mobilize the population in preparation for a “Cuban Spring”. When reading about Brennan one often encounters the phrase – “dark horse”. He is used to getting what he wants, at any cost, and his tight deadline in Bolivia (before the end of Obama’s presidency) is forcing Brennan to take great risks.

Previously, Brennan had “distinguished himself” during the run-up to the referendum on allowing President Evo Morales to run for reelection in 2019, as well as during the vote itself. To encourage “no” votes, the US embassy mobilized its entire propaganda machine, roused to action the NGOs under its control, and allocated considerable additional funds for the staging of protests. It is telling that many of those culminated in the burning of photographs of Morales wearing his presidential sash. A record-setting volley of dirt was fired at the president. Accusations of corruption were the most common, although Morales has always been open about his personal finances. It would have been hard to pin ownership of “$43 billion in offshore accounts” on him, as was done to Hugo Chávez and Fidel Castro.

Brennan also has agreements in place with Washington about other operations to compromise the Bolivian president. An attack was launched by the CIA agent Carlos Valverde Bravo, a well-known TV journalist and former agent with Bolivia’s security services. In his Feb. 3 program he accused Morales’s former companion, Gabriela Zapata, the commercial manager of the Chinese company CAMC Engineering Co, of orchestrating shady business deals worth $500 million. Insinuations simultaneously began circulating on the Internet about the Bolivian president’s involvement in those, although Morales completely broke ties with Zapata back in 2007 and has spared no individual, regardless of name and rank, in his battle against corruption.

The “exposés” staged by the US embassy continued until the day of the referendum itself on Feb. 21, 2016. The “no” votes prevailed, despite the favorable trend that had been indicated in the voter polls. Morales accepted defeat with his Indian equanimity, but in his statements after the referendum he was clear that the US embassy had waged a hostile campaign.

The investigation into Gabriela Zapata revealed that she had capitalized on her previous relationship with Morales to further her career. She was offered a position with the Chinese company CAMC and took possession of a luxury home in an upscale neighborhood in La Paz, making a big show of her “closeness” to the Bolivian leader, although he played no role in any of this. This was the same reason she tried to initiate a business and personal relationship with the president’s chief of staff, Juan Ramón Quintana. He has categorically denied having ever met Zapata.

Gradually, all the CIA’s fabricated evidence disintegrated. Zapata is now testifying, and her lawyer has holed up abroad because his contacts with the Americans have been exposed. The American agent Valverde Bravo has fled to Argentina. Accusations against Morales are being hurled from there with renewed vigor. The attack continues. It’s all quite logical: a continually repeated lie is an effective weapon in this newest generation of information warfare. The latest example was the ouster of Dilma Rousseff, who was accused of corruption by officials whom her government had identified as corrupt!

The US military has been increasing its presence in Bolivia in recent months. For example, Colonel Felando Pierre Thigpen visited the department of Santa Cruz, where there are strong separatist leanings. Thigpen is known to be involved in a joint program between the Pentagon and CIA to recruit and train potential personnel for American intelligence. In commentary by Bolivian bloggers and in publications about Thigpen, it isnoted that the colonel was dispatched to the country on the eve of events related to “the impending replacement of a government that has exhausted its potential, as well as the need to recruit alternative young personalities into the new leadership structure.” Some comments have indicated that Thigpen is overseeing the work of diplomats Peter Brennan and Erik Foronda, a media and press advisor at the US embassy.

The embassy responded by stating that Thigpen had arrived in Bolivia “at his own initiative”, but it is no secret that he was invited to “work with youth” by NGOs that coordinate their activities with the Americans: the Foundation for Leadership and Integral Development (FULIDEI), the Global Transformation Network (RTG), the Bolivian School of Heroes (EHB), and others. So Thigpen’s work is not being improvised, but is rather a direct challenge to Morales’s government. Domestically, the far-right party Christian Democratic Party provides him with political cover.

The US plans to destabilize Bolivia – which were provided to Evo Morales’s government by an unnamed friendly country – include a step-by-step chronogram of the actions plotted by the Americans. For example: “To spark hunger strikes and mass mobilizations and to stir up conflicts within universities, civil organizations, indigenous communities, and varied social circles, as well as within government institutions. To strike up acquaintances with both active-duty and retired military officers, with the goal of undercutting the government’s credibility within the armed forces. It is absolutely essential to train the military for a crisis scenario, so that in an atmosphere of growing social conflict they will lead an uprising against the regime and support the protests in order to ensure a peaceful transition to democracy.”

The program’s first fruits have been the emergence of social protests (recent marches by disabled citizens were staged at the suggestion of the American embassy), although Evo Morales’s administration has evinced more concern for the interests of Bolivians on a limited income than any other government in the history of Bolivia.

The scope of the operation to oust President Morales – financed and directed by US intelligence agencies – continues to expand. The Americans’ biggest adversary in Latin America has been sentenced to a fate of “neutralization”. Speaking out against Evo Morales, the radical opposition has openly alluded to the fact that it has been a long time since the region has seen a really newsworthy air crash involving a politician who was hostile to Washington…

12. Juni 2016


Liebe Freunde, bei der Deportation der Armenier durch das von allen Seiten überfallene Osmanische Reich kamen 600.000-1.5 Mio. Armenier um – ein schweres Verbrechen. Doch die Tötung von über 2 Mio. Türken durch die Angreifer war genauso kriminell. Hierüber verliert die heutige Bundestags-Resolution kein Wort. Das ist nur ein Beispiel für ihre doppelte Moral und historische Oberflächlichkeit. Sie ist anmaßend und unhistorisch.

Es gibt viele Gründe, die augenblickliche Politik Präsident Erdogans zu kritisieren. Aber keinen, sich mit 100 Jahren Verspätung ohne seriöse juristische Prüfung als moralischer Scharfrichter über die Türkei aufzuspielen. Verspäteter Mut ist der opportunistische Bruder der Feigheit.


Deportationen waren in Kriegen ein berüchtigtes Mittel, um Bevölkerungsgruppen, die man als Feinde einstufte, ‚fortzuschaffen‘ oder von einem Landesteil zum anderen zu transportieren. In beiden Weltkriegen, aber auch vorher und nachher, kam es zu millionenfachen Deportationen. Eine scheußlicher als die andere.

Nur selten erwähnt werden dabei die Deportationen von über 5 Millionen europäischen Muslimen zwischen 1770 und 1923 ( Aus dem Balkan, aus Griechenland, Bulgarien, Rumänien, dem Kaukasus, Montenegro und Russland. Überwiegend ins Staatsgebiet der heutigen Türkei. Bei diesen Deportationen kamen Millionen Muslime ums Leben.( McCarthy, US-Historiker:

Deportationen sind für mich immer Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit. Unabhängig von Nationalität, Religion und Ethnie. Das gilt selbstverständlich auch für die heute im Bundestag debattierte Deportation der Armenier von den umkämpften Ost-Grenzen des Osmanischen Reiches ins Landesinnere. (Die Armenier im Westen blieben weitgehend unbehelligt).

Bei qualvollen Märschen durch unwirtliches Land kamen ab 1915 unzählige Armenier um. Selbst die Türkei geht von 600.000 Toten aus. Sie starben an Hunger, Kälte, Krankheit, aber auch durch kriminelle, mörderische Übergriffe. Da gibt es nichts zu beschönigen.

Das sieht auch die türkische Regierung so. Präsident Erdogan hat hierzu in seiner Rede vom 23.04.2014 klare Worte gefunden. Er sagte “Es ist eine Pflicht der Menschlichkeit, anzuerkennen, dass die Armenier sich des Leids, das sie in dieser Zeit erfahren haben, erinnern. Die unmenschlichen Konsequenzen, die Deportationen während des ersten Weltkrieges, sollten Türken und Armenier aber nicht daran hindern, gegenseitig Mitleid und Menschlichkeit zu entwickeln.“

Die türkisch-osmanische Regierung hat nicht nur geredet, sondern auch durchgegriffen. Sie stellte 1673 türkische Offiziere, Soldaten und Funktionäre, die sich an Deportierten vergangen hatten, vor Gericht. 67 verurteilte sie wegen ‚Verbrechen gegen die Menschheit‘ zum Tode. (Siehe auch den etwas älteren Bericht:…/1634-tuerkische-Offiziere-zum-Tode-ver…).


Dass die Deportation der Armenier ab dem Jahr 1915 – wie alle anderen Deportationen – ein schweres Verbrechen war, ist also unstreitig. Streitig ist unter Historikern und Juristen eigentlich nur, ob der Tod der vielen hunderttausend Armenier bewusstes ZIEL der Deportationen war. Ob die Deportationen in ‚ZERSTÖRUNGS-ABSICHT‘ durchgeführt wurden. Wie etwa der Holocaust. Dann waren sie zusätzlich Völkermord, ‚Genozid‘.

Führende Juristen wie etwa der Göttinger Professor Kai Ambos vertreten die Auffassung, dass es für dieses ‚Vernichtungs-Ziel‘ bisher keine überzeugenden Beweise gebe. (FAZ vom 29.4.2016). Allerdings gibt es hierzu auch dezidiert andere Meinungen, wie die von Professor Otto Luchterhandt von der Universität Hamburg.

Die Türkei wehrt sich letztlich nur gegen die Verwendung des juristischen Spezialbegriffs ‚Genozid‘, der das überfallene Osmanische Reich zum ‚Völkermörder‘ machen würde. Ausgerechnet durch Deutschland, seinen damals engsten Verbündeten.


Obwohl ich Jurist und ehemaliger Richter bin, gestehe ich offen: Ich kann diese Frage nicht beurteilen. Endgültig kann sie nur entschieden werden, wenn eine neutrale, internationale Historiker- und Juristen-Kommission alle Dokumente über die damaligen Ereignisse einsehen kann. Wenn alle staatlichen Archive geöffnet werden. Die türkische Regierung, als Rechtsnachfolgerin der Regierung des Osmanischen Reiches, hat sich mehrfach dazu bereit erklärt.

Warum scheut sich der Westen, diese juristische Frage einer neutralen Kommission zu überlassen? Hat er Angst vor vorurteilsfreiem juristisch-historischem Sachverstand? Fürchtet er, dass dann auch der lange geplante Überfall auf das Osmanische Reich vor allem durch Großbritannien und Frankreich, aber auch durch andere Nachbarstaaten als Kriegsverbrechen entlarvt werden könnte? (Siehe hierzu das Standardwerk von David Fromkin: ‚A peace to end all peace‘).

Schließlich haben vor allem die Großmächte, die das Osmanische Reich überfielen, um es unter sich aufzuteilen, das Tor zur Hölle aufgerissen. Und dadurch all die monströsen Verbrechen ermöglicht. Doch wer geht schon gegen Sieger vor? Verbrecher sind immer nur die Verlierer.

Ich finde es trotzdem richtig, dass man das Schicksal der deportierten und getöteten Armenier nie vergisst. Aber man darf auch das Schicksal der deportierten und getöteten muslimischen Osmanen und Türken nicht unter den Tisch kehren.

Das einseitige an den Pranger Stellen der türkischen Osmanen in diesen Tagen ist leicht. Doch es widerspricht der historischen Wahrheit. Und ist deshalb verdammt opportunistisch. Auch wenn viele Redner des Bundestags scheinheilig erklären, sie wollten natürlich kein Türkei-Bashing betreiben, so betreiben sie es nach allen Regeln der Kunst. Euer JT

12. Juni 2016

Hillary Comes Out as the War Party Candidate by DIANA JOHNSTONE


On June 2, a few days before the California primary, Hillary Clinton gave up trying to compete with Bernie Sanders on domestic policy. Instead, she zeroed in on the soft target of Donald Trump’s most “bizarre rants” in order to present herself as experienced and reasonable. Evidently taking her Democratic Party nomination for granted, she is positioning herself as the perfect candidate for hawkish Republicans.

Choosing to speak in San Diego, home base of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, on a platform draped with 19 American flags and preceded by half an hour of military marching music, Hillary Clinton was certain of finding a friendly audience for her celebration of American “strength”, “values” and “exceptionalism”. Cheered on by a military audience, Hillary was already assuming the role to which she most ardently aspires: that of Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.

Whenever Hillary speaks, one must look for the lies. The biggest lies in this speech were lies of omission. No mention of her support for the invasion of Iraq, no mention of the disaster she wrought in Libya, no mention of her contribution to pursuing endless death and destruction in the Middle East.

But she also lied in claiming partial credit for the Iran nuclear deal, which she had tended to block, and most profoundly in presenting herself as a champion of diplomacy. As Secretary of State, she blocked diplomacy that would have prevented or ended conflict, most notoriously concerning Libya, where even senior U.S. military officers were told to cut off their contacts with Gaddafi agents seeking a peaceful compromise.


The Washington Post reported prior to the speech that her campaign “hopes there are many more national-security-minded Republicans and independents who would vote for her, even grudgingly, rather than see Trump win the White House.”

The Washington Post noted that the state of California’s “defense industry and military bases lend a backdrop for her speech.” Indeed! Hillary Clinton is quite simply catering to the military-industrial complex, as she has been doing throughout her career.   She is catering to the arms industry, which needs to keep the American people scared of various “threats” in order to continue draining the nation’s wealth into their profitable enterprises. She needs the support of military men and women who believe in all those threats invented by intellectuals in think tanks and editorial offices.

This is the core of the “national-security-minded” electorate that Hillary is targeting. She warned that Trump would jeopardize the wonderful bipartisan foreign policy that has been keeping us great and safe for decades.

In reality, such “national-security-minded” leaders as Dick Cheney and Clinton herself have led the United States into wars that create chaos, inspire enemies and endanger everybody’s national security. Despite the geographically safe position of the United States, it is that bipartisan War Party that has created genuine threats to U.S. national security by prodding the hornets’ nest of religious fanaticism in the Middle East and provoking nuclear-armed Russia by aggressive military exercises right up to its borders.

The basis of Hillary Clinton’s world view is that notorious “American exceptionalism” which Obama has also celebrated. If we don’t rule the world, she suggested, “others will rush in to fill the vacuum”. She clearly cannot conceive of dealing respectfully with other nations. The United States, she proclaimed, is “exceptional – the last best hope on earth.”

Not all people on earth feel that way. So they must be brought to heel. In practice, this “exceptionalism” means acting above the law. It means a unipolar world policed by U.S. armed forces. In practice, Hillary’s devotion to “our allies” means fighting wars in the Middle East for the benefit of Israel and of Saudi Arabia, whose arms purchases are indispensable for our military industrial complex. It means bombing countries and overthrowing foreign governments, from Honduras to Syria and beyond, in order to help them conform to “our values”.

Trump is groping clumsily, at times idiotically, toward a major shift in US foreign policy. He is ill-prepared for the task. If ever elected, he would have to fire the neocons and take on a whole new team of experts to educate and guide him. That would be something of a miracle.

But some of Hillary’s reproaches aimed at Trump’s “reckless, risky” foreign policy statements are not as self-evident as she assumes.  For example, his statement that he would sit down to negotiate with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un. Is that really such a crazy idea?

North Korea is a small country, whose leaders call themselves “communist” but who are essentially a dynasty that emerged from the resistance against Japanese invaders in World War II. Their quarrel with South Korea stemmed from the domination of Japanese collaborators in that part of the country. That is practically ancient history, and today North Korea feels threatened – and is indeed threatened – by the everlasting U.S. military presence on its borders. A small isolated country like North Korea is not a real “threat” to the world. Even with nuclear weapons. Its much-vaunted nuclear weapons are clearly meant both to defend itself from attack and as a bargaining chip.

So would it be so terrible to sit down and find out what the bargain might be? Basically, North Korean leaders would like to make a deal to lessen the U.S. threat and bring their country out of isolation. Why not discuss this, since it could lead to the end of the “North Korean threat” which is artificial anyway?

Hillary’s reaction is typical. She boasts that her solution is to build up an expensive missile defense shield in Japan and increase everybody’s military buildup in the region. As usual, she goes for the military solution, ridiculing the notion of diplomacy.

Hillary Clinton’s speech will certainly sound convincing to the “national security minded” because it is so familiar. The same as George W. Bush but delivered with much greater polish. America is good, America is great, we must remain strong to save the world. This is the road to disaster.

Hillary Clinton is the clear candidate of the War Party.

Hillary Comes Out as the War Party Candidate

%d Bloggern gefällt das: