Spanish cities free themselves of israeli Apartheid

Spanish cities free themselves of Israeli Apartheid 

‘It is our responsibility to do what is in our reach to support justice in Palestine’

Co-authored by Maren Mantovani and Ángel Alonso.

“It is our responsibility to do what is in our reach to support justice in Palestine.” With these sound and simple words Jesús Manuel Sánchez Antuña, the mayor of Langreo, has reaffirmed the solidarity of the small town in Asturias, in northern Spain. We had visited to thank the local council for its decision to declare the municipality ‘free of Israeli Apartheid’ and not to contract any companies that are involved in Israeli violations of Palestinian human rights and international law.

Almost 60 local and regional councils all across the Spanish state have passed similar motions over the last two years. Only recently, the provincial capital Cádiz (Andalucia, southern Spain) and eight more councils in the province have joined the effort. At the end of July, the town of Santa Eulària on the island of Ibiza, one the most popular holiday resorts in the Balearic islands, opted to free itself of Israeli apartheid passing such a solidarity motion. Other world-famous places in Spain, including the island of Gran Canaria, Córdoba, Sevilla, Santiago de Compostela and Gijón, are today destinations that offer an unforgettable holiday free of Israeli apartheid.

The wave of support for Palestinian rights among cities across the Spanish state is based on the campaign to build ‘Israeli Apartheid Free Zones’ launched in 2014 by RESCOP to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the 2004 Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Wall. The Israeli Apartheid Free Zones are part of the global campaign for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) and ‘support the creation, in our neighbourhoods, towns and cities, of commercial, cultural, political, sporting, academic and social spaces in the Spanish state, which refuse to collaborate with, or passively support, the Israeli colonial and apartheid system’. The campaign aims to ‘create islands of political awareness and to consolidate Israeli Apartheid Free Zones in different parts of the Spanish State’.

In Gijón (Asturias), for example, one can walk into shops, libraries, restaurants, bars and coffee shops that display a logo at the entrance alerting that the space is ‘Israeli apartheid free’. Citizens and visitors can shop or meet friends in environments that guarantee that in these premises no products from Israel or companies that are targeted by the global BDS movement are being sold or used in the food or products. These are spaces where no Israeli propaganda or cultural whitewashing is tolerated.

Since 2015, more and more municipalities in the Spanish state are joining the movement to free themselves of Israeli apartheid. Municipal councils have passed motions committing to ensure that taxpayers’ money is not spent on companies and products that are complicit in Israeli violations of Palestinian human rights and that the local institutions do not promote relationships with Israeli institutions that would legitimate or support Israeli illegal policies against the Palestinian people. This includes adapting  procurement processes in order to reflect this position and declaring the Israeli ambassador in Spain “persona non grata”. They further promote the logo of the ‘Israeli Apartheid Free Zones’ and support local Palestine solidarity initiatives.

As the Association in Defense of Human Rights in Andalucía has explained:

the Israeli Apartheid Free Zones campaign is a positive proposal which allows a conscious purchase policy, a responsible and fair consumption that does not mean the boycott to specific (local) businesses but encourages the choice of companies and products that are made in the context of human rights violations. This measure, which in fact also favors local production and trade, is intended to inform neighbors and consumers about production conditions and to raise awareness about the situation of the Palestinian population expelled from their own territories and under apartheid in their own country.

Over decades, an unparalleled number of states, multilateral organizations and all levels of UN bodies have condemned Israeli policies and underlined the urgency for Israel and the international community to stop, prevent and remedy Israeli violations of international law. Yet, governments have remained largely idle. It is therefore encouraging to see that such a large number of Spanish local and regional councils are now taking action to fulfill human rights, clearly understanding the global impact of their local actions and are using local democracy to promote solidarity and consciousness of the public.

In fact, the steps taken by the ‘apartheid free’ local and regional councils are simply the fulfillment of an obligation for all state actors. Local authorities and other spheres of government bear a legal obligation to withhold recognition, cooperation and transaction with, and/or assistance to parties in any situation that breaches the fundamental principles of international law. These obligations are self-executing and require no further legislative act or incorporation into national law, but only the opportunity, political will and capacity to exercise them. Failure of federal governments to comply with the state’s obligations does not exonerate other spheres of government within a territory from their duties. Based on this understanding, in December 2014, the International Conference on Local Government and Civil Society Organizations in Support of the Rights of the Palestinian People organized by the UN and local government networks in Seville called  in its final statement (Olive Declaration’) on local governments to “commit to responsible investment, to refrain from contracting with parties and/or twinning with cities that support or benefit from occupation, or violate related prohibitions under international law”.

Pitiful is thus the reaction of the pro-Israel lobby in the face of growing support for such actions. After supporters of Israeli apartheid policies lost the democratic process in ever more local councils, they have used a recently created NGO to bring legal cases against some of those municipalities. They aim to use district court decisions to prohibit local councils from introducing human rights based criteria in their procurement procedures, arguing this would constitute ‘discrimination’.

Such logic favours impunity not only for all those companies and institutions complicit with Israeli crimes and illegal policies, but would, if successful, promote complete impunity for any human rights violating corporation. Citizens, social justice movements and decision makers alike would see themselves deprived of the possibility to define even the most basic red lines on how their money will be spent.

It is not surprising that pro-Israel efforts once again align with corporate interests and show anti-democratic traits. Israeli occupation, apartheid and colonialism are sustainable exactly because it denies an entire population its rights and ensures corporations can reap profits from its expansionism and repression of the Palestinian people.

It is therefore in the interest of all of us that we defend local democracy, the principles of international law and the values of human rights. While you may start the campaign to free your own city from Israeli apartheid, come and enjoy your holidays in the Israeli apartheid free cities, bars and restaurants in the Spanish state.

Maren Mantovani, coordinator of international relations of the Palestinian Stop the Wall Campaign. Ángel Alonso, member of the Arab Cause Solidarity Committee, a member of the Solidarity Network against the Occupation of Palestine in the Spanish State (RESCOP).

Dozens of Spanish cities boycott Israel

Dozens of Spanish cities boycott Israel


An unprecedented victory for the BDS movement and for Palestine solidarity groups across the Spanish state that have prevailed against relentless ‘Israel’ lobby attempts to intimidate them into silence through propaganda and expensive court cases …

Cadiz, provincial capital in the autonomous community of Andalusia in the Spanish state, has become the latest municipality to pass a motion supporting the Palestinian-led Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement for Palestinian rights and declaring itself an Israeli “Apartheid Free Zone”.

With a population of 120,000, Cadiz joins more than 50 cities and towns across the Spanish state which have voted to declare themselves spaces free from Israeli apartheid. Other famous Apartheid Free municipalities include Gran Canaria, Santiago de Compostela, Xixón-Gijón, Sevilla, Córdoba and Santa Eulària in Ibiza.

Inspired in part by a similar campaign during the struggle against apartheid in South Africa in the 1980s, the Israeli Apartheid Free Zone campaign, led by the Solidarity Network Against the Occupation of Palestine (RESCOP), seeks to create ‘islands of political consciousness’ and to break local ties with the Israeli occupation regime, settler-colonialism and apartheid, as well as with international corporations and institutions that are complicit in the maintenance of Israel’s violations of international law.

The campaign, which is supported  by  social movements, businesses, schools, media and public institutions from across the Spanish state, has created a map indicating spaces free from Israeli apartheid.

Source: agencies

Dozens of Spanish cities declaring themselves ‘Free of israeli Apartheid’

Dozens of Spanish cities declaring themselves ‘Free of Israeli Apartheid’

Santiago Israeli Apartheid Free Zone

Cadiz, provincial capital in the autonomous community of Andalusia in the Spanish state, has become the latest municipality to pass a motion supporting the Palestinian-led Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement for Palestinian rights and declaring itself an Israeli “Apartheid Free Zone”.
With a population of 120,000, Cadiz joins more than 50 cities and towns across the Spanish state which have voted to declare themselves spaces free from Israeli apartheid. Other famous Apartheid Free municipalities include Gran Canaria, Santiago de Compostela, Xixón-Gijón, Sevilla, Córdoba and Santa Eulària in Ibiza.

Inspired in part by a similar campaign during the struggle against apartheid in South Africa in the 1980s, the Israeli Apartheid Free Zone campaign, led by the Solidarity Network Against the Occupation of Palestine (RESCOP), seeks to create ‘islands of political consciousness’ and to break local ties with Israel’s regime of occupation, settler-colonialism and apartheid, as well as with international corporations and institutions that are complicit in the maintenance of Israel’s violations of international law.

The campaign, which is supported by social movements, businesses, schools, media and public institutions from across the Spanish state, has created a map indicating spaces free from Israeli apartheid.

By declaring themselves Israeli Apartheid Free Zones, local authorities agree to boycott corporations complicit in violations of international law and the rights of Palestinians as well as break ties with the Israeli regime and its complicit institutions. They will also support local awareness raising efforts and commit to conscientious procurement policies based on the human rights of the Palestinian people.

Riya Hassan, European coordinator for the Palestinians BDS National Committee ( BNC), said:

“The Israeli Apartheid Free Zones campaign across the Spanish state is inspiring similar efforts in other countries. The fact that these declarations have been voted by democratically elected municipalities reflect the growing support for the BDS movement for Palestinian rights, not just at the grassroots level but also within governments. This will eventually steer public opinion in favor of comprehensive sanctions on Israel until it end its systematic oppression of Palestinians.“

“Local councils in the Spanish state are leading the way with a powerful model of solidarity with the Palestinian people and our struggle for self-determination. We salute all councilors and activists involved in proposing and defending the motions and those involved in the implementation of the Israeli apartheid-free zones.”

“At a time of a growing democratic deficit across the European continent, it is empowering to witness how citizens are integrating solidarity with Palestinians with domestic agendas that promote social, economic and environmental justice.”

Attacks on a movement for freedom, justice and equality

Growing public support for the BDS movement for Palestinian human rights has prompted Israel and its allies to launch an unprecedented, well-funded and anti-democratic attack against everyone seeking to hold Israel accountable to international law and UN resolutions, especially through BDS advocacy.
The Israeli-sponsored attacks on the BDS movement aim to put pressure on governments, legislators and officials to curtail BDS civic actions and adopt repressive measures that infringe upon their respective citizens’ civil and political liberties at large.

In the Spanish state, attempts to silence the BDS movement, particularly on an institutional level, have been led by ACOM, a pro-Israeli Madrid-based lobby group.

ACOM has launched a number of legal appeals against local councils that have declared themselves Israeli Apartheid Free Zones.

However, ACOM’s strategy of intimidation has not been successful. Targeted cities have defended the democratic outcome of the votes, and informed courts, such as the First Administrative Court of Gijon, refused to accept ACOM’s complaints.

Similar legal charges were lodged against three local councils in the UK by the so-called Jewish Human Rights Watch, a London based Israel lobby group. Also there, the UK High Court rejected the complaints and ruled in favour of the three local councils which had passed resolutions in support of targeted boycotts of Israel’s occupation.

RESCOP commented in a statement: :

“It is intolerable that a foreign entity defending a system of apartheid, such as ACOM, should interfere in the democratic sovereignty of our municipalities, dictating what we can vote for and what not, and preventing our institutions from being committed to human rights.”

This latest decision by the city of Cadiz to join the inspiring wave of other Spanish cities and towns in declaring themselves zones free from Israeli apartheid is a sign that citizens and elected representatives are not intimidated by ACOM’s legal threats.

“By supporting the BDS movement for Palestinian rights and choosing not to engage with institutions and corporations directly involved in Israel’s egregious crimes against the Palestinian people, people of conscience and municipalities across the Spanish state are taking a concrete step to hold Israel accountable for its crimes against the Palestinian people,” Riya Hassan concluded.


Diputación de Sevilla
Ayuntamiento de La Roda
Ayuntamiento Castro del Río
Ayunamiento de Montoro
Ayuntamiento de Mairena del Aljarafe
Ayuntamiento Los Corrales
Ayuntamiento Alhaurín de la Torre
Ayuntamiento de Campillos
Ayuntamiento de Casares
Diputación de Córdoba
Ayuntamiento de Velvez-Málaga
Ayuntamiento de San Roque
Ayuntamiento de San Fernando
Ajuntament de Artés
Ajuntament de Sant Pere de Ruidebitlles
Ajuntament de Molins de Rei
Ajuntament de Sant Cebriá de Vallalta
Ajuntamnet de Badalona
Ajuntament de Sant Celoni
Ajuntament de Ripollet
Ajuntament de Sant Feliu de Llobregat
Ajuntament de Abrera
Ajuntament de Sant Boi de Llobregat
Ajuntament de Terrasa
Ajuntament de Olesa de Montserrat
Ajuntament de Sant Adrià de Besòs
Ajuntament de Sant Quirze del Vallès
Ajuntament de Barberá del Vallès
Ajuntament de Viladamat
Ayuntamiento de Navalafuente
Ayuntamiento de Rivas-Vaciamadrid
Ayuntamiento de Corvera
Ayuntamiento de Castrillón
Ayuntamiento de Gijón
Ayuntamieno de Llangreu

O Concello de Compostela
Concello de Oleiros
Islas Canarias
Cabildo de Gran Canaria
Ayuntamiento de Telde
Ayuntamiento de Sabiñánigo
País Valencià
Ajuntament de Alcoi
Ajuntament de Muro
Ajuntament de Onda
Ajuntament de Concentaina
Ajuntament de Catarroja
Ajuntament de Xeraco
Ajuntament de Benlloch
Ajuntament de Petrer
Castilla y León
Ayuntamiento de Viloria del Henar
Illes Balears
Ajuntament de Santa Euràlia

How the USA government perverted the course of justice to avoid war crimes prosecutions

How the US government perverted the course of justice to avoid war crimes prosecutions

Source: The Canary

Above is Part One of a video interview with Baltasar Garzón, the renowned jurist, which includes observations about the attempted prosecutions of Bush officials regarding torture allegations and war crimes – and how the US secretly pressurised the Spanish Government to ensure no such prosecutions took place. (Part Two of the video is given below.)

Part 4: ‘The Other Chilcot’

The US strategy from the beginning of the second Iraq War has been to deflect criticism and prosecution by blaming others. The war began with a lie: that Saddam Hussein had WMD (the true reason for invasion was, of course, oil and an attempt at geo-strategic takeover). During the course of the war the US government ensured it was not charged for war crimes or torture.

This article – the last in the series – concludes with a summary of the main charges of war crimes and torture that could be raised against the Bush administration if ever there was an official investigation (which is highly unlikely).

The attempt to prosecute the US government

The Obama administration worked closely with Republicans during President Obama’s first few months in office to protect Bush administration officials facing an overseas criminal investigation for their involvement in establishing policies that condoned the use of torture.

A confidential 17 April 2009 cable sent from the US embassy in Madrid and obtained by WikiLeaks detailed how the Obama administration leaned on the Spanish government to derail this potential prosecution by Baltasar Garzón .

How did this happen?

In March 2009 Baltasar Garzón considered whether Spain should allow charges to be filed against former officials from the United States government under George W. Bush for offering justifications for torture.

However, the investigation was subsequently assigned to Judge Eloy Velasco, who chose not to pursue it (surprise, surprise!), stating that Spain could not investigate the case unless the US agreed it would not conduct its own investigation. In a US diplomatic cable published by WikiLeaks it was revealed that Chief Prosecutor Javier Zaragoza had intended to argue that the case should not be assigned to Judge Garzón.

In a later cable it was stated that Garzón was “forced to give up” the investigation. It was also revealed that Zaragoza had strategised how to force Garzón to give up the case – namely:

* On April 16 2009 the Spanish Attorney General, Cándido Conde-Pumpido, stated that he thought the Spanish investigative magistrate should drop the consideration of charges against the six men.
* On April 17 2009 Conde-Pumpido said his office would not support Judge Baltasar Garzon’s ‘outrageous effort’ to prosecute six Bush Administration officials for their role in the US antiterror effort.
* On April 23 2009 Eloy Velasco took over responsibility for determining whether or not the six former Bush officials should face Spanish charges.
* On 29 April 2009 Garzón opened an investigation into an alleged “systematic programme” of torture at Guantánamo Bay, following accusations by four former prisoners. Similarly, the leaked cable indicated that the Chief Prosecutor intended to fight this investigation too, and that he feared “Garzón may attempt to wring all the publicity he can from the case unless and until he is forced to give it up.”

At the time The Guardian reported that Garzón had initiated a formal investigation into whether confessions from four former Guantanamo captives were the result of the use of abusive interrogation techniques. The four men – Hamed Abderrahman Ahmed, Lahcen Ikassrien, Jamiel Abdul Latif al Banna and Omar Deghayes – had previously faced charges in Spanish courts, based on confessions they made while in US custody. Their charges had been dropped, based on their claims that their confessions were false and the result of abusive interrogation techniques.

* On May 5 2009 Velasco formally requested the USA to indicate whether they were going to conduct a domestic inquiry into the six men’s conduct. (Spain’s principle of universal justice allows third party states to charge non-citizens and request their extradition only when their country of citizenship has not conducted its own investigation.)
* On May 20 2009 the New York Times reported that some Spanish legislators were proposing a law to strip investigating magistrates of the authority to pursue international human rights cases. This law, however, would not retroactively put an end to the progress of current cases but would halt the initiation of similar cases.

Andy Worthington, writing in the Huffington Post, gave an account of this story:

Zaragoza said he had challenged Garzón directly and personally on this latest case, asking if he was trying to drum up more speaking fees. Garzón replied he was doing it for the record only and would let it die. Zaragoza opined that Garzón, having gotten his headline, would soon drop the matter. In case he does not, Zaragoza has a strategy to force his hand. Zaragoza’s strategy hinges on the older case in which Garzón investigated terrorism complaints against some Guantanamo detainees. In connection with those earlier investigations, Garzón ordered the Spanish police to visit Guantanamo and collect evidence against the suspected terrorists. Zaragoza reasons that he can use this fact to embarrass Garzón into dropping this latest case by suggesting that Garzón in some sense condoned the U.S. approach to detainee issues circa 2004. Garzón took no action in 2004 when the suspects returned to Spain and reported to him their alleged mistreatment. Zaragoza said that if Garzón could not be shamed into dropping the case, then he would formally recommend Garzón do so and appeal if Garzón ignored him.

Numerous embassy cables published by Wikileaks centered on the progression of the case. US government intentions were summarised in a confidential cable, dated 1 April 2009. The summary was sent to the US State Department by the Madrid embassy.

The cable suggested that the US had intended to convince Spanish officials to interfere with the National Court’s judicial independence:

A Spanish NGO has requested that the National Court indict six Bush Administration officials for creating a legal framework that allegedly permitted torture. The NGO is attempting to have the case heard by Investigating Judge Baltasar Garzon, internationally known for his dogged pursuit of “universal jurisdiction” cases. Garzon has passed the complaint to the Prosecutor’s office so that they can determine if there is a legitimate case. Although he seemed displeased to have this dropped in his lap, Chief Prosecutor Zaragoza told us that in all likelihood he would have no option but to open the case. He said he did not envision indictments or arrest warrants in the near future. He would also argue against the case being assigned to Garzon. MFA and MOJ contacts told us that they are concerned about the case, but have stressed the independence of the Spanish judiciary. They too have suggested the case will move…

The six accused were former Attorney General Gonzales; David Addington, former chief of staff and legal adviser to the Vice President; William Haynes, former DOD General Counsel; Douglas Feith, former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy; Jay Bybee, former head of the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel; and John Yoo, a former member of Bybee’s.

The complaint alleged that the accused conspired with criminal intent to construct a legal framework to permit interrogation techniques and detentions in violation of international law.

The complaint described a number of US documents, including: a 28 December 2001 memorandum regarding US courts’ jurisdiction over Guantanamo detainees; a 7 February 2002 memorandum, saying the detainees were not covered by the Geneva Convention; a 13 March 2002 memorandum on new interrogation techniques; a 1 August 2002 memorandum on the definition of torture; a 27 November 2002 memorandum recommending approval of 15 new interrogation techniques; and a 14 March 2003 memorandum providing a legal justification for new interrogation techniques.

The complaint also cited a 2006 US Supreme Court case which it says held the February 2002 memo in violation of international law and President Obama’s Executive Order on ensuring lawful interrogations…

The complaint asserted Spanish jurisdiction by claiming that the alleged crimes committed at Guantanamo violated the 1949 Geneva Convention and its Additional Protocols of 1977, the 1984 Convention Against Torture or Other Cruel, Unusual or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and the 1998 Rome Statute. The GOS [Government of Spain] is a signatory to all three instruments. The complaint cites Article 7 of the 1984 Convention Against Torture, which states that if a person accused of torture is not extradited to the nation that is bringing a case against him or her, then the competent authorities in the country where the person is should bring a case against him or her.

The cable concluded…

We do not know if the government would be willing to take the risky step of trying behind the scenes to influence the prosecutor’s recommendation on this case or what their reaction to such a request would be.

Here is Part Two of the Garzon video

The war crimes allegations

This list of allegations is based partly on those raised by Chelsea Manning in a statement to her military tribunal, and partly on evidence published by her support network. The main charges relate directly to the 2003 Iraq War (as well as to the conflict in Afghanistan).

Charge #1. US authorities failed to investigate hundreds of reports of abuse, torture, rape and even murder by Iraqi police and soldiers, whose conduct appears to be systematic and normally unpunished. The “Iraq War Logs” published by WikiLeaks revealed that thousands of reports of prisoner abuse and torture had been filed against the Iraqi Security Forces. Medical evidence detailed how prisoners had been whipped with heavy cables across the feet, hung from ceiling hooks, suffered holes being bored into their legs with electric drills, urinated upon, and sexually assaulted.

Charge #2. The “Iraq War Logs” also revealed the existence of “Frago 242”, a US Army order implemented in 2004 not to investigate allegations of abuse against the Iraqi government. This order is a direct violation of the UN Convention Against Torture, which was ratified by the United States in 1994. The Convention prohibits the Armed Forces from transferring a detainee to other countries “where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.” According to the State Department’s own reports, the US government was already aware that the Iraqi Security Forces engaged in torture.

Charge #3. The Guantanamo Files describe how detainees were arrested based on what the New York Times referred to as highly subjective evidence. For example, some poor farmers were captured after they were found wearing a common watch or a jacket that was the same as those also worn by al-Qaeda operatives. How quickly innocent prisoners were released was heavily dependent on their country of origin. Because the evidence collected against Guantanamo prisoners is not permissible in US courts the US State Department offered millions of dollars to other countries to take and try its prisoners.

According to a US diplomatic cable written on 17 April 2009, the Association for the Dignity of Spanish Prisoners requested that the National Court indict six former US officials for creating a legal framework that allegedly permitted torture against five Spanish prisoners at Guantanamo. However, “Senator Mel Martinez… met Acting FM [Foreign Minister] Angel Lossada… on April 15. Martinez… underscored that the prosecutions would not be understood or accepted in the US and would have an enormous impact on the bilateral relationship”.

Charge #4. US special-operations forces targeted militants without trial in secret assassination missions, and many more Afghan civilians were killed by accident than previously reported, according to the WikiLeaks Afghanistan war document dump.

Charge #5. The “Collateral Murder” video released by Wikileaks depicted the indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad, including two journalists working for Reuters. The Reuters news organisation was repeatedly denied its attempts to obtain the video through the Freedom of Information Act. The video, shot from an Apache helicopter gun-sight, clearly showed the unprovoked slaying of a wounded Reuters photographer and his rescuers. Two young children who were present in the attempted rescue were also seriously wounded. Ethan McCord, a US army soldier who can be seen in the video carrying wounded children to safety, has said that whoever revealed this video is a “hero.” An internal US military investigation concluded that the incident was consistent with the military’s ‘Rules of Engagement’.

Charge #6. There is (despite US government claims to the opposite) an official tally of civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even though the Bush and Obama Administrations maintained publicly that there was no official count of civilian casualties, the Iraq and Afghanistan War Logs showed that this claim was false. Between 2004 and 2009 the US government counted a total of 109,000 deaths in Iraq, with 66,081 classified as non-combatants. However, a respected British medical journal published a set of figures indicating not just thousands of Iraqi casualties but closer to a million – a genocide in both name and fact, that is only now becoming apparent.

Of course, there is no ‘Other Chilcot’ and so these charges will not be examined. Democracy in the USA is an illusion and America’s war in Iraq was an obscenity.

Brexit Domino Effect? Greece, Spain, Italy Could Follow: Russian Analyst


The outcome of Thursday’s referendum in Britain could create a domino effect with similar plebiscites held in other EU countries, Igor Korotchenko, the editor of National Defense journal with close ties to the Defense Ministry, told RIA Novosti.

According to an official count, 51.9 of Britons voted for the United Kingdom’s exit from the 28-nation bloc.

“The results of the British referendum will deal a devastating blow to the EU bureaucracy in Brussels and could lead to similar plebiscites in other EU countries, above all Greece, Spain and Italy. It also means that the British people don’t like the idea of having outside structures deciding their economic and foreign policy,” Korotchenko said.

He added that Britain would now be drawing even closer to Washington toeing the US line and sharing responsibility for America’s military adventurism.

Swiss President Johann Schneider-Ammann

“This primarily concerns London’s readiness to station US offensive forces in Britain and the contribution to development of the US missile defense program,” Korotchenko noted.

He added, however, that it would be an illusion to expect the EU to break up given the non-binding nature of the British referendum.

Moreover, Britain’s NATO membership will not be going anywhere, just like its contribution to the Alliance’s collective nuclear might.

“In any case, there is now an entirely new political situation we now have in Europe strengthening the hand of the Euro-sceptics which, in turn, will be politically weakening the European Union, Igor Korotchenko said.

David Cameron: Scotland cannot veto Brexit

Germany Is About To Completely Loot What is Left of Greece. Portugal and Spain Are Next


Via Ugly Truth

The Looting Stage of Capitalism: Germany’s Assault on the IMF

Having successfully used the EU to conquer the Greek people by turning the Greek “leftwing” government into a pawn of Germany’s banks, Germany now finds the IMF in the way of its plan to loot Greece into oblivion.

The IMF’s rules prevent the organization from lending to countries that cannot repay the loan. The IMF has concluded on the basis of facts and analysis that Greece cannot repay.  Therefore, the IMF is unwilling to lend Greece the money with which to repay the private banks.

The IMF says that Greece’s creditors, many of whom are not creditors but simply bought up Greek debt at a cheap price in hopes of profiting, must write off some of the Greek debt in order to lower the debt to an amount that the Greek economy can service.

The banks don’t want Greece to be able to service its debt, because the banks intend to use Greece’s inability to service the debt in order to loot Greece of its assets and resources and in order to roll back the social safety net put in place during the 20th century.  Neoliberalism intends to reestablish feudalism—a few robber barons and many serfs: the One Percent and the 99 percent.

The way Germany sees it, the IMF is supposed to lend Greece the money with which to repay the private German banks.  Then the IMF is to be repaid by forcing Greece to reduce or abolish old age pensions, reduce public services and employment, and use the revenues saved to repay the IMF.

As these amounts will be insufficient, additional austerity measures are imposed that require Greece to sell its national assets, such as public water companies and ports and protected Greek islands to foreign investors, principallly the banks themselves or their major clients.

So far the so-called “creditors” have only pledged to some form of debt relief, not yet decided, beginning in 2 years.  By then the younger part of the Greek population will have emigrated and will have been replaced by immigrants fleeing Washington’s Middle Eastern and African wars who will have loaded up Greece’s unfunded welfare system.

In other words, Greece is being destroyed by the EU that it so foolishly joined and trusted.  The same thing is happening to Portugal and is also underway in Spain and Italy.  The looting has already devoured Ireland and Latvia (and a number of Latin American countries) and is underway in Ukraine.

The current newspaper headlines reporting an agreement being reached between the IMF and Germany about writing down the Greek debt to a level that could be serviced are false.  No “creditor” has yet agreed to write off one cent of the debt.  All that the IMF has been given by so-called “creditors” is unspecific “pledges” of an unspecified amount of debt writedown two years from now.

The newspaper headlines are nothing but fluff that provide cover for the IMF to succumb to presssure and violate its own rules. The cover lets the IMF say that a (future unspecified) debt writedown will enable Greece to service the remainder of its debt and, therefore, the IMF can lend Greece the money to pay the private banks.

In other words, the IMF is now another lawless Western institution whose charter means no more than the US Constitution or the word of the US government in Washington.

The media persists in calling the looting of Greece a “bailout.”

To call the looting of a country and its people a “bailout” is Orwellian.  The brainwashing is so successful that even the media and politicians of looted Greece call the financial imperialism that Greece is suffering a “bailout.”

Everywhere in the Western world a variety of measures, both corporate and governmental, have resulted in the stagnation of income growth. In order to continue to report profits, mega-banks and global corporations have turned to looting.  Social Security systems and public services are targeted for privatization, and indebtedness so accurately described by John Perkins in his book, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, is used to set up entire countries to be looted.

We have entered the looting stage of capitalism. Desolation will be the result.

Paul Craig Roberts is a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. Roberts’ How the Economy Was Lost is now available from CounterPunch in electronic format. His latest book is The Neoconservative Threat to World Order.

More articles by:

Spanish Civil War and Syria (I) and (2)

Michael Jabara CARLEY | 01.03.2016 |

In July 1936 a violent coup d’état was launched by elements of the Spanish army led by General Francisco Franco against the recently elected centre-left Popular Front government in Madrid. Within a matter of weeks Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany committed men and arms to support the military forces led by Franco.

Could Republican Spain alone defend itself against foreign intervention? If Italy and Germany were rushing to back Franco’s fascists, who was going to support the legitimate Republican government in Madrid? Well, it was not Britain, led by a Tory cabinet, fearful of the establishment of a communist Spain, and concealing a not so secret admiration for fascism as a bulwark against the left in Europe. And it was not France either, though the French had just elected a Popular Front government, a coalition of the Socialist, Communist, and Radical parties. Unfortunately, the Popular Front was a weak political coalition, whose instability was exacerbated by the centre-right Radical party’s opposition to any intervention in Spain to defend the Republican government. The French right declared openly that it preferred German fascism to the Popular Front. «Better Hitler than Blum» was the right’s defiant cry, referring to the new socialist premier Léon Blum. British Tories saw Blum as a kind of French Alexander Kerensky, the precursor of the Bolsheviks in Russia, and they worried that France could go communist. Blum himself feared civil war in France if his government intervened in Spain to support Madrid. So Britain and France, bastions of European «democracy», refused to go to the aid of a democratically elected government in Spain, threatened by a fascist uprising supported openly by Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. At least in France there were some clandestine operations to aid the Spanish Republicans.

If the so-called European democracies would not support Republican Spain, who would? Only the USSR, as it turned out, went to the aid of the Madrid government. Arms and advisors were sent to help defend the Spanish capital from a fascist offensive in the autumn of 1936.

A bloody civil war continued until March 1939 when Franco’s fascists emerged victorious. Soviet aid could not compete with that of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. The USSR was too far away. Some historians say, the Spanish civil war was the opening campaign of the Second World War.

What has all this got to do with the war in Syria? The Anglo-American Mainstream Media (MSM) has drawn attention to apparent similarities between the Spanish civil war and the Syrian conflict in order to suggest the possibility of «the world» intervening to stop the «butchery» in Syria. «Should we intervene or stay out?», one commentator asked, already in 2013, pointing to the Spanish paradigm. More recently, the New York Times and Washington Post, those preeminent MSM bullhorns, have also made the Spain-Syria comparison. «Once again», says the Times«we have liberal powers seemingly helpless to bring the conflict to an end».

In 1936 the so-called «liberal powers» were far from «helpless», they chose not to intervene in Spain out of sympathy for fascism or in the case of France, because of political weakness and fear of civil war. «What about the helpless liberal powers now?», the Times asks in so many words. In fact, they are not «helpless» at all; the United States has from the outset led the aggressors attempting to overthrow the Syrian government. To be sure, not everyone in the United States supports intervention in Syria. Some US conservatives have fastened onto the Spain-Syria nexus to argue against US intervention. Even the Times seems to hesitate although it condemns «Russia’s brinksmanship with Turkey» as if it was Russia which ambushed a Turkish fighter aircraft and not the other way around. Truly, there is nothing so stupefying as American double standards and hypocrisy.

When you hear the MSM raise the Spain-Syria connection, watch out for the messages between the lines. Are we reading a fresh call for western intervention in Syria or a warning against escalation? Recently, western intervention has been dressed up as humanitarianism to help the long suffering Syrian people, whose plight, it should be noted, was created by western humanitarians. If all this sounds like a renewal of «Responsibility to Protect» (R2P) under a different, pseudo-historical guise, it probably is. R2P is based on the principle that most western public opinion can always be fooled.

How well does the Spain-Syrian comparison hold up? The Spanish civil war erupted in the wider context of a rapidly rearming Nazi Germany threatening European security. Indeed, it polarised what might be called the European civil war between right and left. The elected Republican government in Madrid chose to fight in the first great campaign of the Second World War. It drew support from anti-fascist forces in Europe and North America and from the USSR while Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy backed Franco, and conservatives in France and Britain hoped for his success.

In Syria the conflict was planned, funded, and directed from abroad from the very beginning. As early as 2001, the United States began preparing plans to overthrow the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad. Ten years later, a legitimate protest movement was hijacked by the United States and its regional vassals, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Snipers and armed gangs fired on crowds or attacked police and government buildings. It is the standard modus operandi of US engineered colour revolutions, the same as was used in Kiev in 2013-2014. Portrayed in the west as a brutal dictator, Assad actually attempted to settle peacefully the 2011 public protests, to no avail. The West likes to present the conflict in Syria as a «religious war», Sunni vs Shia and all others. «Most major powers are reluctant to intervene», so the MSM line goes. In fact, Syria is besieged by a coalition of aggressors led by the United States, which has not at all been «reluctant» to overthrow the Syrian government.

(to be continued)

Spanish Civil War and Syria (II)

See Part I

The Syrian Arab Army is fighting a foreign invasion to preserve a secular, pluralist, multi-confessional society. Indeed, there are many Sunnis fighting against the foreign Jihadist invaders.

Unlike the Spanish civil war, the Syrian conflict is not a civil or religious war; it is a proxy war of aggression led by the United States and its various NATO and Middle-Eastern vassals. The MSM almost never discusses the issue of who is actually fighting against the Syrian government, and it’s not surprising why. One German source estimates that 95 % of anti-Assad forces are foreign and not Syrian at all. Exact figures are hard to come by, though various intelligence services must have a good idea. A French general recently estimated that 80,000 out of 100,000 anti-government combatants in Syria are members of «terrorist groups» as identified by the United Nations. This French source does not identify the number of foreign combatants, but others have made estimates. Prior to the beginning of the Russian intervention, the Syrian government reckoned the figure at closer to 250,000 combatants fighting against it, almost all of which were foreign nationals. Take the French figure or the Syrian, or split the difference, it is a large armed force requiring enormous financial and logistical support in order to operate. It is well known that this support comes from the United States, Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, apartheid Israel, amongst other states.

«We support only the ‘moderates’ in Syria», the US government insists, «of course only moderates».

«Sure you do», a cynic would reply, «and you’re humanitarians and democrats too».

If the conflict in Syria is not a civil war fought by Syrians, but a proxy war fought largely by foreign terrorists, then the western narrative justifying intervention falls to pieces. In a proxy war, the Damascus government and its leader Assad become patriots and defenders of the nation besieged by foreign aggressors. Hence, the MSM has gone in search of a new line of propaganda linking the Spanish civil war with the war in Syria.

Where do the Jihadists come from? Who arms, supplies, pays and shelters them, and cares for their wounded? It is reported that they come from more than forty countries.

They are funded, trained, and armed by the United States, Britain, France, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, amongst others, and sheltered in Turkey, Jordan, and apartheid Israel. They are Takfiris or Wahhabis, opposed to any form of Islam but theirs. All others are apostates who merit death or enslavement. We have seen their cruelty in Syria, the beheadings, incinerations, drownings, mass executions, senseless killings of civilians, recorded and available on-line, and yet the West condemns Assad as the violent belligerent. Is there no limit to the MSM’s bourrage de crâne? Recently, Jihadist publicity for the mass killings has diminished; it appears to be a taboo subject now for the MSM, no doubt to help the United States and its vassals hide the truth about their murderous Jihadist allies. Imagine the United States, Britain, and France, motivated by «western values», backing directly or indirectly the Islamic State and various iterations of al-Qaeda. In fact, the vaunted western values are those of neo-imperialism, neo-colonialism, and orientalism. It is therefore not at all paradoxical that the United States is allied with autocratic, absolutist Middle Eastern monarchies and emirates.

Russian military intervention in support of the Syrian government blew wide open the West’s despicable alliance with foreign Jihadists. The Russians were on the right side in Spain in 1936 and are on the right side now in Syria. In 1936 many British Tories hoped for the success of Franco’s fascists; in 2016 they hope for the success of the Jihadists in Syria. As for the French, well what can one say about the French? In 1936 the Popular Front government did not have the courage of its convictions; in 2016 the French «socialist» government, in spite of the Paris massacres last November, still acts as a US vassal. Whatever happened to those proud, prickly French patriots, protective of their country’s independence?

Now Russian President Vladimir Putin is trying to finesse the United States out of its colour revolution in Syria by proposing a «truce» between warring factions, excluding the Islamic State and al-Qaeda and its affiliates. Good luck with that Mr President. As I write these lines, foreign Jihadists are rushing to change their names, calling themselves Syrian and «moderate», to gain a breathing spell to refit and rearm so they can resume the war against Damascus later on. It sounds like Minsk all over again. One hopes President Putin’s truce is not premature. One hopes also that he knows how dangerous it is trying to «partner» with the US government… it’s like taking an asp to one’s breast.

«Nu chto, what do you want, that’s diplomacy», Putin would no doubt impatiently reply, having heard all these lines before.

As for the Spanish civil war, it belongs to the domain of historians. I don’t think it has much pertinence to the Syrian war except as a demonstration of the MSM’s subtle ingenuity in looking for pretexts for aggression. And once again, we see the West on the wrong side of a struggle against a malevolent force which could eventually threaten us all.

%d bloggers like this: