ISIS re-captures Palmyra | December 11th 2016

Report from Aleppo | December 10th 2016 | Conversation with warm and fuzzy jihadists

Syrien: „Es gibt keinen gerechten Krieg“ – Jakob Augstein im Gespräch mit Jürgen Todenhöfer über die Ursachen des Konflikts und die Chancen für eine Friedenskonferenz (Freitag)

Wirklich? Es geht in Syrien doch um einen „regime change“.

Ja, stimmt. In Libyen hat das ja sehr gut funktioniert. Gaddafi ist weg, dafür haben wir fünfzig neue Gaddafis. Das ist nur ein Beispiel von vielen. Wie jemand die Politik des regime change noch unterstützen kann, ist mir schleierhaft.

https://www.freitag.de/autoren/jaugstein/es-gibt-keinen-gerechten-krieg

US-Peace Council: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election — Trump’s Victory and the Urgent Imperatives Before People’s Peace, Justice, and Environmental Movement

http://uspeacecouncil.org/?p=3077

U.S. Peace Council
November 25, 2016

Executive Summary:

Regarding the election victory of Donald Trump, the US Peace Council first of all salutes the massive demonstrations that call for improving workers’ lives, saving the environment, respecting women, opposing racism, supporting immigrants and rejecting Islamophobia. While much of what Trump said during the campaign and what he stands for is divisive and destructive, it is unlikely that a majority of Trump supporters voted based on Trump’s scapegoating statements. Many if not most of those voters were expressing their anger at decades-long policies of the corporate Establishment and corporate “globalization” that have left them poorer, isolated and unheard. While the USPC calls for opposing the many wars, increased militarization and proliferation of nuclear weapons, Trump’s inconsistent statements offer an opportunity to insist that future President Trump pursue positive positions such as détente with Russia, ending the war on Syria and suggestions that NATO is outmoded. His actions will necessarily either anger the pro Establishment Republicans and Democrats or anti-establishment voters. The peace movement and the other mass movements in the U.S. should follow the words of Mother Jones, “Don’t mourn, organize,” increase our outreach and actions. Organize for what we believe in and welcome the anti-establishment voters into the struggle.

* * *

After a lengthy and bitter presidential campaign, which, once again, brought to surface some of the ugliest aspects of the social reality we live in, Donald Trump, one of the most controversial presidential candidates in the recent history of the United States, managed to win the election with the help of our antiquated and undemocratic Electoral College system.

Trump’s election has given rise to tremendous amount of fear, puzzlement and despair among tens of millions of Americans — from African Americans, to women, immigrants, Muslims and many other disenfranchised and oppressed groups in our society, as well as the large numbers fearful of climate change and accelerating environmental degradation — leading to immediate mass demonstrations against the election results throughout the country against the election results and many of the president- elect’s expressed attitudes. This has sparked a great amount of discussion and debate in our peace and justice movement about the deep roots of this drastic right turn in American politics, and its future impact on the lives of millions of people in the U.S. and around the world.

There is no doubt that a full explanation of this unexpected development will require more time and in-depth analysis within the people’s movement. Yet, initial estimates of the causes are possible and necessary. Our analysis should focus on the social dynamics and forces that led to the election of Donald Trump as president and its important implications for the struggle for peace.

 

Social Context: The Deepening Divide

The 2016 presidential election occurred at the time when our society was, and still is, at its most divided and polarized state in its recent history. Our society has been experiencing deep divisions along many fault lines for several decades:

— Decades of structural racism, sexism and xenophobia;

— Militarization of the police and increasing police brutality against minorities;

— Flight of capital and investment abroad, which has led to intolerable levels of unemployment and devastated communities, especially among African Americans and other people of color;

— Visibly shrinking the size of the country’s middle class and stagnant wages that have pushed the majority of people into economic hardship, bankruptcy and a deep sense of economic insecurity;

— Expanding poverty and homelessness;

— Lack of adequate healthcare for tens of millions of working people;

— State of perpetual war abroad that has not only led to destruction of many countries and the loss of millions of lives but has absorbed almost all government funds for education, healthcare and building the country’s infrastructure;

— Destruction of the environment and the drastic climate change that is threatening the lives of millions of people not just in the United States but around the world.

All this, and more, had created an angry pole of frustrated people who demand a fundamental change in the way the country is being run. Indeed, it was the same frustrated and angry majority that supported Barack Obama in 2008 with his slogans of “Change You Can Believe In” and “Yes We Can,” which, to everybody’s disappointment, never materialized.

 

The Electoral Process

Very early in the campaign period, the main fault-line was quickly drawn between the pro-establishment and anti-establishment forces, both throughout the society and within the two major parties. This deep divide led to massive support for candidates from both parties who appeared to be on the anti-establishment side: Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders (the first, more fake and the second, more genuine). The pro-establishment leadership of both parties, fearful of the massive shakeup that may result, tried to either contain and remove (in the case of Sanders) or “tame” as much as possible (in the case of Trump) these candidates. The internal machinations against Sanders’ nomination by the pro-establishment leadership of the Democratic Party, which led to the selection of Hillary Clinton as the Party’s nominee, alienated a significant number of the Party supporters and drastically reduced the chances of a Democratic victory.

The stage was thus set for a race between a visibly pro-establishment, pro-war Democratic candidate, whom very few trusted and were hardly motivated to vote for, and a racist, sexist, xenophobic, rightwing Republican billionaire, who was banking on the massive anti-establishment wave of frustration and anger among the people. Still, until the very last minutes, a great majority of observers and analysts in the corporate media kept assuring people that such a racist, sexist and incompetent character as Trump had no chance of winning the election, thus promoting more complacency among the opposition to Trump.

Yet, to everybody’s surprise, Trump won by securing 290 electoral votes despite the fact that Clinton had mustered close to two million more votes than he. This result exposes the undemocratic flaws of our antiquated electoral system in which candidates can win a presidential election with a minority of the popular vote.

 

Why Did Trump Win?

It would be a grave mistake to attribute Trump’s victory solely to the support he received from the racist, sexist, xenophobic, neo-Nazi and fascist forces who were highly motivated and mobilized throughout society by Trump’s rhetoric and behavior during his campaign. True, the dormant beast that he has awakened in our society during this election will be haunting and threatening the very fabric our society for a long time to come. And the people have every reason to be fearful and concerned about the serious damage it is bound to cause.

But it was not mainly these forces that pushed Trump to the top. Historically, these forces have always been present and active in every corner of our society, thanks to the system’s failure to deal with the problem of racism in a fundamental way. In fact, the size and overall impact of racist forces on our society has been continuously decreasing over time as the people’s level of social consciousness and awareness has increased. This by no means implies that their significance or the need for confronting them has diminished. On the contrary, the intensified police brutality and oppression that the African-American and other communities of color have been facing in recent years is a clear demonstration of the fact that racism is losing ground among the majority of U.S. population and that resistance to racism is becoming stronger, not only in the African American community but among other minority communities and the white population as well. In fact, evidence from the recent elections shows that numerous mainly white states, having voted twice for Obama, switched to Trump in 2016, suggesting that racism was not the central motive in their vote.

At the same time, we should bear in mind that the visibly increased activism of the racist and rightwing populist forces in our society is neither happening in vacuum, nor is unique to the United States. History has shown repeatedly that during any phase of systemic capitalist crisis, racism, national chauvinism, xenophobia, and rightwing populist tendencies have become more vocal, active and influential. In Europe, too, rightwing populist parties are growing (Le Pen in France, UKIP in Britain, the Alternative for Germany party; and elsewhere). Growth in their vote represents a growing protest against corporate “globalization” (free trade, open borders, export of capital and jobs, and “regime change” foreign policy; in short, making the world safe for transnational capital by sacrificing the lives of ordinary people).

This is what secured victory for Trump. Not his blatant racism and sexism, but his hypocritical yet vocal opposition to corporate “globalization” that has impoverished billions of people around the world, and the corrupt political establishment in Washington that supports it. This is what resonated with a great number of working people, especially in industrially devastated states in the rust belt of the United States, and secured him the electoral votes he needed despite the overall lack of popular support on the national level.

The corporate media has been trying to distort this fact by claiming that it was the “white” workers that helped him win the election. In other words, it was the racists who got him elected. But nothing can be further from truth. This is an intentional distraction to keep us from focusing on the main causes of Trump’s victory, and a warning for us not to fall in this new trap. Not all who voted for Trump were racist, although he himself is, and all of us should certainly continue to fight against racism vigorously. But a very significant number of Trump voters were protesting a pro-corporate, pro-war system that has devastated the lives of the majority of the population. And this is what brings all of us together regardless of whom we voted for in this election.

 

What Can We Expect from the Trump Administration?

The question is: Now that Trump has won the election as a right wing populist, will he govern as a right wing populist? Let us look some of the contradictory promises he made on issues of foreign policy and war, which are of central interest to the peace movement.

Trump wondered out loud whether NATO was outmoded, and said that there should at least be better burden sharing by allies to pay for NATO. He favored cooperation with Putin’s Russia instead of confrontation. He expressed caution about supporting the “moderate rebels” in Syria, saying that it would lead to war with Russia.

On the other hand, he threatened to use nukes against ISIS and revive the use of torture. At one point he pledged more evenhandedness on Israel/Palestine, but at the same time pledged to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem. He also expressed a cavalier attitude to the use of nuclear weapons and stressed the need for “restoring” US military strength by increasing the already enormous U.S. military budget. He said he would keep Guantanamo open, while his Vice-President-elect, Pence, for his part promised to undo Obama’s limited normalization of relations with Cuba.

Certainly Trump’s foreign policy proclamations are mixed bags. But some, if pursued, will be running against the present establishment policies. It is incumbent on all of us to demand that he honors his populist positions and discards the reactionary ones. And we only have a chance of succeeding if there is enough mass pressure built up from below.

We know very well that no U.S. President makes policy decisions singlehandedly. There are many signs that the conventional corporate Republicans in Congress and all the corporate interests behind them are surrounding him to ensure that his populist positions are forgotten ASAP, and that only his racist and rightwing policies remain. Pro-establishment Democrats and liberals will not challenge him to honor his populist positions either. We will learn soon enough which side of Trump will triumph over the other as the key staff and Cabinet appointments and the budget priorities become evident.

His problem is that either direction he chooses, he is bound to anger and lose a significant part of his support base: either his anti-establishment supporters who want change, or the establishment Republicans (and Democrats) who wish to maintain the pro-corporate status quo. History has shown that in the absence of a strong, unified and active popular movement, the chips always fall on the side of the corporate establishment.

 

Our Path Forward

Based on all this, it is imperative for the peace and justice movement to focus its attention on the social dynamics, social forces, and policies rather than focusing on Trump as an individual. Despite all the negatives and dangers that Trump’s election has given rise to, one silver lining in the process is that his election has laid bare all the contradictions of the existing system at all levels: racism, sexism, xenophobia, the devastation caused by corporate globalization and perpetual war, and the deep corruption of the political establishment in Washington, DC.

Trump’s victory was not a mandate for war and racism. There is reason for worry, but not for despair. The vote mainly reflected a widespread voter desire for change. The Trump campaign’s use of racism, Islamophobia, and sexism does not negate this reality. There are some positive features in Trump’s contradictory campaign positions on foreign policy, for example, his openness to a more pragmatic attitude toward Russia. Of course, the pro-war forces will move heaven and earth to ensure that the populist elements in his statements will fall by the wayside and we will be left with a conventional right-wing Republican Administration. Therefore we must step up the struggle for peace, and get out into the streets in vast numbers.

By focusing on the popular demands that were raised during this election, be it by Trump, Clinton, Sanders, or Jill Stein, we can bring together and unify all the popular forces, including the majority of those who voted for Trump (either as a protest vote or based on a desire for fundamental systemic change) in the broadest possible movement, one that addresses all the structural flaws of the system that are directly linked with the imperialistic corporate exploitation and military-industrial war-mongering.

This, in our view, is the only way to undo the negative effects of this election and enforce the fundamental changes that the people of our country and the world have been struggling to achieve for many decades.

The Détente Now! – Neue Entspannungspolitik Jetzt! Appeal – please go to the website of the German pro-détente movement and sign the appeal.

 http://usforeignpolicy.blogs.lalibre.be/archive/2016/12/08/the-detente-now-neue-entspannungspolitik-jetzt-appeal-1154246.html

support of global Détente.. For those who wish to be activists, please go to the website of the German pro-détente movement and sign the appeal.

by Gilbert Doctorow, Ph.D.

By my estimation, the US presidential elections presented the American voting public with a clear choice between war, meaning Hillary Clinton’s continuation and intensification of the policies of isolation, denigration and confrontation with Russia that President Obama has pursued over the past three years, bringing us to the brink of nuclear war, or a policy of outreach to Russia, initially focused on our common struggle against ISIS, but having the potential to mature into a broad constructive relationship, under candidate Trump.

However, the reality is that the foreign policy dimension of the votes cast on November 8^th was always going to be relatively minor, given Americans’ natural focus on domestic issues. And this year the whole electoral race was muddied by the vicious character assassinations practiced by both Republican and Democratic candidates.

In the op-ed article below, which first appeared in The Nation, my fellow co-authors bring to the attention of a target audience of Americans interested in world affairs an opportunity to take a stand and ‘cast a vote’ for peace that can materially affect the changing political landscape of Europe in 2017, where there will be nation-wide elections in the locomotive nations of the European Union, France and Germany.

To be sure, the outcome of the primary elections of the Center Right ‚Republican‘ party that bears the Gaullist traditions and has the greatest likelihood of winning the Presidency in April-May 2017 show that the French appear to be choosing the correct course entirely on their own. They reject Cold War rhetoric in favor of re-building ties to Russia.  However, in Germany, the candidate favored to win a fourth term in office in the autumn national elections, Chancellor Angela Merkel, considers herself the heir to Barack Obama’s “legacy” of belligerence towards Russia.  At the CDU party convention in Essen on December 6, she was re-elected as standard bearer of her party with 98% of the votes.

In this context, it is very important that within Germany’s Socialist Party (SPD), which presently is Merkel’s coalition partner but will be competing against her in the federal elections next autumn, a minority which keeps alive the memory of Germany’s own détente policy towards Russia has now stepped out into the political arena and is gathering support from politicians both inside the SPD and in other parties to seek a change of direction of the SPD and of Germany as a whole with respect to Russia.

Where do Americans potentially fit into this equation?  It would be no exaggeration to say that the Obama Administration had a decisive role in scripting Angela Merkel’s shift from a policy of strategic partnership with Russia in 2008 to Cold War venom in 2016.  U.S. Vice President Joe Biden boasted openly of the pressure we applied to achieve and maintain the sanctions against Russia by the EU for which Germany was instrumentalized.

For these reasons, American citizens and organizations representing civil society should have no complexes about “influencing” the forthcoming German elections by demonstrating to their fellow-thinkers in the SPD and across the German political spectrum that the United States government did not speak for the American people when it imposed Cold War rules on their chancellor and her backers in the ruling elites. On the contrary, showing to German society that a peaceful Atlanticism is also possible and desirable, we will be righting the wrongs of the recent past.

For those who wish to be activists, please go to the website of the German pro-détente movement and sign the appeal.

http://neue-entspannungspolitik.berlin/en/appeal/

 

Détente Now: A New Call for Peace, Security, and Cooperation

Civic and religious leaders in Germany are spearheading a new initiative to avoid war between Russia and the West.

By Gilbert Doctorow, Ute Finckh-Krämer, Ludger Volmer, Rolf Ekéus and Noam Chomsky

A transatlantic appeal for a new policy of détente with Russia has been launched. The declaration’s authors invite the general public to join leading political figures and social activists who have publicly rallied to support the call.

The initiative was born in Berlin several months ago in the days of deepest gloom engendered by confrontation with Russia over Ukraine, the Baltic countries, and Syria, with major war exercises held around Russia’s borders and bellicose language from both sides that suggested imminent hot war. As German Minister of Foreign Affairs Frank Walter Steinmeier (SPD) said in an interview with Bild newspaper on October 8, present times are more dangerous even than during the Cold War that ended in 1990: “Previously, the world was divided, but Moscow and Washington knew each other’s red lines and respected them. In a world with many regional conflicts and dwindling influence of the great powers, the world becomes more unpredictable.”

The roll-out of the initiative called Détente Now aims at bringing civil society on two continents into play both to enforce and to support approaches to pursue dialogue and compromise with Russian counterparts, e.g., on confidence- and security-building measures between Russia and its neighbors. Détente Now will be a powerful voice for change of direction in foreign policy within Europe, and within Germany in particular, as it and several other key EU countries have their national elections in the course of 2017.

In the United States, the word “détente” brings to mind the efforts of former presidents and secretaries of state to control and reduce strategic weapons and to find ways of cooperation instead of confrontation. In Germany, the equivalent policy, Entspannungspolitik, was crafted in the 1970s by Chancellor Willy Brandt and his close adviser Egon Bahr. Their “Eastern Policy” promoted rapprochement as a means of gradually changing the behavior and views of the opposing side. It is widely believed to have facilitated the eventual fall of the Berlin Wall and end of the original Cold War.

The Détente Now declaration specifically seeks implementation of the twin objectives of a “Europe whole and free” and a common space of peace and security extending from Lisbon to Vladivostok. That vision of all-European security set out in the Charter of Paris signed in 1990 by all European states and the institutionalization of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe in Budapest in 1994, was predicated upon respect for human rights and liberties, and upon equal security provisions for all. Regrettably, in the 1990s this grand vision was replaced by political and security schemes that left Russia out in the cold: the greater European Union and an expanded NATO. The result has been nearly calamitous, the authors of Détente Now believe.

The stakes are higher now than ever. Get The Nation in your inbox.

The declaration was initiated by a few concerned citizens of civil society, churches, and science, including Wolfgang Biermann (former adviser to Egon Bahr), Peter Brandt (historian), Konrad Raiser (former secretary general of the World Council of Churches), Reiner Hoffmann (chairman of the German Trade Unions Federation), and Horst Teltschik, (former head of Chancellor Kohl’s office and 1999–2008 director of the Munich Security Conference), as well as, from the United States, Daniel Ellsberg (longtime advocate for an informed citizenry).

Many people from the United States, Germany, and other countries support the declaration in the wake of the American presidential election as a transatlantic appeal for a new policy of détente. Among the key first signatories in Germany are well-known Bundestag members from the SPD party, recently joined by a growing number of Green deputies, as well as city mayors, scientists, artists, and journalists. In the United States, the declaration has won the support of several board members of the American Committee for East West Accord, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, the Association of International Physicians for Prevention of Nuclear War, Veteran Intelligence Officials for Sanity, and of celebrities from the film and music industries, among them Roger Waters (founding member of Pink Floyd) or David Kasper (an Academy Award–winning filmmaker)

Starting this month, the declaration will be published on various homepages, and public collection of more signatures of support will start. A German version can be found here, with an English version here.

The Initiative “neue Entspannungspolitik jetzt!” / “DetenteNOW!” will open a German- and English-language portal to make available literature relevant to the cause. Supporters of the declaration also propose to organize round-table discussions both in Europe and in the United States, and to set up direct US-German-Russian and other exchanges of civil society activists who support the initiative.

Westen weiter auf Kriegskurs – Treffen der »Freunde Syriens« in Paris nicht zur politischen Lösung bereit. USA wollen 200 Soldaten schicken (junge Welt)

https://www.jungewelt.de/2016/12-12/088.php

 

Von Karin Leukefeld

Vertreter von zehn Staaten, die sich als »Freunde Syriens« bezeichnen, haben nach einem Treffen am vergangenen Freitag in Paris schwere Anschuldigungen gegen die Regierung in Damaskus und ihre Unterstützer Russland, Iran und die libanesische Hisbollah erhoben. Gleichzeitig boten sie an, dass der »Hohe Verhandlungsrat« (HNC), ein von ihnen unterstützter Kreis syrischer Oppositioneller, erneut zu »Gesprächen ohne Vorbedingungen« bereit sei. Diese Gruppe hatte die Verhandlungen in Genf im April abgebrochen. Die »Freunde Syriens« unterstützen seit 2011 oppositionelle Gruppen, die die syrische Führung um Präsident Baschar Al-Assad stürzen wollen.

„Kaum zeichnet sich in Syrien Frieden ab, setzt Washington auf Krieg“ (sputniknews)

US-Präsident Barack Obama hat vergangene Woche die Einschränkungen für Waffenlieferungen an Rebellengruppen in Syrien aufgehoben. In einem Interview mit Sputnik kritisiert Daniel McAdams, Direktor des Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, Obamas Schritt, der den Krieg im Lande wieder aufflammen lasse.
Hier:  https://de.sputniknews.com/politik/20161211313716939-syrien-washington-schuert-den-krieg/

Watch Canadian Journalist Completely Dismantle Mainstream Narrative on Syria (sputniknews)

Freelance journalist Eva Bartlett is no stranger to the Syrian conflict, having visited the country repeatedly since the conflict began to get a sense of the realities on the ground. This week, confronted by a mainstream journalist regarding the lies presented in media coverage of Syria, Bartlett succinctly laid out exactly what the problem was.

Read more: https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201612111048424532-eva-bartlett-press-conference-syria/

Appeal: “Stop the Spiral of Violence –for a New Policy of Peace and Détente now!”

http://neue-entspannungspolitik.berlin/en/appeal/

In recent years both NATO and Russia have increasingly engaged in deterrence through rearmament and threats against each other rather than working for common security allover Europe through confidence and security building measures, arms control, and disarmament. By so doing, they have failed to comply with their commitments to develop a peaceful European order, to strengthen the United Nations and to peacefully settle disputes including mandatory arbitration by a third party – obligations to which all heads of state in Europe and North America formally agreed in the ‘Charter of Paris’ 25 years ago.

During the years since the signing of the Paris Charter, many mistakes have contributed to eroding the laboriously built trust and hampering the peaceful resolution of crises and conflicts. Without cooperation with Russia there will be risks of confrontation, a new arms race, escalation of the Ukraine conflict, and more terror and wars in the Middle East intensifying the flow of refugees. European security – regardless of the assessment of each other’s social order – will not be possible without cooperation between Russia and its neighbors.

This is the central lesson from the policy of détente followed in the 1960s and 1970s, especially the contributions of US President John F.Kennedy and the West German government under Chancellor Willy Brandt, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1971, on the grounds that “Brandt outstretched his hand for reconciliation between old enemies.” At that time, no one could know that less than 20 years later this policy of détente would result in creating the conditions for the peaceful fall of the Berlin Wall and Central Europe’s Iron Curtain.

Today, as then, a way out of the deadlock of confrontation is only possible through cooperation, understanding and reconciliation with supposed enemies.

In early 2009 the ‘architect of détente’, Egon Bahr – together with Helmut Schmidt, Richard von Weizsäcker and Hans Dietrich Genscher made a joint appeal for a “nuclear weapons free world”, reminding newly elected US President Obama that ‘our century’s  key word is cooperation. No global problem can be solved by confrontation or by the use of military force.’

Similar views were expressed in the US by a broad range of public figures across the political spectrum such as George P. Shultz, William J. Perry, Henry Kissinger and Sam Nunn. In Germany’s Bundestag the CDU/CSU, SPD, FDP and Alliance 90/The Greens in January 2010 agreed on joint resolution 17/1159 which inter alia “calls for the withdrawal of US nuclear weapons from Germany”. Given the escalation of the Ukraine crisis public support for Minsk II” and a “new détente” increased.

Egon Bahr and others have made repeated proposals to diffuse or resolve the current conflict through détente. Numerous prominent citizens have supported the declarations and proposals. In a joint statement representatives from churches, business, political parties and civil society called for ‘a new policy of peace and détente NOW!’. But in public security debates these calls have been largely ignored.

Today, a broad public and multi-partisan discussion on the demand for a “new policy of détente NOW” is more necessary than ever. The confrontation in Europe has to cease and –– with benefits to the whole world —  an All-European zone of ‘common security’ through the cooperation of all states from Vancouver to Vladivostok must be created.

Signed by the Initiators:(Personal information for identification purposes only)

Julia Berghofer (Coordinator, PNND Germany); Dr. Wolfgang Biermann (Political Scientist / former Foreign Policy Advisor to Egon Bahr); Prof. Dr. Peter Brandt (Historian and author); Frank Bsirske (chairman, United Services Trade Union of Germany ver.di); Dr. Daniel Ellsberg (Author / Senior Fellow, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation / former State and Defense Department official / revealed ‘Pentagon Papers’ about the Vietnam war); Ulrich Frey (Peace Worker in the Evangelical Church of the Rhineland / for many years active in the Civil Conflict Management Platform); Gregor Giersch (Organization for International Dialogue and Conflict Management IDC, Vienna); Reiner Hoffmann (Chairman, German Federation of Trade Unions DGB); Andreas Metz (Head, Press and Communications, Committee on Eastern European Economic Relations); Dr. Hans Misselwitz (Willy-Brandt-Circle / member of the SPD Basic Values Commission); Jörg Pache (Historian, Administrator of the homepage); Wiltrud Rösch-Metzler (Political Scientist / Freelance Journalist / National Chairwoman of the Catholic peace movement Pax Christi); Prof. Dr. Götz Neuneck (Peace Researcher / Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs); Prof. Dr. Konrad Raiser (Theologian / former Secretary-General of the World Council of Churches); Rebecca Sharkey (National Coordinator of ICAN / UK); Dr. Christine Schweitzer (Peace Researcher / Co-managing Director of the German Federation for Social Defense); Prof. Dr. Horst Teltschik (former Director of the Munich Security Conference / former Director and Deputy Head of Staff, Chancellor’s Office); Alyn Ware (Global Coordinator of Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament / Cofounder of UNFOLD ZERO); Dr. Christian Wipperfürth (Author, Associate Fellow German Council on Foreign Relations); Gabriele Witt (Co-Initiator of the Berlin Appeal); Burkhard Zimmermann (Co-Initiator of the Berlin Appeal / responsible for the homepage http://www.neue-entspannungspolitik.berlin – according to the German press law); Andreas Zumach (Journalist / Advisor to the Initiative).

Advisory Group: This website initiative receives expert advice by Dr. Ute Finckh Krämer (Member of the German Bundestag MdB / from 2005 to 2015 Co-Chairperson to the Federation for Social Defence), Xanthe Hall, (IPPNW Germany), Martin Hinrichs (Political Scientist / Board Member of ICAN Germany), Prof. Dr. Götz Neuneck (Federation of German Scientists VDW / Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs), Hermann Vinke (Journalist and Author / former ARD International Radio Correspondent) and Andreas Zumach.

 

Merkels Amok-Politik in Syrien überdauert selbst deren politische Väter (RTdeutsch)

 

Die Kanzlerin überließ noch nie etwas dem Zufall. Deshalb war auch ihre Wiederwahl auf dem CDU-Parteitag nur Formsache. Während sich in der zweiten Reihe ihre Satrapen formieren, leiden Menschen an den Auswirkungen von Merkels „anti-syrischen Neigungen“.

Je näher die endgültige Entscheidung über das Schicksal von Aleppo rückt und damit auch über den gesamten Verlauf des bald sieben Jahre andauernden Krieges in Syrien, desto schriller werden die Meldungen in unseren Medien. Das ist an sich nichts Neues oder Erstaunliches.

Was aber interessant ist, zu beobachten, ist, dass es einige Politiker in Deutschland gibt, die diesen Krieg für sich als wirksame Methode zur Förderung der eigenen Karriere entdeckt haben. Durch ihren Versuch, die ohnehin schon schrillen Aussagen der Medien noch zu toppen, erhoffen sie sich offenbar, sich als vor den Wählerinnen und Wählern als besonders qualifizierte oder starke Führungspersönlichkeiten profilieren zu können. Was dabei alle eint und was der sprichwörtliche rote Faden ist, der sich durch alle Wortmeldungen und deren Urheber zieht, ist deren Position in wichtigen Gremien und ihre besondere Nähe zu Bundeskanzlerin Angela Merkel

Hier weiter: https://deutsch.rt.com/meinung/44094-merkels-amok-politik-in-syrien/

John Pilger talks to Sputnik News. Watch ‚The Coming War on China‘ online

Following vehement anti-China rhetoric from President-elect Donald Trump and President Obama’s Asian-pivot policies, some feel that US relations with Beijing could escalate into war. Radio Sputnik’s Loud & Clear speaks with filmmaker John Pilger about increasing tensions and how they relate to his latest movie, „The Coming War on China.“

READ MORE (https://sputniknews.com/asia/201612091048382826-war-with-china-maybe-likely/)
https://www.rt.com/shows/big-picture/369860-john-pilger-china-wwiii/

John Pilger interviewed on RT’s The Big Picture.  WATCH (https://www.rt.com/shows/big-picture/369860-john-pilger-china-wwiii/)

The Coming War on China is now available to watch online.
**** 4 stars
„A gripping film … a strong corrective to our bland and complacent indifference“
The Guardian

**** 4 stars
„Essential viewing“
Radio Times

**** 4 stars
„A film that will change hearts and minds“
The Upcoming

„Shocking, terrifying, disturbing“
Entertainment Focus

„The kind of stark warning we need“
Cinevue

WATCH The Coming War on China on ITV (UK only) (http://www.itv.com/hub/the-coming-war-on-china/2a4249a0001)

WATCH The Coming War on China on RT (Worldwide) (https://rtd.rt.com/films/the-coming-war-on-china/)

 

Regime-Change in den USA?

Donald Trump will Berichten zufolge Rex Tillerson zum Außenminister machen. Der Öl-Manager hat enge Kontakte zu Wladimir Putin. Führende Republikaner sind misstrauisch.

Siehe:

http://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2016-12/rex-tillerson-donald-trump-aussenminister-russland

---

Der Wahlkampf der Demokraten wurde durch Cyberangriffe torpediert. Die USA sehen Russland im Hintergrund. Noch-Präsident Obama will nun von seinen Geheimdiensten eine Analyse – und zwar schnell.

Siehe: http://www.n24.de/n24/Nachrichten/Politik/d/9546316/obama-ordnet-untersuchung-von-hackerangriffen-an.html

---

(…) Die CIA hatte zuvor behauptet, dass Russland den Wahlsieg von Trump möglich gemacht habe. Beweise für diese Behauptung gibt es nicht. Doch die Behauptung ist einzigartig: Sie bedeutet, dass die Wahl Trumps durch Moskau manipuliert worden sei und spricht Trump damit die Legitimität für das Amt ab.

Trump selbst hatte auf die Anordnung einer Untersuchung der Wahl durch die Barack Obama mit der Bemerkung reagiert, die Geheimdienste, die die Untersuchung durchführen sollten, seien „dieselben Leute, die behauptet hatten, dass der Irak Massenvernichtungswaffen besitzt“. Die Behauptung hatte sich später als glatte Lüge entpuppt.

Einer der Gründe, warum die CIA so panisch agiert, dürfte laut Washington Post in der Ernennung von General Michael Flynn zum nationalen Sicherheitsberater liegen. Flynn war als Direktor der CIA gescheitert, weil der Apparat nicht gewillt gewesen war, seinen Reform-Plänen zu folgen. Die CIA-Chargen fürchten nun offenkundig, dass Flynn bei der CIA durchgreifen könnte.

(…)  Die Post berichtet weiter, dass die „CIA ein verdecktes Programm laufen hat, um moderate Rebellen auszurüsten und zu trainieren mit dem Ziel, die brutale Herrschaft von Präsident Baschar al-Assad zu beenden“.

Der Plan des „regime change“ in Syrien wurde von Russlands Intervention gestoppt.

Es ist unklar, ob Trump es unter dem schweren Beschuss der CIA schaffen wird, seine Präsidentschaft tatsächlich anzutreten. Ein erster republikanischer Wahlmann hatte angekündigt, gegen Trump zu stimmen. Wie viele andere Wahlmänner seinem Beispiel folgen, ist unklar.

(…) Vor allem die CIA ist massiv gegen Trump, weil sie Hillary Clinton unterstützt hatte.

(…) Sollte Trump tatsächlich daran gehindert werden, sein Amt anzutreten, wäre dies der erste „regime change“ auf amerikanischem Boden. In den meisten Ländern, in denen die US-Dienste einen „regime change“ durchgeführt haben, führte dies zu jahrelangem Chaos, Bürgerkrieg und politischer Destabilisierung.

Siehe:https://deutsche-wirtschafts-nachrichten.de/2016/12/11/brutaler-machtkampf-in-den-usa-cia-nimmt-donald-trump-ins-visier/?nlid=3c18df85d2