Archive for November 17th, 2016

17. November 2016

UNO verabschiedet Resolution zur Krim (AFP/jW)

Der Menschenrechtsausschuss der UN-Vollversammlung hat eine Resolution zur Verurteilung von Verstößen gegen die Menschenrechte auf der Krim beschlossen. Für den Text stimmten am Dienstag (Ortszeit) in New York 73 Länder, 23 Staaten votierten dagegen, und 76 der insgesamt 193 Mitgliedsländer enthielten sich. In der Resolution wird Moskau dazu gedrängt, UN-Beobachter auf die ukrainische Halbinsel Krim zu lassen, die sich 2014 von der Ukraine abgespalten und Russland angeschlossen hatte. Der Text war von der Ukraine mit der Unterstützung von 40 Staaten, darunter die USA, Frankreich und Großbritannien, eingebracht worden. Gegen den Antrag stimmten unter anderem Russland, China, Syrien, der Iran, Indien, Südafrika und Venezuela. (AFP/jW)

17. November 2016

President Trump: Big Liar Going to Washington or Tribune of the People? (Prof. John McMurtry Global Research)

Note: The following article was written up to the November 8 presidential election before Trump’s victory was declared

Know a man by his enemies.  Trump has countless enemies, but most of them march to the drums of endless wars of aggression and care less about the casualties of tens of millions of lost good jobs in America. Most are neo-liberals in fact, the bipartisan doctrine of dispossession of citizens and foreign wars to grow the system further.  The worst have been Washington servants of the world corporate machine looting the world. They above all condemn his peace overtures to Russia and his promise to repeal NAFTA – both unspeakable heresies on the US public stage  until Trump’s movement against them.

read the whole article


17. November 2016

Will US Hit the Reset Button with Russia Now? (Jim W. Dean, editor Veterans Today, producer/host Heritage TV Atlanta)

The first thought that popped into my head after the political nuclear bomb went off in the US on election night with Trump’s taking the presidency, was “Where do we go from here?”

As with all newly elected presidents, what they promise on the campaign trail, and what they do after they win is often a legacy of broken promises.

Trump skillfully manipulated massive free media coverage during the first half of the campaign by making provocative policy statements to openly separate himself from the Republican pack. The bedrock of his early campaign was, “I’m not one of them,” and it was successful from the start.

Trump pulled an audience, so ratings-hungry media rode him for their own benefit, never expecting that he had any chance of winning. Many waited for him to crash and burn, which he did a few times, but like the Phoenix, rose from the ashes of his past.

With a large field of primary opponents, Trump sucked up so much of the media oxygen that he literally starved the others out, to the point where they were all viewed as “the establishment” that Trump was running against. He offered himself to the public as a battering ram to get them some payback revenge for years of humiliating treatment by an elite political class.

I first saw how effective the campaign was when the Trump expenses for winning the primary vote was running at the same low level as Bernie Sanders’ tight budget. He was wining despite being outspent by the professional Republicans. It seemed hard to believe, watching it all.

One of the earliest provocative foreign policy statements Trump made was his opposition against the US using Russia as a punching bag for NATO. That elicited a quick response from Putin that Trump’s views were a breath of fresh air on the American political scene. Trump’s campaign opponents fired back at him for being a Russia lover, a play on a cold war smear.

But it did not stick, because Trump kept making more provocative statements which the press focused on, and the follow up attacks on what he had said the week before never caught an audience. Trump became a constantly moving target, to the frustration of those wanting to shoot him down politically.

Fast forward to the days after the election, with protest marches and mini anti-Trump riots in some cities. Out of all that chaos comes former Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, putting the Russia issue right back on the table for Trump, by stating that a complete reset of America’s relations with Russia is needed, and he went even further by saying it had to be done man to man between Trump and Putin.

Hagel is no stranger to bruising political battles. Powerful independents, serving the people’s interests directly are usually hated by both parties. Hagel was savaged during his Congressional hearings, and then later by Obama’s staff, since, as Secretary of Defense, he competed with them concerning strategy and the best use of the US military.

He described Susan Rice wanting to conduct four-hour meetings, with endless detailed inquiries, where meeting attendance would balloon to several dozen people, which is where the leaks usually come from. Hagel always preferred small meetings focused on the big topics, and hence his jumping out in front after the election with his hard-earned advice to both leaders, one old, and one new.

Trump and Putin have now had their first post-election phone call, coming after a congratulation letter from Putin that Trump described as “beautiful”, which is not a term used in describing diplomatic correspondence. Trump did not tell us why, but we know he used the word to make a point, that the Russian Bear hype flag would no longer be flying on the White house pole when Obama left.

Their discussion topics were meat and potatoes, “uniting efforts in the fight with the number one enemy, international terrorism and extremism”, and the term “constructive cooperation” was used, the opposite of Russia bashing. That is the kind of language that has the pro-sanctions Europeans worried.

The EU press was openly discussing how hard it would be for the anti-Russian factions to hold the line on sanctions if Trump were to turn the US boat around. Despite the hurdles Trump would face with the career Russia haters in Congress, the sanctions cannot be dealt with without resolving Crimea, the mythical Minsk accords, and the US and NATO regime-change assault on Russia’s borders.

The makeup of Trump’s administration could also undermine his verbal plans, as Washington’s hotels are filled with Bush-era Neocons looking for work, and one of them being the arch American Russia hater himself, John Bolton. Rudy Guliani comes in second in the category, and if he gets the Justice Department, scary times could be ahead for us all, as he still has a shadow hanging over him concerning 9-11.

We will see how much Mr. Trump is the man of the people before his swearing in, as he fills in his first-tier team. All indications are now that he will not be draining the swamp, but joining it, and going after opponents to be the goats for his cleaning up pledge.

He is already backing off some of his campaign promises, and many expect him to subcontract the running of the government; he can enjoy being the front man, knowing that lending his image is his strength. Even the major Russian politicians realize that we have to wait and see.

Trump’s picking Republican Party Chairman Reince Priebus for his chief of staff was understandable, as he needs a solid person to handle the powerful career politicians that he beat in the primaries. He will still have a love-hate relationship with most of them. They love it that he beat Hillary, but they hate that he beat them.

Choosing former Breitbart Media Chairman Stephen Bannon as his strategic adviser has just stirred up more controversy. Yes, successful campaign strategists are usually rewarded with a good job, but having him at his right arm is going to be a walking billboard for all the Democratic bad blood spilled in the feuds during the campaign. Trump will use them as his good cops, bad cops.

While both Bannon and Priebus had been in the running for chief of staff for its gatekeeper power over access to the president, Priebus has the sophistication skills critical for that job, which Mr. Rough and Tumble Bannon did not. But Trump made a point in showing he wanted them both, to hopefully watch his flanks, as both the country and Mr. Trump are in uncharted waters with his presidency.

If Trump brings the NeoCon gangsters in, they will do what they live to do; and having already done it to the country, they will rape and pillage it some more. That will require a screen of other “nice” things being done as a distraction. The mortgage banking collapse, plus 9-11 with its subsequent multi-trillions in expenditures were years in the making, and during the boom times of the 90’s. Remember?

All of these gold-plated insiders who are contending for the top slots hid from the public during the primaries — a sign even a modestly competent Intel analyst would have picked up on — because they would have spoiled Trump’s “drain the swamp” pitch by being visible. But here they all are. Color me suspicious.

Jim W. Dean, managing editor for Veterans Today, producer/host of Heritage TV Atlanta, specially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

17. November 2016

Should War Opponents Work With Trump To Stop US Militarism? (popularresistance)

In 2016, the fundamentally undemocratic U.S. two-party system presented the public with the two most hated candidates in history. The choice was so dismal that over forty three percent of the voters could not bring themselves to go to the polls.  Everyone hated one or the other of the candidates, or both. Whoever won was bound to face vehement opposition.

The unexpected shock of Donald Trump’s victory created mass hysteria, with crowds in tears going into the streets to protest – an unprecedented reaction to an uncontested election.

This hysterical opposition is not the best basis for building the new movement needed to oppose a widely rejected political establishment.

Most of the weeping and wailing comes not from Bernie Sanders supporters, who were prepared for the worst, but from those who believed the Clinton campaign claim that Trump represents nothing but various ways to “hate” other people: sexism, racism, homophobia, xenophobia, etc.  The response is to hate Trump. This is sterile and gets nowhere politically.

Trump’s reputation as a racist fiend is largely based on excessive remarks such as his outrageous promise to build a wall to keep Mexican immigrants from entering the country – outrageous, in fact, because the wall already exists! Except that it is called a “fence”.

Washington is not about to be ruled by Nazis, but by reactionary Republicans, which are bad enough but nothing new.  If Trump is better than they are on some points, that should be noted and encouraged.  An effective opposition should know how to distinguish between hot air and real issues, and to judge issues on their own specific merits.

The Clinton campaign was based the “identity politics” claim to protect women and minorities from their enemy, Trump. An opposition movement based on perpetuating that claim, with emphasis on how horrible Trump must be personally, is also likely to swallow other aspects of the Clinton campaign line, notably its anti-Russian propaganda.  Incited by the mainstream media, the “left” opposition risks echoing the Clintonist accusation that “dictator” Trump is too friendly with “dictator” Putin.  And the hysterical opposition will oppose the one positive element in Trump’s campaign: the desire to make business rather than war with Russia.

It is significant that the German Defense minister Ursula von der Leyen wasted no time in demanding that Trump choose between friendship with Putin on the one hand or NATO and “our shared values” on the other.  This is a sign that not only the U.S. war party but also the European NATO machine will be putting pressure on Trump to pursue the very same warlike policies favored by Hillary Clinton.  And the disappointed Clintonite opposition is likely to be out in the streets not to oppose wars, but to oppose Trump’s opposition to wars, all in the name of our shared democratic humanitarian values and opposition to “dictators”.

This is the danger of hysterical opposition to Trump.  It would be a continuation of the worst aspects of this dreadful campaign, totally centered on denouncing individuals, and neglecting serious political questions.  A progressive opposition should leave Clintonism behind and develop its own positions, starting with opposition to regime change wars – even if Trump is also against regime change wars.  And indeed, it should push Trump to maintain that position, because he will be under strong pressure in Washington to give it up.  The opposition should demand that Trump make good on his promise to avoid war, while opposing his reactionary domestic policies.  Otherwise, we are heading for the worst of both worlds.

After the Election: Don’t Panic, Think!
by Diana Johnstone

After the Election: Don’t Panic, Think!

17. November 2016

Hacked Emails Link Turkish Minister to Illicit Oil (

The oil stolen by Daesh in Syria was transported by 8,500 tanker trucks belonging to a company called Powertrans, which, without any call for tender, had obtained the monopoly of oil transport on Turkish territory. It was owned by the very mysterious Grand Fortune Ventures, based in Singapore, then transferred to the Cayman Islands. Behind this financial set-up can be found Çalık Holding, the company belonging to Berat Albayrak (photo), the son-in-law of President Erdoğan and his Minister for Energy.

17. November 2016

Chinesische Warnung für Trump – neuer US-Präsident vor ernsten Prüfungen in Asien (sputniknews)

Die chinesischen Medien haben ihren Ton gegenüber dem designierten US-Präsidenten Donald Trump plötzlich geändert, schreibt die Zeitung „Kommersant“ am Donnerstag. Anlass war das jüngste Telefonat des chinesischen Staatschefs Xi Jinping mit Trump.


17. November 2016

China/Indien – Internationale Dissidenz (I) – German Foreign Policy

Ein Forschungsprojekt der Universität Frankfurt am Main untersucht China und Indien im Hinblick auf mögliches „dissidentes Verhalten“. Man wolle in Erfahrung bringen, ob die beiden bevölkerungsreichsten Staaten der Erde, die seit längerem „wirtschaftlich stark aufholen“, eine Motivation für eine Großmachtpolitik aufwiesen, die westliche Ordnungsvorstellungen negiert, erklären die zuständigen Wissenschaftler. Passend dazu fragt eine andere Arbeitsgruppe der Frankfurter Hochschule nach den Bedingungen, die erfüllt sein müssen, um „dissidente Akteure“ der Weltpolitik erfolgreich als „Schurkenstaaten“ zu diskreditieren. Beide Projekte sind Teil eines von der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft finanzierten Zusammenhangs, der sich nach eigenem Bekunden mit „Organisations- und Artikulationsformen radikalen politischen Widerstands“ befasst. Erklärtes Ziel ist es, „Mechanismen“ zu entwickeln, die es ermöglichen, die identifizierten „Dissidenten“ entweder zu neutralisieren oder wieder in die westliche Weltordnung zu integrieren. Das Beobachtungsspektrum reicht dabei von als oppositionell wahrgenommenen Staaten bis zu politischen Bewegungen.


%d Bloggern gefällt das: