Message for my Latin American friends (in the form of a song)

The Saker

Dear friends,

I have to admit that I am absolutely heartbroken at the news coming out of Latin America.  Brazil, Venezuela, Cuba, Colombia, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Argentina, Chile, Mexico, Bolivia – everywhere the people are struggling against what has been known as “Yankee imperialism” for decades.  The pendulum of history has swung back and forth many times in Latin America.  I remember the civil war in Argentina just before the coup of 1976, I was still a kid, but I remember it all.  Then the coup, the vicious and ugly “dirty war”, the disaster of the (just!) war for the Malvinas, then the years of “democracy”.  Rivers of blood, and still the new era of freedom and peace everybody kept hoping for did not come.  Now, four or five decades later, the people of Latin America are still dying and suffering under the yoke of a CIA-installed and CIA-controlled comprador class which would gladly sell their mothers and daughters to Uncle Shmuel for a few bucks.

And yet.

And yet 40 or 50 years are short when seen from the point of view of history, other struggles in history have lasted much longer.  So, as a poignant reminder that we will never lose hope, nor will we ever accept oppression, here is a song by Pedro Aznar whose beautiful lyrics will be understood by everyone from Patagonia to Mexico’s northern border (including my Brazilian friends) and which beautifully expresses the hope common to all of us!

Venceremos!

The Saker

PS: if somebody had the time to translate these lyrics into English, I would be most grateful.

What Is A Sovereign Government?

What Is A Sovereign Government?

By Staff

Beirut – In his speech on the commemoration of Martyr’s Day, Hezbollah Secretary General His Eminence Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah urged the formation of a government which takes into consideration the Lebanese interests and is independent from the US. 

 

الأميركيون في كل مكان.. فأين روسيا والصين؟

 

نوفمبر 18, 2019

د. وفيق إبراهيم

يرفض الأميركيون الاعتراف بانهيار سيطرتهم الأحادية على العالم، فلا يكتفون بفصيح الكلام على الطريقة العربية، بل يشنّون هجوماً مضاداً بأسلحة اقتصادية واستخبارية وعسكرية، تكاد تعمّ زوايا الأرض. لكنهم يركزون على منطقتين أساسيتين بإمكانهما ضخّ ما يحتاجه الجيوبولتيك الأميركي للاستمرار، وهما أميركا الجنوبية اللاتينية والشرق الاوسط في محوره الإيراني مواصلين أيضاً مناوشة العالم بأسره إنما بعيارات خفيفة، وللمناوشة فقط.

هذه الهجمات إقرار أميركي باقتراب الخطر على أحاديتهم القطبية لمصلحة قوى دولية أخرى أصبحت قادرة على مشاركتهم في إنتاج القرار الدولي والتوسع الاقتصادي.

اما مؤشرات هذه المقدرة فتجمع بين الإمكانات الاقتصادية والعسكرية التي يؤدي التطوّر العسكري العمودي النوع الى انتشار أفقي في سياسات العالم واسواقه.

بالتدقيق، تنكشف الحركة الأميركية، بمحاولاتها إسقاط الأنظمة المتمرّدة عليها في أميركا اللاتينية ـ الجنوبية، وبلمح البصر، يرحل رئيس بوليفيا فارّاً من بلاده بانقلاب عسكري يرعاه الأميركيون علناً.

هذا إلى جانب ضغوط هائلة يمارسها الأميركيون في فنزويلا لإسقاط رئيسها بالحصار حيناً ومشاريع الانقلابات وبالتشجيع على التمرّد والحصار الاقتصادي المفتح حيناً آخر وبشكل متواصل.

هناك أيضاً كوبا التي تتعرّض لحصار أميركي مفتوح ومتواصل يترافق مع محاولات دائمة لتفجيرها منذ ستينيات القرن الماضي، من دون نسيان المكسيك وغيرها، أما أوروبا المقموعة بالنفوذ الأميركي فيزجرها الأميركيون كلما حاولت التسلل من العباءة الأميركية، محوّلين بلدانها الشرقية الى مكامن لترسانات صاروخية ونووية موجهة لأهداف روسية وصينية.

على مستوى الصين، فهي أكبر اقتصادياً واجتماعياً وعسكرياً، من أيّ محاولات أميركية لتهشيمها، الأمر الذي يحصر التعرّض الأميركي لها في مسألة التجارة الخارجية بمعنى أنّ الصين تحتاج الى مواد أولية وطاقة وأسواق تصريف للاستمرار في صعودها الكوني، بما يفسّر العقوبات الأميركية التي تستهدف السلع الصينية في حركة انتشارها العالمي.

كذلك روسيا، فإنّ التعرّض لها عسكرياً، شبه مستحيل فلا بأس إذاً من معاقبتها أميركياً بقرارات اقتصادية للحدّ من حركة عودتها الى الفضاءات السوفياتية السابقة.

هذه الوتيرة متبعة أيضاً في كوريا الشمالية، باعتبارها امتداداً صينياً لا تسمح بكين بإصابته بأذى كبير.

انّ هذا الجيوبولتيك الأميركي استشعر بأنّ نظام العولمة المرتبطة بالحدود المفتوحة أمام السلع أدّى الى عكس ما يريده الاقتصاد الأميركي، لأنه أفاد الصين وألمانيا واليابان، متيحاً لسلعها اختراق أسواق كبرى بما فيها الأميركية.

هذا ما جعل الأميركيون ينقلبون على «عولمتهم» الاقتصادية، محتمين من جديد «بالحمائية» ايّ إقفال حدودهم الاقتصادية وأسواقهم أمام بضائع الدول المنافسة. وهي حرب فعلية تعيد التطوّر العالمي الى الزمن القديم، علماً أنّ العولمة التي شملت الاقتصاد والاجتماع والفنون والإعلام والسياسة كان المطلوب منها تعزيز الهيمنة الأميركية العالمية، فتحوّلت وبالاً عليها بالاقتصاد.

يتبيّن أنّ الأميركيين يحدّدون إعادة الإمساك بمنطقتين في العالم، وسيلة ناجحة لمنع تدهور أحاديتهم القطبية وهما أميركا الجنوبية والشرق الأوسط، والناتج الأول لهذه السياسة سقوط النظام البوليفي المعادي لها والحصار الشديد على فنزويلا والتشجيع على الاضطرابات فيها. يكفي انّ أميركا الجنوبية تمتلك أهميات كبيرة، أهمّها موقعها القريب الاستراتيجي المحاذي لأميركا وأسواقها الكبيرة التي تستطيع استيعاب السلع الأميركية ومنع أيّ تمركز دولي منافس فيها، أما النقطة الاضافية فهي أنّ فنزويلا بمفردها تمتلك أكبر احتياط نفطي في العالم.

هناك نقطة أكثر مركزية يعمل الأميركيون على الإمساك بها بما يؤدّي فوراً إلى تماسك قطبيتهم الأحادية، وهي إيران وضرورة إلحاقها بواشنطن. وهذا يتضمن إسقاط البلدان المتحالفة معها في اليمن والعراق وسورية وحزب الله في لبنان وبعض التحالفات في أفغانستان وباكستان. هذا إلى جانب إلغاء تقاربها مع روسيا والصين.

لا يعني هذا الكلام ربط الأسباب الأساسية لاندلاع انتفاضات العراق ولبنان بمؤامرة أميركية، لكنه لا ينفي نجاح الأميركيين في التأسيس لها من طريق أحزاب ونخب وإعلام/ لا يتوانى عن العمل في لعبة التحريض لتفجير أوضاع هذه الدول بما فيها إيران، والدليل انّ الإعلام الخليجي يبث ترهات وأضاليل عن الاضطرابات في إيران بتكبير حجمها والإصرار على نجاحها وامتدادها الى كامل الجغرافيا الإيرانية 24 ساعة يومياً.

هنا يجوز إصرار وتأكيد أنّ الأسباب الاقتصادية والاجتماعية للانتفاضات حقيقية وصادقة، لكنها لا تذهب الى حدود اعتبار السعودية او أميركا بديلاً، فالسعودية دولة متخلفة في القرون الوسطى لا تنتج شيئاً، والأميركيون ينهبون الشرق الاوسط اقتصادياً منذ 1945 ويدعمون «إسرائيل» والأنظمة المتخلفة المتحالفة معهم.

لذلك فإنّ لعبة التحريض الأميركية ـ الخليجية ـ الاسرائيلية تعتبر أنّ إيران هي مركز محور مناهض للهيمنة الأميركية واتباعها، بما يعني أنّ القضاء عليها يستتبع حماية أنظمة الخليج وتحصين الكيان الإسرائيلي، ويزوّد الجيوبولتيك الأميركي بطاقة إضافية تزيد من عمره الافتراضي.

إيران إذاً مستهدفة بقوة للزوم استمرار الأحادية الأميركية، لكن السؤال هنا، يذهب ناحية الصين وروسيا ليسألهما عن مدى إحساسهما بالخطر من الهجوم على إيران في الخارج والداخل.

فهما الهدف الأميركي الذي يلي إيران، بما يعني وجوب تحركهما بأشكال مختلفة للدفاع عنها ودعم حلفائها في اليمن والعراق وسورية ولبنان أما إذا واصلتا لعبة «الترقب» ومعاينة النتائج فإنّ ترميم الهيمنة الأميركية، يصبح أمراً ممكناً لأنه يصبح بإمكان الأميركيين الاستمرار في السيطرة على احتياطاته الاساسية في قطر والربع الخالي السعودي وإيران نفسها، بما يضع روسيا الأولى في إنتاج الغاز في حلبة منافسة لا تمتلك فيها أوراقاً رابحة.

فهل تنتقل بكين وموسكو من دائرة الرصد إلى مرحلة دعم إيران؟ المعتقد أنهما متجهتان الى هذا الهدف بشكل لا تنخرطان فيه بحرب متنوّعة مع الأميركيين إيماناً منهما بقدرة إيران على المزيد من الصمود وإلحاق هزيمة جديدة بالغطرسة الأميركية.

Related Articles

“Greater Israel”: The Zionist Plan for the Middle East

Global Research, November 16, 2019
Association of Arab-American University Graduates, Inc. 3 March 2013

Introduction

The following document pertaining to the formation of “Greater Israel” constitutes the cornerstone of powerful Zionist factions within the current Netanyahu government,  the Likud party, as well as within the Israeli military and intelligence establishment. 

President Donald Trump has confirmed in no uncertain terms, his support of Israel’s illegal settlements (including his opposition to UN Security Council Resolution 2334, pertaining to the illegality of the Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank). In recent developments, the Trump administration has expressed its recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. 

“Greater Israel” is de facto part of the election campaign.  Netanyahu has pledged to annex large parts of the occupied West Bank if he wins in the forthcoming September 17 elections.

Netanyahu, who is fighting for his political life after an inconclusive vote in April [2019], said that Israel will “apply Israeli sovereignty to the Jordan Valley and the northern Dead Sea immediately” if he secured a fifth term in the September 17 polls. (Al Jazeera, September 11, 2019

Trump’s “Deal of the Century” is supportive of the “Greater Israel” project, which also consists in the derogation of Palestinians’ “right of return” by “naturalizing them as citizens of Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, and elsewhere regionally where they reside”.

Bear in mind: The Greater Israel design is not strictly a Zionist Project for the Middle East, it is an integral part of US foreign policy, its strategic objective is extend US hegemony as well as fracture and balkanize the Middle East.

Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital is intended to trigger political instability throughout the region.  

According to the founding father of Zionism Theodore Herzl, “the area of the Jewish State stretches: “From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates.”  According to Rabbi Fischmann,  “The Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt up to the Euphrates, it includes parts of Syria and Lebanon.”

 

When viewed in the current context, including the siege on Gaza, the Zionist Plan for the Middle East bears an intimate relationship to the 2003 invasion of  Iraq, the 2006 war on Lebanon, the 2011 war on Libya, the ongoing wars on Syria, Iraq and Yemen, not to mention the political crisis in Saudi Arabia.  

The “Greater Israel” project consists in weakening and eventually fracturing neighboring Arab states as part of a US-Israeli expansionist project, with the support of NATO and Saudi Arabia. In this regard, the Saudi-Israeli rapprochement is from Netanyahu’s viewpoint a means to expanding Israel’s spheres of influence in the Middle East as well as confronting Iran. Needless to day, the “Greater Israel” project is consistent with America’s imperial design. 

“Greater Israel” consists in an area extending from the Nile Valley to the Euphrates. According to Stephen Lendman, “A near-century ago, the World Zionist Organization’s plan for a Jewish state included:

• historic Palestine;

• South Lebanon up to Sidon and the Litani River;

• Syria’s Golan Heights, Hauran Plain and Deraa; and

• control of the Hijaz Railway from Deraa to Amman, Jordan as well as the Gulf of Aqaba.

Some Zionists wanted more – land from the Nile in the West to the Euphrates in the East, comprising Palestine, Lebanon, Western Syria and Southern Turkey.”

The Zionist project supports the Jewish settlement movement. More broadly it involves a policy of excluding Palestinians from Palestine leading to the eventual annexation of both the West Bank and Gaza to the State of Israel.

Greater Israel would create a number of proxy States. It would include parts of Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, the Sinai, as well as parts of  Iraq and Saudi Arabia. (See map).

According to Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya in a 2011 Global Research article,   The Yinon Plan was a continuation of Britain’s colonial design in the Middle East:

“[The Yinon plan] is an Israeli strategic plan to ensure Israeli regional superiority. It insists and stipulates that Israel must reconfigure its geo-political environment through the balkanization of the surrounding Arab states into smaller and weaker states.

Israeli strategists viewed Iraq as their biggest strategic challenge from an Arab state. This is why Iraq was outlined as the centerpiece to the balkanization of the Middle East and the Arab World. In Iraq, on the basis of the concepts of the Yinon Plan, Israeli strategists have called for the division of Iraq into a Kurdish state and two Arab states, one for Shiite Muslims and the other for Sunni Muslims. The first step towards establishing this was a war between Iraq and Iran, which the Yinon Plan discusses.

The Atlantic, in 2008, and the U.S. military’s Armed Forces Journal, in 2006, both published widely circulated maps that closely followed the outline of the Yinon Plan. Aside from a divided Iraq, which the Biden Plan also calls for, the Yinon Plan calls for a divided Lebanon, Egypt, and Syria. The partitioning of Iran, Turkey, Somalia, and Pakistan also all fall into line with these views. The Yinon Plan also calls for dissolution in North Africa and forecasts it as starting from Egypt and then spilling over into Sudan, Libya, and the rest of the region.

“Greater Israel” requires the breaking up of the existing Arab states into small states.

“The plan operates on two essential premises. To survive, Israel must 1) become an imperial regional power, and 2) must effect the division of the whole area into small states by the dissolution of all existing Arab states. Small here will depend on the ethnic or sectarian composition of each state. Consequently, the Zionist hope is that sectarian-based states become Israel’s satellites and, ironically, its source of moral legitimation…  This is not a new idea, nor does it surface for the first time in Zionist strategic thinking. Indeed, fragmenting all Arab states into smaller units has been a recurrent theme.” (Yinon Plan, see below)

Viewed in this context, the war on Syria and Iraq is part of  the process of Israeli territorial expansion. 

In this regard, the defeat of US sponsored terrorists (ISIS, Al Nusra) by Syrian Forces with the support of Russia, Iran and Hizbollah constitute a significant setback for Israel.  

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, September 06, 2015, updated September 13, 2019


The Zionist Plan for the Middle East

Translated and edited by

Israel Shahak

The Israel of Theodore Herzl (1904) and of Rabbi Fischmann (1947)

In his Complete Diaries, Vol. II. p. 711, Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism, says that the area of the Jewish State stretches: “From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates.”

Rabbi Fischmann, member of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, declared in his testimony to the U.N. Special Committee of Enquiry on 9 July 1947: “The Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt up to the Euphrates, it includes parts of Syria and Lebanon.”

from

Oded Yinon’s

“A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties”

Published by the

Association of Arab-American University Graduates, Inc.

Belmont, Massachusetts, 1982

Special Document No. 1 (ISBN 0-937694-56-8)

Table of Contents

 Publisher’s Note1

The Association of Arab-American University Graduates finds it compelling to inaugurate its new publication series, Special Documents, with Oded Yinon’s article which appeared in Kivunim (Directions), the journal of the Department of Information of the World Zionist Organization. Oded Yinon is an Israeli journalist and was formerly attached to the Foreign Ministry of Israel. To our knowledge, this document is the most explicit, detailed and unambiguous statement to date of the Zionist strategy in the Middle East. Furthermore, it stands as an accurate representation of the “vision” for the entire Middle East of the presently ruling Zionist regime of Begin, Sharon and Eitan. Its importance, hence, lies not in its historical value but in the nightmare which it presents.

2

The plan operates on two essential premises. To survive, Israel must 1) become an imperial regional power, and 2) must effect the division of the whole area into small states by the dissolution of all existing Arab states. Small here will depend on the ethnic or sectarian composition of each state. Consequently, the Zionist hope is that sectarian-based states become Israel’s satellites and, ironically, its source of moral legitimation.

3

This is not a new idea, nor does it surface for the first time in Zionist strategic thinking. Indeed, fragmenting all Arab states into smaller units has been a recurrent theme. This theme has been documented on a very modest scale in the AAUG publication,  Israel’s Sacred Terrorism (1980), by Livia Rokach. Based on the memoirs of Moshe Sharett, former Prime Minister of Israel, Rokach’s study documents, in convincing detail, the Zionist plan as it applies to Lebanon and as it was prepared in the mid-fifties.

4

The first massive Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1978 bore this plan out to the minutest detail. The second and more barbaric and encompassing Israeli invasion of Lebanon on June 6, 1982, aims to effect certain parts of this plan which hopes to see not only Lebanon, but Syria and Jordan as well, in fragments. This ought to make mockery of Israeli public claims regarding their desire for a strong and independent Lebanese central government. More accurately, they want a Lebanese central government that sanctions their regional imperialist designs by signing a peace treaty with them. They also seek acquiescence in their designs by the Syrian, Iraqi, Jordanian and other Arab governments as well as by the Palestinian people. What they want and what they are planning for is not an Arab world, but a world of Arab fragments that is ready to succumb to Israeli hegemony. Hence, Oded Yinon in his essay, “A Strategy for Israel in the 1980’s,” talks about “far-reaching opportunities for the first time since 1967” that are created by the “very stormy situation [that] surrounds Israel.”

5

The Zionist policy of displacing the Palestinians from Palestine is very much an active policy, but is pursued more forcefully in times of conflict, such as in the 1947-1948 war and in the 1967 war. An appendix entitled  “Israel Talks of a New Exodus” is included in this publication to demonstrate past Zionist dispersals of Palestinians from their homeland and to show, besides the main Zionist document we present, other Zionist planning for the de-Palestinization of Palestine.

6

It is clear from the Kivunim document, published in February, 1982, that the “far-reaching opportunities” of which Zionist strategists have been thinking are the same “opportunities” of which they are trying to convince the world and which they claim were generated by their June, 1982 invasion. It is also clear that the Palestinians were never the sole target of Zionist plans, but the priority target since their viable and independent presence as a people negates the essence of the Zionist state. Every Arab state, however, especially those with cohesive and clear nationalist directions, is a real target sooner or later.

7

Contrasted with the detailed and unambiguous Zionist strategy elucidated in this document, Arab and Palestinian strategy, unfortunately, suffers from ambiguity and incoherence. There is no indication that Arab strategists have internalized the Zionist plan in its full ramifications. Instead, they react with incredulity and shock whenever a new stage of it unfolds. This is apparent in Arab reaction, albeit muted, to the Israeli siege of Beirut. The sad fact is that as long as the Zionist strategy for the Middle East is not taken seriously Arab reaction to any future siege of other Arab capitals will be the same.

Khalil Nakhleh

July 23, 1982

Foreward

by Israel Shahak

1

The following essay represents, in my opinion, the accurate and detailed plan of the present Zionist regime (of Sharon and Eitan) for the Middle East which is based on the division of the whole area into small states, and the dissolution of all the existing Arab states. I will comment on the military aspect of this plan in a concluding note. Here I want to draw the attention of the readers to several important points:

2

1. The idea that all the Arab states should be broken down, by Israel, into small units, occurs again and again in Israeli strategic thinking. For example, Ze’ev Schiff, the military correspondent of Ha’aretz (and probably the most knowledgeable in Israel, on this topic) writes about the “best” that can happen for Israeli interests in Iraq: “The dissolution of Iraq into a Shi’ite state, a Sunni state and the separation of the Kurdish part” (Ha’aretz 6/2/1982). Actually, this aspect of the plan is very old.

3

2. The strong connection with Neo-Conservative thought in the USA is very prominent, especially in the author’s notes. But, while lip service is paid to the idea of the “defense of the West” from Soviet power, the real aim of the author, and of the present Israeli establishment is clear: To make an Imperial Israel into a world power. In other words, the aim of Sharon is to deceive the Americans after he has deceived all the rest.

4

3. It is obvious that much of the relevant data, both in the notes and in the text, is garbled or omitted, such as the financial help of the U.S. to Israel. Much of it is pure fantasy. But, the plan is not to be regarded as not influential, or as not capable of realization for a short time. The plan follows faithfully the geopolitical ideas current in Germany of 1890-1933, which were swallowed whole by Hitler and the Nazi movement, and determined their aims for East Europe. Those aims, especially the division of the existing states, were carried out in 1939-1941, and only an alliance on the global scale prevented their consolidation for a period of time.

5

The notes by the author follow the text. To avoid confusion, I did not add any notes of my own, but have put the substance of them into this foreward and the conclusion at the end. I have, however, emphasized some portions of the text.

Israel Shahak

June 13, 1982


 

A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties

by Oded Yinon

This essay originally appeared in Hebrew in KIVUNIM (Directions), A Journal for Judaism and Zionism; Issue No, 14–Winter, 5742, February 1982, Editor: Yoram Beck. Editorial Committee: Eli Eyal, Yoram Beck, Amnon Hadari, Yohanan Manor, Elieser Schweid. Published by the Department of Publicity/The World Zionist Organization, Jerusalem.

1

At the outset of the nineteen eighties the State of Israel is in need of a new perspective as to its place, its aims and national targets, at home and abroad. This need has become even more vital due to a number of central processes which the country, the region and the world are undergoing. We are living today in the early stages of a new epoch in human history which is not at all similar to its predecessor, and its characteristics are totally different from what we have hitherto known. That is why we need an understanding of the central processes which typify this historical epoch on the one hand, and on the other hand we need a world outlook and an operational strategy in accordance with the new conditions. The existence, prosperity and steadfastness of the Jewish state will depend upon its ability to adopt a new framework for its domestic and foreign affairs.

2

This epoch is characterized by several traits which we can already diagnose, and which symbolize a genuine revolution in our present lifestyle. The dominant process is the breakdown of the rationalist, humanist outlook as the major cornerstone supporting the life and achievements of Western civilization since the Renaissance. The political, social and economic views which have emanated from this foundation have been based on several “truths” which are presently disappearing–for example, the view that man as an individual is the center of the universe and everything exists in order to fulfill his basic material needs. This position is being invalidated in the present when it has become clear that the amount of resources in the cosmos does not meet Man’s requirements, his economic needs or his demographic constraints. In a world in which there are four billion human beings and economic and energy resources which do not grow proportionally to meet the needs of mankind, it is unrealistic to expect to fulfill the main requirement of Western Society, 1 i.e., the wish and aspiration for boundless consumption. The view that ethics plays no part in determining the direction Man takes, but rather his material needs do–that view is becoming prevalent today as we see a world in which nearly all values are disappearing. We are losing the ability to assess the simplest things, especially when they concern the simple question of what is Good and what is Evil.

3

The vision of man’s limitless aspirations and abilities shrinks in the face of the sad facts of life, when we witness the break-up of world order around us. The view which promises liberty and freedom to mankind seems absurd in light of the sad fact that three fourths of the human race lives under totalitarian regimes. The views concerning equality and social justice have been transformed by socialism and especially by Communism into a laughing stock. There is no argument as to the truth of these two ideas, but it is clear that they have not been put into practice properly and the majority of mankind has lost the liberty, the freedom and the opportunity for equality and justice. In this nuclear world in which we are (still) living in relative peace for thirty years, the concept of peace and coexistence among nations has no meaning when a superpower like the USSR holds a military and political doctrine of the sort it has: that not only is a nuclear war possible and necessary in order to achieve the ends of Marxism, but that it is possible to survive after it, not to speak of the fact that one can be victorious in it.2

4

The essential concepts of human society, especially those of the West, are undergoing a change due to political, military and economic transformations. Thus, the nuclear and conventional might of the USSR has transformed the epoch that has just ended into the last respite before the great saga that will demolish a large part of our world in a multi-dimensional global war, in comparison with which the past world wars will have been mere child’s play. The power of nuclear as well as of conventional weapons, their quantity, their precision and quality will turn most of our world upside down within a few years, and we must align ourselves so as to face that in Israel. That is, then, the main threat to our existence and that of the Western world. 3 The war over resources in the world, the Arab monopoly on oil, and the need of the West to import most of its raw materials from the Third World, are transforming the world we know, given that one of the major aims of the USSR is to defeat the West by gaining control over the gigantic resources in the Persian Gulf and in the southern part of Africa, in which the majority of world minerals are located. We can imagine the dimensions of the global confrontation which will face us in the future.

5

The Gorshkov doctrine calls for Soviet control of the oceans and mineral rich areas of the Third World. That together with the present Soviet nuclear doctrine which holds that it is possible to manage, win and survive a nuclear war, in the course of which the West’s military might well be destroyed and its inhabitants made slaves in the service of Marxism-Leninism, is the main danger to world peace and to our own existence. Since 1967, the Soviets have transformed Clausewitz’ dictum into “War is the continuation of policy in nuclear means,” and made it the motto which guides all their policies. Already today they are busy carrying out their aims in our region and throughout the world, and the need to face them becomes the major element in our country’s security policy and of course that of the rest of the Free World. That is our major foreign challenge.4

6

The Arab Moslem world, therefore, is not the major strategic problem which we shall face in the Eighties, despite the fact that it carries the main threat against Israel, due to its growing military might. This world, with its ethnic minorities, its factions and internal crises, which is astonishingly self-destructive, as we can see in Lebanon, in non-Arab Iran and now also in Syria, is unable to deal successfully with its fundamental problems and does not therefore constitute a real threat against the State of Israel in the long run, but only in the short run where its immediate military power has great import. In the long run, this world will be unable to exist within its present framework in the areas around us without having to go through genuine revolutionary changes. The Moslem Arab World is built like a temporary house of cards put together by foreigners (France and Britain in the Nineteen Twenties), without the wishes and desires of the inhabitants having been taken into account. It was arbitrarily divided into 19 states, all made of combinations of minorites and ethnic groups which are hostile to one another, so that every Arab Moslem state nowadays faces ethnic social destruction from within, and in some a civil war is already raging. 5 Most of the Arabs, 118 million out of 170 million, live in Africa, mostly in Egypt (45 million today).

7

Apart from Egypt, all the Maghreb states are made up of a mixture of Arabs and non-Arab Berbers. In Algeria there is already a civil war raging in the Kabile mountains between the two nations in the country. Morocco and Algeria are at war with each other over Spanish Sahara, in addition to the internal struggle in each of them. Militant Islam endangers the integrity of Tunisia and Qaddafi organizes wars which are destructive from the Arab point of view, from a country which is sparsely populated and which cannot become a powerful nation. That is why he has been attempting unifications in the past with states that are more genuine, like Egypt and Syria. Sudan, the most torn apart state in the Arab Moslem world today is built upon four groups hostile to each other, an Arab Moslem Sunni minority which rules over a majority of non-Arab Africans, Pagans, and Christians. In Egypt there is a Sunni Moslem majority facing a large minority of Christians which is dominant in upper Egypt: some 7 million of them, so that even Sadat, in his speech on May 8, expressed the fear that they will want a state of their own, something like a “second” Christian Lebanon in Egypt.

8

All the Arab States east of Israel are torn apart, broken up and riddled with inner conflict even more than those of the Maghreb. Syria is fundamentally no different from Lebanon except in the strong military regime which rules it. But the real civil war taking place nowadays between the Sunni majority and the Shi’ite Alawi ruling minority (a mere 12% of the population) testifies to the severity of the domestic trouble.

9

Iraq is, once again, no different in essence from its neighbors, although its majority is Shi’ite and the ruling minority Sunni. Sixty-five percent of the population has no say in politics, in which an elite of 20 percent holds the power. In addition there is a large Kurdish minority in the north, and if it weren’t for the strength of the ruling regime, the army and the oil revenues, Iraq’s future state would be no different than that of Lebanon in the past or of Syria today. The seeds of inner conflict and civil war are apparent today already, especially after the rise of Khomeini to power in Iran, a leader whom the Shi’ites in Iraq view as their natural leader.

10

All the Gulf principalities and Saudi Arabia are built upon a delicate house of sand in which there is only oil. In Kuwait, the Kuwaitis constitute only a quarter of the population. In Bahrain, the Shi’ites are the majority but are deprived of power. In the UAE, Shi’ites are once again the majority but the Sunnis are in power. The same is true of Oman and North Yemen. Even in the Marxist South Yemen there is a sizable Shi’ite minority. In Saudi Arabia half the population is foreign, Egyptian and Yemenite, but a Saudi minority holds power.

11

Jordan is in reality Palestinian, ruled by a Trans-Jordanian Bedouin minority, but most of the army and certainly the bureaucracy is now Palestinian. As a matter of fact Amman is as Palestinian as Nablus. All of these countries have powerful armies, relatively speaking. But there is a problem there too. The Syrian army today is mostly Sunni with an Alawi officer corps, the Iraqi army Shi’ite with Sunni commanders. This has great significance in the long run, and that is why it will not be possible to retain the loyalty of the army for a long time except where it comes to the only common denominator: The hostility towards Israel, and today even that is insufficient.

12

Alongside the Arabs, split as they are, the other Moslem states share a similar predicament. Half of Iran’s population is comprised of a Persian speaking group and the other half of an ethnically Turkish group. Turkey’s population comprises a Turkish Sunni Moslem majority, some 50%, and two large minorities, 12 million Shi’ite Alawis and 6 million Sunni Kurds. In Afghanistan there are 5 million

Shi’ites who constitute one third of the population. In Sunni Pakistan there are 15 million Shi’ites who endanger the existence of that state.

13

This national ethnic minority picture extending from Morocco to India and from Somalia to Turkey points to the absence of stability and a rapid degeneration in the entire region. When this picture is added to the economic one, we see how the entire region is built like a house of cards, unable to withstand its severe problems.

14

In this giant and fractured world there are a few wealthy groups and a huge mass of poor people. Most of the Arabs have an average yearly income of 300 dollars. That is the situation in Egypt, in most of the Maghreb countries except for Libya, and in Iraq. Lebanon is torn apart and its economy is falling to pieces. It is a state in which there is no centralized power, but only 5 de facto sovereign authorities (Christian in the north, supported by the Syrians and under the rule of the Franjieh clan, in the East an area of direct Syrian conquest, in the center a Phalangist controlled Christian enclave, in the south and up to the Litani river a mostly Palestinian region controlled by the PLO and Major Haddad’s state of Christians and half a million Shi’ites). Syria is in an even graver situation and even the assistance she will obtain in the future after the unification with Libya will not be sufficient for dealing with the basic problems of existence and the maintenance of a large army. Egypt is in the worst situation: Millions are on the verge of hunger, half the labor force is unemployed, and housing is scarce in this most densely populated area of the world. Except for the army, there is not a single department operating efficiently and the state is in a permanent state of bankruptcy and depends entirely on American foreign assistance granted since the peace.6

15

In the Gulf states, Saudi Arabia, Libya and Egypt there is the largest accumulation of money and oil in the world, but those enjoying it are tiny elites who lack a wide base of support and self-confidence, something that no army can guarantee. 7 The Saudi army with all its equipment cannot defend the regime from real dangers at home or abroad, and what took place in Mecca in 1980 is only an example. A sad and very stormy situation surrounds Israel and creates challenges for it, problems, risks but also far-reaching opportunities for the first time since 1967. Chances are that opportunities missed at that time will become achievable in the Eighties to an extent and along dimensions which we cannot even imagine today.

16

The “peace” policy and the return of territories, through a dependence upon the US, precludes the realization of the new option created for us. Since 1967, all the governments of Israel have tied our national aims down to narrow political needs, on the one hand, and on the other to destructive opinions at home which neutralized our capacities both at home and abroad. Failing to take steps towards the Arab population in the new territories, acquired in the course of a war forced upon us, is the major strategic error committed by Israel on the morning after the Six Day War. We could have saved ourselves all the bitter and dangerous conflict since then if we had given Jordan to the Palestinians who live west of the Jordan river. By doing that we would have neutralized the Palestinian problem which we nowadays face, and to which we have found solutions that are really no solutions at all, such as territorial compromise or autonomy which amount, in fact, to the same thing. 8 Today, we suddenly face immense opportunities for transforming the situation thoroughly and this we must do in the coming decade, otherwise we shall not survive as a state.

17

In the course of the Nineteen Eighties, the State of Israel will have to go through far-reaching changes in its political and economic regime domestically, along with radical changes in its foreign policy, in order to stand up to the global and regional challenges of this new epoch. The loss of the Suez Canal oil fields, of the immense potential of the oil, gas and other natural resources in the Sinai peninsula which is geomorphologically identical to the rich oil-producing countries in the region, will result in an energy drain in the near future and will destroy our domestic economy: one quarter of our present GNP as well as one third of the budget is used for the purchase of oil. 9 The search for raw materials in the Negev and on the coast will not, in the near future, serve to alter that state of affairs.

18

(Regaining) the Sinai peninsula with its present and potential resources is therefore a political priority which is obstructed by the Camp David and the peace agreements. The fault for that lies of course with the present Israeli government and the governments which paved the road to the policy of territorial compromise, the Alignment governments since 1967. The Egyptians will not need to keep the peace treaty after the return of the Sinai, and they will do all they can to return to the fold of the Arab world and to the USSR in order to gain support and military assistance. American aid is guaranteed only for a short while, for the terms of the peace and the weakening of the U.S. both at home and abroad will bring about a reduction in aid. Without oil and the income from it, with the present enormous expenditure, we will not be able to get through 1982 under the present conditions and we will have to act in order to return the situation to the status quo which existed in Sinai prior to Sadat’s visit and the mistaken peace agreement signed with him in March 1979. 10

19

Israel has two major routes through which to realize this purpose, one direct and the other indirect. The direct option is the less realistic one because of the nature of the regime and government in Israel as well as the wisdom of Sadat who obtained our withdrawal from Sinai, which was, next to the war of 1973, his major achievement since he took power. Israel will not unilaterally break the treaty, neither today, nor in 1982, unless it is very hard pressed economically and politically and Egypt provides Israel with the excuse to take the Sinai back into our hands for the fourth time in our short history. What is left therefore, is the indirect option. The economic situation in Egypt, the nature of the regime and its pan-

Arab policy, will bring about a situation after April 1982 in which Israel will be forced to act directly or indirectly in order to regain control over Sinai as a strategic, economic and energy reserve for the long run. Egypt does not constitute a military strategic problem due to its internal conflicts and it could be driven back to the post 1967 war situation in no more than one day. 11

20

The myth of Egypt as the strong leader of the Arab World was demolished back in 1956 and definitely did not survive 1967, but our policy, as in the return of the Sinai, served to turn the myth into “fact.” In reality, however, Egypt’s power in proportion both to Israel alone and to the rest of the Arab World has gone down about 50 percent since 1967. Egypt is no longer the leading political power in the Arab World and is economically on the verge of a crisis. Without foreign assistance the crisis will come tomorrow. 12 In the short run, due to the return of the Sinai, Egypt will gain several advantages at our expense, but only in the short run until 1982, and that will not change the balance of power to its benefit, and will possibly bring about its downfall. Egypt, in its present domestic political picture, is already a corpse, all the more so if we take into account the growing Moslem-Christian rift. Breaking Egypt down territorially into distinct geographical regions is the political aim of Israel in the Nineteen Eighties on its Western front.

21

Egypt is divided and torn apart into many foci of authority. If Egypt falls apart, countries like Libya, Sudan or even the more distant states will not continue to exist in their present form and will join the downfall and dissolution of Egypt. The vision of a Christian Coptic State in Upper Egypt alongside a number of weak states with very localized power and without a centralized government as to date, is the key to a historical development which was only set back by the peace agreement but which seems inevitable in the long run. 13

22

The Western front, which on the surface appears more problematic, is in fact less complicated than the Eastern front, in which most of the events that make the headlines have been taking place recently. Lebanon’s total dissolution into five provinces serves as a precendent for the entire Arab world including Egypt, Syria, Iraq and the Arabian peninsula and is already following that track. The dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unqiue areas such as in Lebanon, is Israel’s primary target on the Eastern front in the long run, while the dissolution of the military power of those states serves as the primary short term target. Syria will fall apart, in accordance with its ethnic and religious structure, into several states such as in present day Lebanon, so that there will be a Shi’ite Alawi state along its coast, a Sunni state in the Aleppo area, another Sunni state in Damascus hostile to its northern neighbor, and the Druzes who will set up a state, maybe even in our Golan, and certainly in the Hauran and in northern Jordan. This state of affairs will be the guarantee for peace and security in the area in the long run, and that aim is already within our reach today. 14

23

Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel’s targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria. Iraq is stronger than Syria. In the short run it is Iraqi power which constitutes the greatest threat to Israel. An Iraqi-Iranian war will tear Iraq apart and cause its downfall at home even before it is able to organize a struggle on a wide front against us. Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon. In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible. So, three (or more) states will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, and Shi’ite areas in the south will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north. It is possible that the present Iranian-Iraqi confrontation will deepen this polarization. 15

24

The entire Arabian peninsula is a natural candidate for dissolution due to internal and external pressures, and the matter is inevitable especially in Saudi Arabia. Regardless of whether its economic might based on oil remains intact or whether it is diminished in the long run, the internal rifts and breakdowns are a clear and natural development in light of the present political structure. 16

25

Jordan constitutes an immediate strategic target in the short run but not in the long run, for it does not constitute a real threat in the long run after its dissolution, the termination of the lengthy rule of King Hussein and the transfer of power to the Palestinians in the short run.

26

There is no chance that Jordan will continue to exist in its present structure for a long time, and Israel’s policy, both in war and in peace, ought to be directed at the liquidation of Jordan under the present regime and the transfer of power to the Palestinian majority. Changing the regime east of the river will also cause the termination of the problem of the territories densely populated with Arabs west of the Jordan. Whether in war or under conditions of peace, emigration from the territories and economic demographic freeze in them, are the guarantees for the coming change on both banks of the river, and we ought to be active in order to accelerate this process in the nearest future. The autonomy plan ought also to be rejected, as well as any compromise or division of the territories for, given the plans of the PLO and those of the Israeli Arabs themselves, the Shefa’amr plan of September 1980, it is not possible to go on living in this country in the present situation without separating the two nations, the Arabs to Jordan and the Jews to the areas west of the river. Genuine coexistence and peace will reign over the land only when the Arabs understand that without Jewish rule between the Jordan and the sea they will have neither existence nor security. A nation of their own and security will be theirs only in Jordan. 17

27

Within Israel the distinction between the areas of ’67 and the territories beyond them, those of ’48, has always been meaningless for Arabs and nowadays no longer has any significance for us. The problem should be seen in its entirety without any divisions as of ’67. It should be clear, under any future political situation or military constellation, that the solution of the problem of the indigenous Arabs will come only when they recognize the existence of Israel in secure borders up to the Jordan river and beyond it, as our existential need in this difficult epoch, the nuclear epoch which we shall soon enter. It is no longer possible to live with three fourths of the Jewish population on the dense shoreline which is so dangerous in a nuclear epoch.

28

Dispersal of the population is therefore a domestic strategic aim of the highest order; otherwise, we shall cease to exist within any borders. Judea, Samaria and the Galilee are our sole guarantee for national existence, and if we do not become the majority in the mountain areas, we shall not rule in the country and we shall be like the Crusaders, who lost this country which was not theirs anyhow, and in which they were foreigners to begin with. Rebalancing the country demographically, strategically and economically is the highest and most central aim today. Taking hold of the mountain watershed from Beersheba to the Upper Galilee is the national aim generated by the major strategic consideration which is settling the mountainous part of the country that is empty of Jews today. l8

29

Realizing our aims on the Eastern front depends first on the realization of this internal strategic objective. The transformation of the political and economic structure, so as to enable the realization of these strategic aims, is the key to achieving the entire change. We need to change from a centralized economy in which the government is extensively involved, to an open and free market as well as to switch from depending upon the U.S. taxpayer to developing, with our own hands, of a genuine productive economic infrastructure. If we are not able to make this change freely and voluntarily, we shall be forced into it by world developments, especially in the areas of economics, energy, and politics, and by our own growing isolation. l9

30

From a military and strategic point of view, the West led by the U.S. is unable to withstand the global pressures of the USSR throughout the world, and Israel must therefore stand alone in the Eighties, without any foreign assistance, military or economic, and this is within our capacities today, with no compromises. 20 Rapid changes in the world will also bring about a change in the condition of world Jewry to which Israel will become not only a last resort but the only existential option. We cannot assume that U.S. Jews, and the communities of Europe and Latin America will continue to exist in the present form in the future. 21

31

Our existence in this country itself is certain, and there is no force that could remove us from here either forcefully or by treachery (Sadat’s method). Despite the difficulties of the mistaken “peace” policy and the problem of the Israeli Arabs and those of the territories, we can effectively deal with these problems in the foreseeable future.

Conclusion

1

Three important points have to be clarified in order to be able to understand the significant possibilities of realization of this Zionist plan for the Middle East, and also why it had to be published.

2

The Military Background of The Plan

The military conditions of this plan have not been mentioned above, but on the many occasions where something very like it is being “explained” in closed meetings to members of the Israeli Establishment, this point is clarified. It is assumed that the Israeli military forces, in all their branches, are insufficient for the actual work of occupation of such wide territories as discussed above. In fact, even in times of intense Palestinian “unrest” on the West Bank, the forces of the Israeli Army are stretched out too much. The answer to that is the method of ruling by means of “Haddad forces” or of “Village Associations” (also known as “Village Leagues”): local forces under “leaders” completely dissociated from the population, not having even any feudal or party structure (such as the Phalangists have, for example). The “states” proposed by Yinon are “Haddadland” and “Village Associations,” and their armed forces will be, no doubt, quite similar. In addition, Israeli military superiority in such a situation will be much greater than it is even now, so that any movement of revolt will be “punished” either by mass humiliation as in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, or by bombardment and obliteration of cities, as in Lebanon now (June 1982), or by both. In order to ensure this, the plan, as explained orally, calls for the establishment of Israeli garrisons in focal places between the mini states, equipped with the necessary mobile destructive forces. In fact, we have seen something like this in Haddadland and we will almost certainly soon see the first example of this system functioning either in South Lebanon or in all Lebanon.

3

It is obvious that the above military assumptions, and the whole plan too, depend also on the Arabs continuing to be even more divided than they are now, and on the lack of any truly progressive mass movement among them. It may be that those two conditions will be removed only when the plan will be well advanced, with consequences which can not be foreseen.

4

Why it is necessary to publish this in Israel?

The reason for publication is the dual nature of the Israeli-Jewish society: A very great measure of freedom and democracy, specially for Jews, combined with expansionism and racist discrimination. In such a situation the Israeli-Jewish elite (for the masses follow the TV and Begin’s speeches) has to be persuaded. The first steps in the process of persuasion are oral, as indicated above, but a time comes in which it becomes inconvenient. Written material must be produced for the benefit of the more stupid “persuaders” and “explainers” (for example medium-rank officers, who are, usually, remarkably stupid). They then “learn it,” more or less, and preach to others. It should be remarked that Israel, and even the Yishuv from the Twenties, has always functioned in this way. I myself well remember how (before I was “in opposition”) the necessity of war with was explained to me and others a year before the 1956 war, and the necessity of conquering “the rest of Western Palestine when we will have the opportunity” was explained in the years 1965-67.

5

Why is it assumed that there is no special risk from the outside in the publication of such plans?

Such risks can come from two sources, so long as the principled opposition inside Israel is very weak (a situation which may change as a consequence of the war on Lebanon) : The Arab World, including the Palestinians, and the United States. The Arab World has shown itself so far quite incapable of a detailed and rational analysis of Israeli-Jewish society, and the Palestinians have been, on the average, no better than the rest. In such a situation, even those who are shouting about the dangers of Israeli expansionism (which are real enough) are doing this not because of factual and detailed knowledge, but because of belief in myth. A good example is the very persistent belief in the non-existent writing on the wall of the Knesset of the Biblical verse about the Nile and the Euphrates. Another example is the persistent, and completely false declarations, which were made by some of the most important Arab leaders, that the two blue stripes of the Israeli flag symbolize the Nile and the Euphrates, while in fact they are taken from the stripes of the Jewish praying shawl (Talit). The Israeli specialists assume that, on the whole, the Arabs will pay no attention to their serious discussions of the future, and the Lebanon war has proved them right. So why should they not continue with their old methods of persuading other Israelis?

6

In the United States a very similar situation exists, at least until now. The more or less serious commentators take their information about Israel, and much of their opinions about it, from two sources. The first is from articles in the “liberal” American press, written almost totally by Jewish admirers of Israel who, even if they are critical of some aspects of the Israeli state, practice loyally what Stalin used to call “the constructive criticism.” (In fact those among them who claim also to be “Anti-Stalinist” are in reality more Stalinist than Stalin, with Israel being their god which has not yet failed). In the framework of such critical worship it must be assumed that Israel has always “good intentions” and only “makes mistakes,” and therefore such a plan would not be a matter for discussion–exactly as the Biblical genocides committed by Jews are not mentioned. The other source of information, The Jerusalem Post, has similar policies. So long, therefore, as the situation exists in which Israel is really a “closed society” to the rest of the world, because the world wants to close its eyes, the publication and even the beginning of the realization of such a plan is realistic and feasible.

Israel Shahak

June 17, 1982 Jerusalem

About the Translator

Israel Shahak is a professor of organic chemistly at Hebrew University in Jerusalem and the chairman of the Israeli League for Human and Civil Rights. He published The Shahak Papers, collections of key articles from the Hebrew press, and is the author of numerous articles and books, among them Non-Jew in the Jewish State. His latest book is Israel’s Global Role: Weapons for Repression, published by the AAUG in 1982. Israel Shahak: (1933-2001)

Notes

 1. American Universities Field Staff. Report No.33, 1979. According to this research, the population of the world will be 6 billion in the year 2000. Today’s world population can be broken down as follows: China, 958 million; India, 635 million; USSR, 261 million; U.S., 218 million Indonesia, 140 million; Brazil and Japan, 110 million each. According to the figures of the U.N. Population Fund for 1980, there will be, in 2000, 50 cities with a population of over 5 million each. The population ofthp;Third World will then be 80% of the world population. According to Justin Blackwelder, U.S. Census Office chief, the world population will not reach 6 billion because of hunger.

 2. Soviet nuclear policy has been well summarized by two American Sovietologists: Joseph D. Douglas and Amoretta M. Hoeber, Soviet Strategy for Nuclear War, (Stanford, Ca., Hoover Inst. Press, 1979). In the Soviet Union tens and hundreds of articles and books are published each year which detail the Soviet doctrine for nuclear war and there is a great deal of documentation translated into English and published by the U.S. Air Force,including USAF: Marxism-Leninism on War and the Army: The Soviet View, Moscow, 1972; USAF: The Armed Forces of the Soviet State. Moscow, 1975, by Marshal A. Grechko. The basic Soviet approach to the matter is presented in the book by Marshal Sokolovski published in 1962 in Moscow: Marshal V. D. Sokolovski, Military Strategy, Soviet Doctrine and Concepts(New York, Praeger, 1963).

 3. A picture of Soviet intentions in various areas of the world can be drawn from the book by Douglas and Hoeber, ibid. For additional material see: Michael Morgan, “USSR’s Minerals as Strategic Weapon in the Future,” Defense and Foreign Affairs, Washington, D.C., Dec. 1979.

 4. Admiral of the Fleet Sergei Gorshkov, Sea Power and the State, London, 1979. Morgan, loc. cit. General George S. Brown (USAF) C-JCS, Statement to the Congress on the Defense Posture of the United States For Fiscal Year 1979, p. 103; National Security Council, Review of Non-Fuel Mineral Policy, (Washington, D.C. 1979,); Drew Middleton, The New York Times, (9/15/79); Time, 9/21/80.

 5. Elie Kedourie, “The End of the Ottoman Empire,” Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 3, No.4, 1968.

 6. Al-Thawra, Syria 12/20/79, Al-Ahram,12/30/79, Al Ba’ath, Syria, 5/6/79. 55% of the Arabs are 20 years old and younger, 70% of the Arabs live in Africa, 55% of the Arabs under 15 are unemployed, 33% live in urban areas, Oded Yinon, “Egypt’s Population Problem,” The Jerusalem Quarterly, No. 15, Spring 1980.

 7. E. Kanovsky, “Arab Haves and Have Nots,” The Jerusalem Quarterly, No.1, Fall 1976, Al Ba’ath, Syria, 5/6/79.

 8. In his book, former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin said that the Israeli government is in fact responsible for the design of American policy in the Middle East, after June ’67, because of its own indecisiveness as to the future of the territories and the inconsistency in its positions since it established the background for Resolution 242 and certainly twelve years later for the Camp David agreements and the peace treaty with Egypt. According to Rabin, on June 19, 1967, President Johnson sent a letter to Prime Minister Eshkol in which he did not mention anything about withdrawal from the new territories but exactly on the same day the government resolved to return territories in exchange for peace. After the Arab resolutions in Khartoum (9/1/67) the government altered its position but contrary to its decision of June 19, did not notify the U.S. of the alteration and the U.S. continued to support 242 in the Security Council on the basis of its earlier understanding that Israel is prepared to return territories. At that point it was already too late to change the U.S. position and Israel’s policy. From here the way was opened to peace agreements on the basis of 242 as was later agreed upon in Camp David. See Yitzhak Rabin. Pinkas Sherut, (Ma’ariv 1979) pp. 226-227.

 9. Foreign and Defense Committee Chairman Prof. Moshe Arens argued in an interview (Ma ‘ariv,10/3/80) that the Israeli government failed to prepare an economic plan before the Camp David agreements and was itself surprised by the cost of the agreements, although already during the negotiations it was possible to calculate the heavy price and the serious error involved in not having prepared the economic grounds for peace.

The former Minister of Treasury, Mr. Yigal Holwitz, stated that if it were not for the withdrawal from the oil fields, Israel would have a positive balance of payments (9/17/80). That same person said two years earlier that the government of Israel (from which he withdrew) had placed a noose around his neck. He was referring to the Camp David agreements (Ha’aretz, 11/3/78). In the course of the whole peace negotiations neither an expert nor an economics advisor was consulted, and the Prime Minister himself, who lacks knowledge and expertise in economics, in a mistaken initiative, asked the U.S. to give us a loan rather than a grant, due to his wish to maintain our respect and the respect of the U.S. towards us. See Ha’aretz1/5/79. Jerusalem Post, 9/7/79. Prof Asaf Razin, formerly a senior consultant in the Treasury, strongly criticized the conduct of the negotiations; Ha’aretz, 5/5/79. Ma’ariv, 9/7/79. As to matters concerning the oil fields and Israel’s energy crisis, see the interview with Mr. Eitan Eisenberg, a government advisor on these matters, Ma’arive Weekly, 12/12/78. The Energy Minister, who personally signed the Camp David agreements and the evacuation of Sdeh Alma, has since emphasized the seriousness of our condition from the point of view of oil supplies more than once…see Yediot Ahronot, 7/20/79. Energy Minister Modai even admitted that the government did not consult him at all on the subject of oil during the Camp David and Blair House negotiations. Ha’aretz, 8/22/79.

 10. Many sources report on the growth of the armaments budget in Egypt and on intentions to give the army preference in a peace epoch budget over domestic needs for which a peace was allegedly obtained. See former Prime Minister Mamduh Salam in an interview 12/18/77, Treasury Minister Abd El Sayeh in an interview 7/25/78, and the paper Al Akhbar, 12/2/78 which clearly stressed that the military budget will receive first priority, despite the peace. This is what former Prime Minister Mustafa Khalil has stated in his cabinet’s programmatic document which was presented to Parliament, 11/25/78. See English translation, ICA, FBIS, Nov. 27. 1978, pp. D 1-10.

According to these sources, Egypt’s military budget increased by 10% between fiscal 1977 and 1978, and the process still goes on. A Saudi source divulged that the Egyptians plan to increase their militmy budget by 100% in the next two years; Ha’aretz, 2/12/79 and Jerusalem Post, 1/14/79.

 11. Most of the economic estimates threw doubt on Egypt’s ability to reconstruct its economy by 1982. See Economic Intelligence Unit, 1978 Supplement, “The Arab Republic of Egypt”; E. Kanovsky, “Recent Economic Developments in the Middle East,” Occasional Papers, The Shiloah Institution, June 1977; Kanovsky, “The Egyptian Economy Since the Mid-Sixties, The Micro Sectors,” Occasional Papers, June 1978; Robert McNamara, President of World Bank, as reported in Times, London, 1/24/78.

 12. See the comparison made by the researeh of the Institute for Strategic Studies in London, and research camed out in the Center for Strategic Studies of Tel Aviv University, as well as the research by the British scientist, Denis Champlin, Military Review, Nov. 1979, ISS: The Military Balance 1979-1980, CSS; Security Arrangements in Sinai…by Brig. Gen. (Res.) A Shalev, No. 3.0 CSS; The Military Balance and the Military Options after the Peace Treaty with Egypt, by Brig. Gen. (Res.) Y. Raviv, No.4, Dec. 1978, as well as many press reports including El Hawadeth, London, 3/7/80; El Watan El Arabi, Paris, 12/14/79.

 13. As for religious ferment in Egypt and the relations between Copts and Moslems see the series of articles published in the Kuwaiti paper, El Qabas, 9/15/80. The English author Irene Beeson reports on the rift between Moslems and Copts, see: Irene Beeson, Guardian, London, 6/24/80, and Desmond Stewart, Middle East Internmational, London 6/6/80. For other reports see Pamela Ann Smith, Guardian, London, 12/24/79; The Christian Science Monitor 12/27/79 as well as Al Dustour, London, 10/15/79; El Kefah El Arabi, 10/15/79.

 14. Arab Press Service, Beirut, 8/6-13/80. The New Republic, 8/16/80, Der Spiegel as cited by Ha’aretz, 3/21/80, and 4/30-5/5/80; The Economist, 3/22/80; Robert Fisk, Times, London, 3/26/80; Ellsworth Jones, Sunday Times, 3/30/80.

 15.  J.P.  Peroncell  Hugoz,  Le  Monde,  Paris  4/28/80;  Dr.  Abbas  Kelidar,  Middle  East  Review,  Summer  1979;

Conflict Studies, ISS, July 1975; Andreas Kolschitter, Der Zeit, (Ha’aretz, 9/21/79) Economist Foreign Report, 10/10/79, Afro-Asian Affairs, London, July 1979.

 16. Arnold Hottinger, “The Rich Arab States in Trouble,” The New York Review of Books, 5/15/80; Arab Press Service, Beirut, 6/25-7/2/80; U.S. News and World Report, 11/5/79 as well as El Ahram, 11/9/79; El Nahar El Arabi Wal Duwali, Paris 9/7/79; El Hawadeth, 11/9/79; David Hakham, Monthly Review, IDF, Jan.-Feb. 79.

 17. As for Jordan’s policies and problems see El Nahar El Arabi Wal Duwali, 4/30/79, 7/2/79; Prof. Elie Kedouri, Ma’ariv 6/8/79; Prof. Tanter, Davar 7/12/79; A. Safdi, Jerusalem Post, 5/31/79; El Watan El Arabi 11/28/79; El Qabas, 11/19/79. As for PLO positions see: The resolutions of the Fatah Fourth Congress, Damascus, August 1980. The Shefa’amr program of the Israeli Arabs was published in Ha’aretz, 9/24/80, and by Arab Press Report 6/18/80. For facts and figures on immigration of Arabs to Jordan, see Amos Ben Vered, Ha’aretz, 2/16/77; Yossef Zuriel, Ma’ariv 1/12/80. As to the PLO’s position towards Israel see Shlomo Gazit, Monthly Review; July 1980; Hani El Hasan in an interview, Al Rai Al’Am, Kuwait 4/15/80; Avi Plaskov, “The Palestinian Problem,” Survival, ISS, London Jan. Feb. 78; David Gutrnann, “The Palestinian Myth,” Commentary, Oct. 75; Bernard Lewis, “The Palestinians and the PLO,” Commentary Jan. 75; Monday Morning, Beirut, 8/18-21/80; Journal of Palestine Studies, Winter 1980.

 18. Prof. Yuval Neeman, “Samaria–The Basis for Israel’s Security,” Ma’arakhot 272-273, May/June 1980; Ya’akov Hasdai, “Peace, the Way and the Right to Know,” Dvar Hashavua, 2/23/80. Aharon Yariv, “Strategic Depth–An Israeli Perspective,” Ma’arakhot 270-271, October 1979; Yitzhak Rabin, “Israel’s Defense Problems in the Eighties,” Ma’arakhot October 1979.

 19. Ezra Zohar, In the Regime’s Pliers (Shikmona, 1974); Motti Heinrich, Do We have a Chance Israel, Truth Versus Legend (Reshafim, 1981).

 20. Henry Kissinger, “The Lessons of the Past,” The Washington Review Vol 1, Jan. 1978; Arthur Ross, “OPEC’s Challenge to the West,” The Washington Quarterly, Winter, 1980; Walter Levy, “Oil and the Decline of the West,” Foreign Affairs, Summer 1980; Special Report–“Our Armed Forees-Ready or Not?” U.S. News and World Report 10/10/77; Stanley Hoffman, “Reflections on the Present Danger,” The New York Review of Books 3/6/80; Time 4/3/80; Leopold Lavedez “The illusions of SALT” Commentary Sept. 79; Norman Podhoretz, “The Present Danger,” Commentary March 1980; Robert Tucker, “Oil and American Power Six Years Later,” Commentary Sept. 1979; Norman Podhoretz, “The Abandonment of Israel,” Commentary July 1976; Elie Kedourie, “Misreading the Middle East,” Commentary July 1979.

 21. According to figures published by Ya’akov Karoz, Yediot Ahronot, 10/17/80, the sum total of anti-Semitic incidents recorded in the world in 1979 was double the amount recorded in 1978. In Germany, France, and Britain the number of anti-Semitic incidents was many times greater in that year. In the U.S. as well there has been a sharp increase in anti-Semitic incidents which were reported in that article. For the new anti-Semitism, see L. Talmon, “The New Anti-Semitism,” The New Republic, 9/18/1976; Barbara Tuchman, “They poisoned the Wells,” Newsweek 2/3/75.

 

The Chinese Silk Road to Lebanon Blocked by US Allies

The Chinese Silk Road to Lebanon Blocked by US Allies

By Mona Issa

Beirut – That the political class in Lebanon profits off of the sectarian system is old news. Sectarianism poses as a blockade against class consciousness and solidarity, which in turn wades the necessary conditions for popular struggle against the power structure.

Lebanon was one of the earliest experiments for sectarianism by France and other imperial powers. While it suffers from corruption and sectarianism, it also suffers from accumulated financial burden. The economic basis of the country is founded on the fiscal terms of the old aristocrats, who are what we call the “international financial class” today. This class, according to the Economist, monopolizes 18 out of 20 of all major banks in Lebanon. However, the Lebanese banking sector is hardly ever Lebanese. Engineered and driven by IMF, neoliberal fiscal policy, and their Lebanese billionaire minister-proxies, the West bloc in the Lebanese parliament barely ever passed up an opportunity to benefit off of the sectarian nature of their workplace. What is good for the banks, is good for them – the imperialism business is a thriving one.

The international financial class – the Lebanese West bloc – which is inherently capitalist, then inherently imperialist, functions on finance and militarism, entailing that it functions on the oppression and abuse of human capital and conflict. In a post-colonial state like Lebanon, conflict just might be on its way with the right amount of mass manipulation, play on identity politics, and painful economic conditions. The latest painful imposition is the high dollarization rate, which struck as a shock to the already-collapsing economy in Lebanon. This ultimately weakens the country much further than it already is, instills financial fragility and draconian living expenses.

However, another narrative threatens US interests on the ground today. The escalating threat of Chinese influence to replace US power in the region makes America’s friends anxious. The recent economic war on China is based on this anxiety, that they could soon be proposing investments in countries plagued by colonial theft. For this reason, there has been increasing efforts to contain Chinese influence in the Middle East by the United States; the only thing blocking Lebanon from making trade with the East is the West bloc, which is one of the many ways the Lebanese parliament engages in self-defeating behavior. China, through the reconstruction initiatives in Syria, has offered substantial infrastructural deals to the Lebanese government. This year, they’ve offered not only to build a conservatory in Dbayeh, but also a railway which connects Beirut to Tripoli, Tripoli to Aleppo, then Aleppo to Damascus.  Historically speaking, any sort of connectivity in the Arab world let alone the country stands as a threat to sectarian profit. Such projects, furthermore, would jeopardize the WB’s relationship with Washington.

The same West bloc, namely Jumblatt, Hariri, Geagea – are making said profit from the protests. The consecutive resignation of Geagea and Hariri opens up the sectarian vein among the Lebanese who already are geopolitically divided, and fuels protesters to stay in the streets, calling for complete overthrow. They have been using their key positions to serve their superiors, while the people bathe in the illusion that Geagea and Hariri’s resignations were an overthrow.

The threat of civil conflict through sectarian strife and complete overthrow all push Hezbollah into a balancing act they could do without – they become torn between keeping the situation under control and succumbing to the pressures of the protesters and the international community. The protests have attained most of their legitimacy from the working class who today face an economic war as a result from suffocating neoliberal foreign policy instantiated by Hariri the father, whose legacy lives on into a nation sunken by billions of dollars in debt. However, it would only be naive and shortsighted to see that the economic crisis is merely a direct result of corruption. The plight of the working class comes from the direct and eventual effects of US foreign and economic policy. With the lethal combination of corruption and US ambition, the parliamentary West-bloc have managed to “blend in” with the protests, express solidarity with popular grievance, while serve as proxies for the US to drive Hezbollah into resignation and overthrow.

In parallel, Chinese influence has been kept at bay simultaneously keeping socialist ideological influence – such as those of Iran and Syria – marginalized and within limited power.

The world is witnessing a new political horizon; a post-post-Cold War, where US hegemony is challenged by other powers [not to mention also “illegitimate”, “terrorist” groups] and is very desperate.

The Return of The Condor

The Return of The Condor

By Darko Lazar

The wave of Color Revolutions sweeping the globe in recent years claimed its latest victim on Sunday. Bolivia’s Evo Morales, who was unwilling to subordinate his nation’s sovereign rights to US interests, was removed from office.

Numerous foreign officials – from the UK’s opposition leader, Jeremy Corbyn, to Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro – described Morales’ departure as a coup d’etat.

The charge is not at all surprising. Morales, Bolivia’ s first indigenous president, was reelected three times since taking office in January 2006.

The consecutive electoral victories made him Latin America’s longest-serving democratic leader.

During his time in office, Bolivia enjoyed an unprecedented level of political and social stability, recording an economic growth rate of between 4% and 6%.

But following the latest elections in October, the opposition and regional US vassals began screaming bloody murder.

Amid allegations of fraud, the Washington-based Organization of American States [OAS] was mandated to carry out an audit of the election results.

Claiming irregularities, the OAS recommended that Bolivia hold fresh elections. Morales agreed, but just hours later, Bolivian military chiefs stepped into the fray and ‘asked’ the incumbent to resign.

Faced with a violent onslaught against his supporters in a country with an unstable ethno-political makeup, Morales put the wellbeing of the Bolivian people before his desire to remain in power and stepped down.

However, his resignation has not extinguished the possibility of further unrest. Bolivia remains vulnerable to a high risk of violence, as gangs roam capital La Paz to attack businesses and set property ablaze.

To what extent the situation escalates will depend largely on how far the victors of the revolution are willing to go in persecuting Morales supporters. And despite the mainstream narrative, there is no shortage of Bolivians who still see the former president as a champion of the poor, who ushered in a period of steady economic growth.

Meanwhile, in Washington, smothering that kind of sentiment is exactly what is required.

For those roaming the US halls of power, the departure of Morales brings them “one step closer to a completely democratic, prosperous, and free Western Hemisphere.”

With those words, President Donald Trump once again invoked the so-called Monroe Doctrine.

Swimming against the tide

Evo Morales was the last survivor of the ‘Pink Tide’, which ushered in left-wing governments across Latin America two decades ago, starting with the consecutive elections of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and Lula da Silva in Brazil.

Among one of the main driving forces behind the rise of these progressive leaders is the very powerful anti-American sentiment in the region, which was instigated by bloody escapades like the infamous Operation Condor.

This US-backed action throughout the 1960s and ‘70s centered on economic warfare, political murders, coups and the sponsorship of brutal, far-right regimes in an effort to clear the American continent of all undesirables – or as Trump so eloquently put it, ‘free’ the Western Hemisphere.

In 2017, a tribunal in Rome convicted former heads of state and top security chiefs from Latin America over their involvement in atrocities committed during Operation Condor.

Among those officials were Bolivia’s former dictator, Luis Garcia Meza, and interior minister Luis Arce Gomez.

Interestingly, the court also exposed the involvement of current Trump administration whisperer and former US Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger.

One of the declassified documents admitted as evidence during the trial reveals that Kissinger not only encouraged the brutal repression in individual Latin American states, but also advised regimes to join their efforts.

“If there are things that have to be done, you should do them quickly,” Kissinger is quoted as saying during a June 1976 exchange with Argentina’s then-foreign minister, Admiral Cesar Guzzetti.

“We want you to succeed,” Kissinger said. “We do not want to harass you.”

Those struggling to understand the Trump administration’s foreign policy need to look no further than Henry Kissinger.

The former American diplomat devoted much of his career to advancing the Monroe Doctrine – Washington’s longstanding claim to the Western Hemisphere as an exclusive zone of US interests.

In his 2014 book, ‘World Order’, Kissinger defines the Monroe Doctrine as the US having “the right to intervene preemptively in the domestic affairs of other Western Hemisphere nations to remedy flagrant cases of wrongdoing or impotence.”

Bolivia’s Evo Morales – who criticized US intervention in Venezuela, spoke out against the blockade of Cuba, denounced the military coup in Honduras and applauded Edward Snowden’s revelations – was no doubt guilty of “wrongdoing” on the Kissinger scale.

But more importantly, perhaps, Morales had picked the wrong economic partners.

In February of this year, Bolivia chose a Chinese consortium to be its strategic partner on a new USD 2.3 billion lithium project.

The deal essentially handed Beijing a foothold in Bolivia’s huge untapped reserves of the prized electric battery metal.

Morales is guilty of other sins against US hegemony, too. He brought in Russian energy giant Gazprom for the development of a number of lucrative natural gas fields. The Russians have other massive investments in Bolivia, including the construction of a nuclear research facility. Moreover, Moscow had plans to build hydroelectric power stations and transportation networks.

The time had come to remind Morales and other Latin American states that the Monroe Doctrine was “alive and well” – as John Bolton had famously declared in April.

According to unconfirmed reports, the Bolivian opposition was flushed with millions of dollars from Washington ahead of the October polls.

The Caracas-based Telesur television network reported last month that leaked audio recordings involving Bolivian opposition leaders revealed a plot orchestrated and coordinated from the US embassy in La Paz to unseat the government there.

The recordings reportedly mention contacts between the opposition and hardline American senators Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Bob Menendez.

A message to Maduro

Morales’ exit will likely lead to significant changes in Bolivia’s geopolitical vector.

That means that Russia and China will have a much harder time securing contracts for gas exploration, lithium mining and arms sales.

But the coup in Bolivia is particularly bad news for Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro. The success of the right-wing opposition in La Paz is undoubtedly intended to encourage and inspire their ideological counterparts in Caracas.

And as Maduro loses another friend on the Latin American stage, the message from Washington to the government in Caracas is clear: you may have won a battle against the US-led push to oust you from power, but the war is ongoing.

Related Videos

Related Articles

 

تحرير الأسيرين… فرحة وليس إنجازاً

 

نوفمبر 9, 2019

طارق سامي خوري

انشغل الرأي العام الأردني خلال الشهرين الماضيين باعتقال سلطات الاحتلال الصهيوني للمواطنين هبة اللبدي وعبد الرحمن مرعي وحبسهما إدارياً من دون توجيه تهمة إلى أيّ منهما، وقد تحوّل استقبالهما بعد إطلاق سراحهما منذ أيام إلى عرس وطني وشعبي.

ورغم محاولة وزارة الخارجية الأردنية تصوير ما جرى على أنه «إنجاز» حقّقته الوزارة في هذا الملف، إلا أنّ ذلك لا يُعدُّ إنجازاً خصوصاً أنّ وزارة الخارجية كانت مُغيّبة تماماً وقد مرّ شهران تقريباً على حادثة الاعتقال حتى تحركت في اتجاه إطلاق سراح اللبدي ومرعي، ذلك أنّ التحرُّكات الشعبية المُندّدة بما جرى والمطالبة بتحرير الأسيرين، إضافة إلى صمود اللبدي التي أعلنت إضراباً عن الطعام مدة 42 يوماً ومرعي رغم أنه يعاني من مرض السرطان في سجنيهما هي التي دفعت الوزارة إلى التحرُّك ما أسفر أخيراً عن إطلاقهما.

للأسف، ورغم مرور ربع قرن على توقيع اتفاقية الاستسلام «وادي عربة»، كانت علاقة الأردن مع الكيان الصهيوني تتّسم على الدوام بأنها علاقة ضعيفٍ بقوي، ولن أخوض بعيداً في الأحداث التي تدلّ على ذلك وهي كثيرة، سأكتفي فقط باسترجاع حادثة مقتل مواطنين أردنيين عام 2017 على يد أحد حراس سفارة العدو في الأردن بدم بارد، وكيف غادر قاتلهما إلى فلسطين المحتلة في اليوم نفسه حيث استقبله رئيس وزراء العدو بنيامين نتنياهو استقبال «الأبطال» بطريقة مُستفزّة لمشاعر الأردنيين ومُهينة للمملكة.

أعادت قضية اللبدي ومرعي طرح قضية الأسرى الأردنيين في السجون الإسرائيلية، وهم 21 أسيراً إضافة إلى 30 مفقوداً، ورغم وجود أوراق ضغط كثيرة في يد الأردن أبرزها اتفاقية «وادي عربة» و»اتفاقية الغاز» و»ناقل البحرين» ووجود سفارة للكيان الصهيوني على الأراضي الأردنية إلا أنّ ذلك لم يُصرف فعلياً في ملف إنساني ووطني حسّاس كملف الأسرى الذين قضى بعضهم حتى الآن أكثر من عشرين سنة في زنازين الاحتلال، وكلّ ما فعلته الحكومات الأردنية المتعاقبة في هذا الملف هو تضييع فرص كثيرة للضغط على الكيان الصهيوني للإفراج عن الأسرى وإغلاق الملف، وتفعيل معاهدتي جنيف الثالثة والرابعة اللتين تُلزمان الدول «المُتحاربة» بإطلاق سراح الأسرى بعد انتهاء الأعمال العسكرية، وجميعنا نذكر رفض الحكومة الأردنية عام 2004 شمول الأسرى الأردنيين في صفقة تبادل بين «حزب الله» اللبناني وسلطات الاحتلال، معتبرة «ملف الأسرى شأناً أردنياً خالصاً»، إضافة إلى إضاعة فرصة إجبار الكيان الصهيوني على تبادل عميلي الموساد اللذين ألقي القبض عليهما بعد فشل محاولة اغتيال رئيس المكتب السياسي لحركة «حماس» خالد مشعل في عمّان 1996 بأسرى أردنيّين خصوصاً من أصحاب الأحكام العالية والمؤبدة، وغير ذلك الكثير من الفرص.

إنّ عدوَّنا الذي يقاتلنا «في حقنا وأرضنا وديننا» والذي أنشأ كيانه المزعوم فوق دماء شهدائنا وأراضي أبناء شعبنا في فلسطين ومنازلهم لا يفهم لغة الدبلوماسية والمفاوضات، لذلك يجب أن يكون اتصالنا معه «اتصال الحديد بالحديد والنار بالنار» وإنّ اتفاقية الاستسلام لم تخدم الأردن بل خدمت الكيان الصهيوني. هم يسمّونها «اتفاقية سلام» لأنها في الحقيقة جلبت السلام للعدو، وإذا نظرنا إلى حال الدول التي وقّعت سلاماً مع الاحتلال نجد أنّ الإنجاز الكبير قد تحقق للكيان الصهيوني وهو إخراج مصر والأردن والسلطة الفلسطينية من معادلة الصراع معه ليستفرِد بدول عربية أخرى، في حين تراجعت أوضاع الدول المُستسلمة على كافة الصعد السياسية والاجتماعية والاقتصادية عقوداً إلى الوراء، لكنّ الرهان هو على الشعوب الحيّة التي لم تُطبِّع مع العدو، فالتطبيع لم يكن يوماً شعبياً ولن يكون لأنّ العداء لـ»إسرائيل» يزداد في كلّ لحظة ولا يزال الكيان الصهيوني هو العدو الأوحد. كذلك نراهن على دول رفضت أن توقّع مع العدو إيماناً منها بأنّ السلام لا يأتي على متن دبابة المحتلّ وأنّ العلاقة مع هذا الكيان الهجين يجب أن تكون علاقة صراع فقط، أعني بذلك الدولة السورية والمقاومة اللبنانية التي سطّرت بطولات أسطورية في مواجهة المحتلّ ومقارعته حتى دحره مُغيّرة بذلك وجه المنطقة برمّتها.

أخيراً، وبعد فشل الأطر الدبلوماسية بمفاوضة المحتلّ تارة واستجداء الأميركيين طوراً والتي لم تُسفر إلا وعوداً لم تُغنِ ولم تسمن، فإنّ المطلوب اليوم هو متابعة جدية لملف الأسرى، ولأننا لا نتوقع كثيراً من الحكومة، من تلقاء ذاتها، فإننا ندعو إلى استثمار الحالة الشعبية التي تكوّنت بعد اعتقال اللبدي ومرعي وضغطت باتجاه تحريرهما علّها تدفع الحكومة الأردنية إلى إعادة النظر في طريقة التعاطي مع هذا الملف خلال العقود الماضية، من دون أن ننسى طبعاً دور اللجنة الوطنية للأسرى والمفقودين الأردنيين في معتقلات الكيان الصهيوني ومسؤوليتنا نحن كنواب ممثلين لأبناء شعبنا في البرلمان الأردني في الضغط باتجاه تحرير جميع أسرانا من سجون الاحتلال.

عضو مجلس النواب الأردني

Related Videos

Killing Julian Assange: Justice Denied When Exposing Official Wrongdoing

By Philip Giraldi

Source

Julian Assange Killing e3453

The hideous treatment of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange continues and many observers are citing his case as being symptomatic of developing “police state” tendencies in both the United States and in Europe, where rule of law is being subordinated to political expediency.

Julian Assange was the founder and editor-in-chief of the controversial news and information site WikiLeaks. As the name implies, after 2006 the site became famous, or perhaps notorious, for its publication of materials that have been leaked to it by government officials and other sources who consider the information to be of value to the public but unlikely to be accepted by the mainstream media, which has become increasingly corporatized and timid.

WikiLeaks became known to a global audience back in 2010 when it obtained from US Army enlisted soldier Bradley Manning a large quantity of classified documents relating to the various wars that the United States was fighting in Asia. Some of the material included what might be regarded as war crimes.

WikiLeaks again became front-page news over the 2016 presidential election, when the website released the emails of candidate Hillary Clinton and her campaign manager John Podesta. The emails revealed how Clinton and her team collaborated with the Democratic National Committee to ensure that she would be nominated rather than Bernie Sanders. It should be noted that the material released by WikiLeaks was largely documentary and factual in nature, i.e. it was not “fake news.”

Because he is a journalist ostensibly protected by the First Amendment guarantee of free speech, the handling of the “threat” posed by journalist Assange is inevitably somewhat different than a leak by a government official, referred to as a whistleblower. Assange has been vilified as an “enemy of the state,” likely even a Russian agent, and was initially pursued by the Swedish authorities after claims of a rape, later withdrawn, were made against him. To avoid arrest, he was given asylum by a friendly Ecuadorean government seven years ago in London. The British police had an active warrant to arrest him immediately as he had failed to make a bail hearing after he obtained asylum, which is indeed what took place when Quito revoked his protected status in April.

As it turned out, Julian Assange was not exactly alone when he was in the Ecuadorean Embassy. All of his communications, including with his lawyers, were being intercepted by a Spanish security company hired for the purpose allegedly by the CIA. There apparently was also a CIA plan to kidnap Assange. In a normal court in a normal country, the government case would have been thrown out on constitutional and legal grounds, but that was not so in this instance. The United States has persisted in its demands to obtain the extradition of Assange from Britain and London seems to be more than willing to play along. Assange is undeniably hated by the American political Establishment and even much of the media in a bipartisan fashion, with the Democrats blaming him for Hillary Clinton’s loss while Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has labeled him a “fraud, a coward and an enemy.” WikiLeaks itself is regarded by the White House as a “hostile non-government intelligence service.” Sending Julian Assange to prison for the rest of his life may be called justice, but it is really revenge against someone who has exposed government lies. Some American politicians have even asserted that jail is too good for Assange, insisting that he should instead be executed.

The actual charges laid out in the US indictment are for alleged conspiracy with Chelsea Manning to publish the “Iraq War Logs,” the “Afghan War Logs” and the US State Department cables. On May 23rd, the United States government further charged Assange with violating the Espionage Act of 1917, which criminalizes any exposure of classified US government information anywhere in the world by anyone. Its use would create a precedent: any investigative journalist who exposes US government malfeasance could be similarly charged.

Assange is currently incarcerated in solitary confinement at high-security Belmarsh prison. It is possible that the Justice Department, after it obtains Assange through extradition, will attempt to make the case that Assange actively colluded with the Russian government, a conspiracy to “defraud the United States” to put it in legalese. Assange is unlikely to receive anything approaching a fair trial no matter what the charges are.

Assange’s prison term ended on September 22nd, but an earlier procedural hearing at Westminster Magistrates’ Court had already decided that a full hearing on extradition to the US would not begin until February 25th, 2020. District Judge Vanessa Baraitser ruled that Assange would not be released even though the prison term had ended, because he was a flight risk. His status in the prison system was duly changed from a serving prisoner to a person facing extradition and his final hearing would be at the high-security Belmarsh Magistrates’ Court rather than in a normal civil court. Belmarsh is where terrorists are routinely tried and the proceedings there permit only minimal public and media scrutiny.

Most recently, on October 21st, 2019, Assange was again in Westminster Magistrates’ Court for a “case management hearing” regarding his possible extradition to the US Judge Baraitser denied a defense team request for a three-month delay so that they could gather evidence in light of the fact that Assange had been denied access to his own papers and documents in order to prepare his defense. British government prosecutor James Lewis QC and the five US “representatives” present opposed any delay in the extradition proceedings and were supported by Judge Baraitser, denying any delay in the proceedings.

Another procedural hearing will take place on December 19th followed by the full extradition hearing in February, at which time Assange will presumably be turned over to US Marshalls for transportation to the Federal prison in Virginia to await trial. That is, of course, assuming that he lives that long as his health has visibly deteriorated and there have been claims that he has been tortured by the British authorities.

Former British Ambassador Craig Murray, who knows Julian Assange well, was present when he appeared in court on the 21st. Murray was shocked by Assange’s appearance, noting that he had lost weight and looked like he had aged considerably. He was walking with a pronounced limp and when the judge asked him questions, to include his name and date of birth, he had trouble responding. Murray described him as a “shambling, incoherent wreck” and also concluded that “one of the greatest journalists and most important dissidents of our times is being tortured to death by the state, before our eyes.”

The British court was oblivious to Assange’s poor condition, with Judge Baraitser telling the clearly struggling prisoner that if he were incapable of following proceedings, then his lawyers could explain what had happened to him later. Objections to what was happening made by both Assange and his lawyers were dismissed by the Crown’s legal representatives, often after discussions with the American officials present, a process described in full by Murray, who, after describing the miscarriage of justice he had just witnessed observed that Julian Assange is being “slowly killed in public sight and arraigned on a charge of publishing the truth about government wrongdoing.” He concluded that “Unless Julian is released shortly he will be destroyed. If the state can do this, then who is next?” Indeed.

THE WHITE HOUSE PLAN TO STRANGLE IRAN

By Philip Giraldi

Source

 

Steven Mnuchin Benjamin Netanyahu 1bc40

There is a certain irony in President Donald Trump’s frequently expressed desire to withdraw from the endless wars that have characterized the so-called “global war on terror” initiated by George W. Bush in 2001. The problem is that Trump has expressed such sentiments both when he was running for office and also as recently as last week without actually doing anything to bring about change. In fact, the greatly ballyhooed “withdrawal” from Syria turned out to be more like a relocation of existing military assets, with soldiers moving from Syria’s northern border to take up new positions to continue control of the Iraqi oil fields in the country’s southeast. Indeed, the number of American soldiers in Syria may have actually been increased with armor units being transferred from their base in Iraq.

The all too characteristic Trumpean flip-flop on Syria may have been due to pressure from congress and the media, who were bleating over how the departure of U.S. troops was a grave mistake, but if that is true it is a tribute to the abysmal ignorance of America’s Solons on the Potomac and the presstitutes who echo their bipartisan myopia. In truth, clinging to the Syrian oil wells makes no sense just as the war in the north served no purpose. The petroleum production is not enough to pay for the occupation, even if the oil is successfully stolen and sold, by no means a certainty as the rest of the world minus Israel regards it as the property of Damascus.

And to be sure, congress-critters know all about winners and losers. The mainstream media has been full of utter nonsense, including claims that Russia, Iran and Syria were all winners due to the American pull-out while neoliberal democracy promotion in the Middle East has suffered a defeat and Israel is now under threat. And, of course, the United States has to its shame betrayed yet another ally in the Kurds while also losing all credibility worldwide.

No one has, of course, examined any of the claims being made by the interventionist crowd. How Russia has won in taking on a client state that it cannot afford, or Iran in maintaining an extraterritorial presence that is regularly bombed by Israel, is by no means clear. President al-Assad meanwhile has the not so enviable task of putting his country back together. Meanwhile the Kurds will manage by cutting their own deal with Syria and Turkey with Russia serving as guarantor of the arrangement.

The real reasons for maintaining a U.S. military presence in Syria all have to do with Israel, which has long supported a fracturing of that country into its constituent parts both to weaken it as an adversary and to enable the Jewish state to steal still more of its land, possibly to include the sparsely populated oil producing region. Israel also wants a robust American military presence in Syria to prevent Iran from turning it into a base for attacks across the border, an unlikely prospect but one that has resonated with the U.S. Congress. Indeed, deterring Iran is the reason most often cited by both Washington and Tel Aviv for American interference in Syria, where it has no other actual interest apart from an apparent demented desire to remove President Bashar al-Assad.

In fact, all of the turmoil about what Trump might or might not do, plus the killing of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, has enabled the White House to move quietly ahead with its major foreign policy objective, which is, not surprisingly, destroying Iran. On October 28th, Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin was in Israel – of course – where he announced at a press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that the United States would increase economic pressure on Iran over its nuclear program, saying that  “We have executed on a maximum pressure campaign for sanctions. They have worked, they are working, they are cutting off the money. We will continue to ramp up, more, more, more …” Turning to Netanyahu he added “I just came from a very productive working lunch with your team. They gave us a bunch of very specific ideas that we will be following up.” Netanyahu responded “So I want to thank you for what you’ve been doing and encourage you, Steve, to do more – more, a lot more.”

Mnuchin the Poodle, who did not seem to know that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program, was referring to the latest round of sanctions, announced in Washington three days before, that are clearly intended to make it impossible for Iran to use the international banking system to engage in any commerce at all. To achieve that objective, the Trump administration sought to exclude Iran from the global financial system by declaring that the country is a “jurisdiction of primary money laundering concern.”

The new designation, which comes on top of the Office of Foreign Assets Control’s (OFAC) similar designation for the Iranian Central Bank, requires U.S. banks to conduct “special due diligence” on accounts maintained by foreign banks if those foreign banks themselves hold accounts for Iranian financial institutions. The chain of secondary sanctions means that, in practical terms, U.S. banks will press their foreign correspondents to close any accounts maintained on behalf of Iranian banks so as to eliminate sanctions risk. This will further sever Iran from the global financial system, as Iran’s few remaining non-designated banks will find it increasingly difficult to maintain accounts abroad.

Treasury’s designation of Iran as a primary jurisdiction of money laundering will make it impossible for the few Iranian banks that deal internationally to maintain what limited overseas accounts continue to be available to them. The blocking of those accounts, either held directly by the Iranians or through other banks, will mean that Iranian importers will be unable to pay for medicine or food coming into the country, the so-called humanitarian goods that are normally exempted from sanctions. The new OFAC regulation does provide a framework for banks to continue hold Iranian accounts by filing detailed monthly reports, but the paperwork and other procedures are deliberately onerous and it is likely that few international banks will be interested in making the effort to comply.

That there is a coordinated scheme being pursued to continuously increase the punishment of the Iranian people was also suggested last Wednesday when the Trump administration joined six Persian Gulf nations in sanctioning over two dozen corporations, banks and entities that, it was claimed, are connected to Iranian support of Hezbollah and other groups the Department of State designates as terrorists. In a statement, the Treasury Department announced the sanctions mark the “largest joint designation to date” by the Terrorist Financing Targeting Center (TFTC) — which includes Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and the U.S. According to the Treasury Department, several of the companies sanctioned were financially supporting a subsidiary of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, which the U.S. designated as a terrorist organization earlier this year.

Treasury Secretary Mnuchin, on his tour of the Middle East, remarked that “This action demonstrates the unified position of the Gulf nations and the United States that Iran will not be allowed to escalate its malign activity in the region.”

Make no mistake, the United States is conducting an economic war against Iran that is undeniably aimed at making the Iranian people so miserable that they will rise up in revolt. And the punishment being meted out will hurt the poorest and weakest most of all while also hardening support for the regime rather than weakening it. Not only is the White House action directed against Iran immoral, it is also illegal as Iran and the United States are not at war and Iran does not threaten Americans in any way. The whole affair is just one more example of how powerful domestic constituencies, in this case that of Israel, have distorted U.S. foreign policy and driven it in directions that are both shameful and that serve no plausible national interest.

The Real US Mission in Syria

By Stephen Lendman

Source

US involvement in Syria has nothing to do with regional peace, stability and security, nothing to do with combatting ISIS.

It’s all about killing a nation, destroying its sovereignty, partitioning it for easier control, removing its legitimate leadership, installing puppet rule, plundering it, exploiting its people, eliminating an Israeli rival, isolating Iran, and enriching the US military, industrial, security complex from endless aggression.

On Thursday, US war secretary Mark Esper repeated what he said days earlier. Heavily armed Pentagon forces will continue controlling Syrian oil producing areas, on the phony pretext of “deny(ing) their access to ISIS — the scourge created and supported by the US he failed to explain.

During a Thursday joint press conference with his Australian counterpart Linda Reynolds at the Pentagon, Esper said the following:

“Our National Defense Strategy emphasizes that our principal concern is the Indo-Pacific region” — to counter China’s sovereign independence, its growing regional and global influence, it economic, financial, military and technological development, he failed to explain, adding:

“I need to redeploy (Pentagon) forces to the area” to increase the US military footprint in a part of the world not its own.

Asked to comment on Trump’s remark about wanting to take Syrian oil, Esper said the following:

“Yeah, the – the mission is, as – as I’ve spoken to, and I’ve conveyed it to the commander, and that is, we will secure oil fields to deny their access to ISIS and other actors in the region (sic), and to ensure that the SDF has continued access, because those resources are – are important, and so that the SDF can – can do its mission, what it needs to do in the region (sic).”

Asked “(i)s that a new mission, he failed to say it’s part of the overall Pentagon objective to transform Syria into a US vassal state, plunder its resources, and achieve the other aims explained above.

On Thursday, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said the US is stealing and smuggling $30 million worth of Syrian oil monthly “under the pretext of fighting ISIL.”

Separately, Zakharova explained that US/NATO-supported al-Qaeda-connected White Helmets are planning a new chemical weapons attack to be falsely blame on Damascus, saying:

“New confirmations of the information about the White Helmets’ activities emerge all the time.”

“According to the existing information, which the Syrian government regularly provides to the United Nations, the White Helmets, jointly with terrorists, are preparing new chemical provocations in Syria. They obviously aim at disrupting the peace process in the country,” adding:

They’re working with (US-supported) al-Nusra jihadists in Idlib province, the last major terrorist stronghold in the country — these elements heavily armed with US, other Western, Turkish, and Saudi-supplied weapons.

So-called ceasefire in northern Syria is illusory. On Friday, Russian reconciliation center head General Yuri Borenkov said 14 ceasefire breaches occurred in the last 24 hours alone — in Hama, Idlib, Aleppo, and Latakia provinces, adding:

Syrian forces in “Acre, Tel Rasha and Zuweiqat in Latakia province have been shot at by (US-supported) Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (al-Nusra) and foreign militants.”

On Friday, Southfront reported that “al-Qaeda (and) Turkish-backed radical militants launch(ed) (a) large-scale attack in northern Latakia” province “on Syrian military positions and civilian areas,” adding:

The assault “reportedly (was) led by” (US/Ankara-supported) al-Nusra jihadists, along with “(o)ther factions of the terrorist group and elements of the Turkish-backed Syrian National Army (SNA).”

“The new attack…coincides with a Turkish offensive on Kurdish-majority areas in northeast Syria. Radical SNA militants are leading the offensive, committing war crimes against civilians in the region.”

The struggle to liberate Syria from foreign occupation and plunder has miles to go because of US, NATO, Turkish, Saudi, and Israeli rage to eliminate the Syrian Arab Republic as it now exists.

Baghdadi Alive or Dead Matters Little: ISIS Remains a US Creation

By Stephen Lendman

Source

Baghdadi Killed b0dac

Like his predecessors, Trump operates as a frontman for the military, industrial, security complex, Wall Street, and other monied interests.

As commander-in-chief, he continues endless US wars of aggression in multiple theaters, along with economic terrorism on Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, Cuba, and other nations on the US target list for regime change — including China and Russia.

His vow to bring all US troops home from Syria was a mirage. In March 2011, the US preemptively attacked the country for regime change, wanting pro-Western puppet rule replacing its sovereign independence.

Illegal Pentagon/CIA occupation of northern and southern parts of the country continues with no near-term prospect for conflict resolution because dominant bipartisan hardliners in Washington reject restoration of peace and stability to all US war theaters.

Longstanding US policy aims for dominion over planet earth, its resources and populations.

Nations not controlled by the US are vulnerable to preemptive attacks or war by other means — what the scourge of imperialism is all about, humanity’s greatest curse.

On Monday, US war secretary Mark Esper and Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman General Mark Milley held a joint press conference.

Esper repeated Trump’s dubious claim about eliminating alleged ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

Like DJT, he provided no evidence of Baghdadi’s death. The remains of whoever US forces reportedly killed were buried at sea so no independent DNA testing or other identity checks could be conducted, clear evidence of deception and coverup.

According to forensic pathologists, positive IDing of human remains can take days or weeks to complete. Trump claimed Baghdadi was killed overnight Saturday — in a remote Syrian location nowhere near a forensic lab.

Yet on Monday, US war secretary Mark Esper dubiously claimed DNA testing showed remains tested were Baghdadi’s — suggesting most likely whoever was killed was someone else.

Baghdadi alive or dead matters little. ISIS remains a US creation, its activities orchestrated and controlled by its Pentagon and CIA handlers.

US officials and establishment media pretend Pentagon forces combatted and destroyed the “caliphate.” Washington actively supports it, along with likeminded terrorist groups, in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya, and elsewhere.

Esper’s remarks were an exercise in mass deception, falsely claiming US operations in Syria “enable(d) the enduring defeat of ISIS,” adding:

“(R)epositioning (US) forces within the country is intended to posture us to continue this mission and give the president options, (including) execut(ion) (of) counterterrorism operations.”

The reality on the ground is polar opposite his above deception. Part of the US mission includes controlling and looting Syrian oil — on the phony pretext of protecting it from ISIS, enabling private interests and the CIA to profit from plundering Syrian resources, along with denying them to Damascus to benefit the nation and its people.

Esper: “(W)e will respond with overwhelming military force against” any threat to US occupation of Syrian territory and control of its resources.

Milley made similar remarks, stressing “counterterrorism operations” in Syria and other US war theaters that don’t exist.

During a Q & A session, reporters failed to challenge the US war of aggression and occupation of sovereign Syria threatening no one.

No one questioned Trump’s dubious account of Baghdadi’s alleged elimination or that the remains of whoever was killed were buried at sea to prevent independent DNA checking.

Nothing was asked about the looting of Syrian oil belonging to the nation, not an illegal foreign occupier.

Asked whether Pentagon troops might confront Russian or Syrian forces militarily, Esper curtly responded: “Yes.”

Last week, Russian Defense Ministry spokesman General Igor Konashenkov called US plunder of Syrian oil “state-sponsored banditry,” along with denouncing US protection of smugglers involved in looting Syrian resources.

Syria remains an active war theater, its people terrorized by the presence of US forces and jihadist foot soldiers.

As long as total US control of Syria remains unattained, dark forces in Washington rule out the restoration of peace and stability to the nation and its long-suffering people.

What Keeps the Rich Up at Night Should Provide Inspiration to the Poor

By Danny Haiphong

Source

Halloween House 83e6d

Halloween in America is a time to be frightened of horror films, costumes, and the health consequences of consuming too much candy. Horror films and costumes represent a fictionalized terror, one that deeply satisfies and reminds us of our own vulnerability. U.S. imperialism is a centuries-long nightmare that goes bump in the night. The terror of U.S. imperialism is very real and much scarier than anything Halloween has to offer. At the foundation of U.S. imperialism is a broad array of contradictions between the rulers of imperialism and those who suffer from imperial rule. It is only logical, then, that what keeps the rich up at night should provide inspiration and fuel to the cause of the poor and oppressed.

The ruling class in the United States, that .001 percent of the population which owns the means of production, takes on a “god”-like stature in American life. Billionaires like Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffett, Bill Gates and the rest are largely hidden from public life. Instead, a host of hirelings in the corporate media and in the halls of Washington articulate their ideological and policy interests. Celebrities glorify the lifestyle of billionaires through corporate-controlled distributors of culture also known as the television, film, and music industries. Politicians further normalize the “godliness” of the ruling class by ignoring their influence or defending their rule as a matter of democracy and “national security.” Of course, the deification of class rule would not be possible without the repressive and white supremacist state apparatus which imposes a regime of terror on the most dispossessed and darker hued peoples of the planet.

The United States, as the commander in chief of imperialist plunder, makes it as difficult as possible for poor workers and oppressed peoples to find inspiration from the maladies plaguing the rich. Corporate media and official Washington ignore or demonize those activists and journalists who fight to turn the nightmares of the rich into opportunities for social transformation. In Latin America, for example, millions are standing up to neoliberal rule. Bolivia and Argentina have elected leftist governments in recent weeks. The people of Chile have taken to the streets for over three weeks in opposition to neoliberal austerity. These developments have received little attention and zero positive coverage in the United States.

The surge of leftism in Latin America is not the only nightmare keeping the U.S. ruling class up at night. Imperialism, the system of monopoly and finance capital that the ruling class presides over, is in a state of crisis on several fronts. On the military front, Syria’s resilience in the face of eight years of proxy war has left the U.S. with few options to achieve its ultimate objective of full spectrum dominance in the region. The U.S.’s regime change war in Syria has failed and the head-chopping jihadists that the CIA and the Pentagon empowered are fighting alongside Turkey in a final standoff with the Syrian Arab Army. Trump’s mere signaling toward pulling U.S. troops from occupied Northern Syria has inspired great fear in the Pentagon and the military industrial complex generally. The Pentagon has since convinced Trump to double down on its occupation of Syria to ensure that the vast oil reserves in its northern territory cannot be used for reconstruction and development.

Military expansionism is often thought of a show of strength. However, in the case of the rich, reliance upon military force both at home and abroad help mask the broad decline of imperial rule. U.S. capitalism has become a short-term boon for the few and a long-term burden for the many. The U.S.’ share in the world economy is a fraction of what it was when it became the imperial superpower following World War II. Overall growth is virtually frozen. Workers haven’t seen a pay raise in forty years. Poverty, debt, and precarity are the only guarantees for nearly 80 percent of the U.S. population living under dead-end capitalism. Destroying the lives of whistleblowers like Julian Assange through massive investments in military and surveillance technology helps maintain the rule of the rich in the face of mass misery.

Economic decline and military expansionism are nightmares not because profits aren’t being made, but because the prospect of rebellion and unrest is the most frightening nightmare scenario for the rich. The U.S. capitalist economy is due for a periodic economic crisis on top of the 2007-2008 crash that workers have yet to recover from. Bernie Sanders and the revival of the word “socialism” among young workers are outgrowths of dead-end capitalism. The 2020 election has placed a spotlight on the fissures within the Democratic Party, once known for its iron-clad ability to keep social movements and left politics within the safe and corporate-controlled confines of the electoral arena. Democratic Party and Republican Party lieutenants are no longer seen as legitimate representatives of working-class Americans, which is why Sanders has become the most popular politician in the country and why Donald Trump, a billionaire with no political credentials, will likely win another presidential term should the Democratic Party choose to decapitate the Sanders campaign for a second time in four years.

While the many nightmarish aspects of system decline keep the rich up at night, they should inspire poor and working-class people to rise up against the system. Yet mass uprisings in the United States are not a common occurrence. Bernie Sanders is waging an electorally based movement inside of a corporate-controlled party. Labor unions such as the Chicago Teachers Union have used the weapon of the strike to unite oppressed communities to fight privatization and cutbacks to education. But this model is not the norm across the country. Despite an upsurge in labor unrest, many unions opt for a business model of organization that privileges compromises with the boss over the development of grassroots movements that threaten the entrenched power of capitalist bosses at the point of production. The UAW’s recent agreement that maintains a tiered workforce among other concessions to the bosses show the struggling occurring inside the American labor movement.

This is not to say that the strikes that occurred in Chicago schools and GM plants across the U.S. were not sources of inspiration. It is important, however, to analyze why the crisis of U.S. imperialism has not led to a massive rebellion inside of the United States. The fact remains that the working class in the United States is the most alienated class in human history. White supremacy and corporate power have never been more entrenched anywhere else in the world. Workers not only contend with their bosses, but also the largest military and police-state ever known. Workers not only search for a way to live under a low-wage capitalist system, but also do so in the presence of six corporations which own ninety percent of all media in the United States. There is thus no shortage of despair and distraction to keep workers in the United States from standing up to the powerful and uniting with the powerless.

Just like everything on this planet, systems are subjected to laws of scientific development. Systems rise and then fall due to their own inherent contradictions. The crises described in this article only scratch the surface of the contradictions facing U.S. imperialism at this juncture of history. Many of these contradictions are developing in a manner that should inspire workers and poor people in the U.S. to become agents of history. The people of Chile the people of Bolivia, and the people of Syria are revolting against the same system that is incarcerating, surveilling, and impoverishing workers in the United States. Their example should provide as much inspiration to U.S.-based social justice efforts as they inspire fear and dread in the rich.

Assange Extradition: What Happened to British Justice and Fair Play?

By Stuart Littlewood

Source

Julian Assange in court d3d74

Why am I not surprised after reading Craig Murray’s alarming account of Julian Assange’s appearance at Westminster Magistrates Court this week?

Murray, a former UK ambassador and diplomat, is widely respected for his truth and accuracy. He reminds us: “The charge against Julian is very specific; conspiring with Chelsea Manning to publish the Iraq War logs, the Afghanistan war logs and the State Department cables. The charges are nothing to do with Sweden, nothing to do with sex, and nothing to do with the 2016 US election….

“The purpose of yesterday’s hearing was case management; to determine the timetable for the extradition proceedings. The key points at issue were that Julian’s defense was requesting more time to prepare their evidence, and arguing that political offenses were specifically excluded from the extradition treaty. There should, they argued, therefore be a preliminary hearing to determine whether the extradition treaty applied at all.”

He provides chapter and verse on Article 4 of the UK/US Extradition Treaty 2007. “On the face of it, what Assange is accused of is the very definition of a political offense…. There is every reason to consider whether this charge is excluded by the extradition treaty, and to do so before the long and very costly process of considering all the evidence should the treaty apply. But Baraitser simply dismissed the argument out of hand.”

District Judge Vanessa Baraitser is severely criticized for failing to treat the two sides evenhandedly and for appearing to take instructions from the US Government people in the courtroom.

Assange’s defence team, according to Murray’s report, asked for the extradition hearing, scheduled for 25 February, to be delayed to allow more time for preparation. They have had very limited contact with their client in jail and haven’t been allowed to provide him with necessary documents. Assange has only just been given limited computer access and all his relevant records and materials were seized from the Ecuadorean Embassy by the US Government. He’s had no access to his own materials in preparing his defence.

The team are also in touch with the Spanish courts about a legal case currently being heard in Madrid which will provide evidence showing how the CIA arranged for a contractor to spy on conversations between Assange and his lawyers discussing his defense against these extradition proceedings. In normal circumstances, says Murray, this and other damning evidence would be enough to have the case thrown out.

However, Baraitser accepted the prosecution’s argument that there should be no extra time for the defense to prepare. And she ruled, without giving reasons, that there would be no separate consideration as to whether the charge was a political offense excluded by the extradition treaty.

“The extradition is plainly being rushed through in accordance with a Washington dictated timetable,” says Murray. “Apart from a desire to pre-empt the Spanish court providing evidence on CIA activity in sabotaging the defense, what makes the February date so important to the USA?”

The most sinister revelation came at the end. Baraitser announced that the substantive hearing in February will be held, not at an open and accessible venue like Westminster Magistrates Court, but at Belmarsh Magistrates Court, “the grim high-security facility used for preliminary legal processing of terrorists, attached to the maximum-security prison where Assange is being held”. Murray says: “There are only six seats for the public in even the largest court at Belmarsh, and the object is plainly to evade public scrutiny and make sure that Baraitser is not exposed in public again to a genuine account of her proceedings, like this one you are reading. I will probably be unable to get in….”

Craig Murray calls Assange his friend and is distressed by how his appearance has deteriorated after long confinement, and by his rapid aging and stumbling speech – “the most articulate man, the fastest thinker, I have ever known” reduced to a “shambling and incoherent wreck”, says Craig. He is in such poor shape that there are fears Assange may not live to the end of the extradition proceedings.

Murray had been sceptical of claims that debilitating drugs were forced on Assange and his treatment amounted to torture. “Yesterday changed my mind entirely and Julian exhibited exactly the symptoms of a torture victim brought blinking into the light, particularly in terms of disorientation, confusion, and the real struggle to assert free will through the fog of learned helplessness.”

Baraitser, says Murray, told Assange that if he was incapable of following proceedings, his lawyers could explain what had happened to him later. And here’s a man who, by the very nature of the charges against him, was acknowledged to be highly intelligent and competent, and feared by the world’s super-power.

So how do his British captors explain his swift decline while in their care?

Murray describes the conditions under which Assange languishes at Belmarsh. “He is kept in complete isolation for 23 hours a day. He is permitted 45 minutes exercise. If he has to be moved, they clear the corridors before he walks down them and they lock all cell doors to ensure he has no contact with any other prisoner outside the short and strictly supervised exercise period. There is no possible justification for this inhuman regime, used on major terrorists, being imposed on a publisher who is a remand prisoner.”

This is hardly the British justice we were brought up to admire and expect. So I have asked my MP to obtain an explanation from our Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, Robert Buckland QC MP. A few simple answers would be appreciated:

  • Why is Assange held under the inhuman conditions reserved for terrorists when he’s no such thing and only on remand?
  • How does the Justice Department account for Assange’s poor physical and mental state?
  • Now that the Article 4 ‘cat’ is out of the bag why has the question whether political charges are excluded from the treaty not been addressed?
  • The US has had years to prepare its case, why not give Assange’s defense team more time, easier access and a sporting chance?
  • Why Belmarsh for February’s hearing, where the opportunity for public scrutiny is minimal?
  • Will District Judge Baraitser preside over the substantive hearing when, according to Murray, she has already failed to behave impartially?

Many will see the hand of the Dark State in this. Whatever one’s views on Assange there is no excuse for the vile treatment meted out to him.

Interference by Unnamed “Foreign Powers” in Canada’s Elections? The Invasion of “America’s Backyard”

Global Research, October 19, 2019

This article addresses the alleged interference of unnamed “foreign powers” in Canada’s elections as well as the historical process of US interference, including an outright secret US Military Invasion of Canada formulated in the 1930s.

US-Canada relations is not an issue for debate in the 2019 Canada elections campaign.

***

In 1934, War Plan Red was amended to authorize the immediate first use of poison gas against Canadians and to use strategic bombing to destroy Halifax if it could not be captured.  …  

“In August 1935, the US held its largest peacetime military manoeuvres in history, with 36,000 troops converging at the Canadian border south of Ottawa, and another 15,000 held in reserve in Pennsylvania. (February 11-13, 1935, hearings of the Committee on Military Affairs, House of Representatives, on Air Defense Bases (H.R. 6621 and H.R. 4130. This testimony was to have been secret but was published by mistake. See the New York Times, May 1, 1935, p. 1.

Scroll down for details

***

Are the Russians coming to disrupt our elections scheduled for October 21st? Back in July, Canada’s Minister of Democratic Institutions Karina Gould  intimated that Canada’s 2019 elections could be the target of interference by foreign powers.

While Ottawa did not explicitly point its finger at the Kremlin, the official statement and media reports intimated that it could be Russia (and possibly China) because Vladimir Putin had allegedly interfered in favor of Donald Trump in the 2016 US presidential elections.  And apparently Moscow had also intervened in the French elections.

The Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) and the RCMP were said to be “monitoring foreign threat activity in Canada and around the world”.

“At this time, we haven’t seen direct threats to the 2019 general election,” the official said.

CSIS continues to observe hostile foreign actors “taking steps to position themselves to clandestinely influence, promote or discredit certain messages, candidates or groups during the campaign,” the official added. (CBC, July 09, 2019)

Three months prior to the October 2019 Elections,  the Trudeau government issued a “Cabinet Directive on the Critical Election Incident Public Protocol” (CEIPP) to “protect Canada’s Democratic Institutions”  against unnamed foreign powers
.

The Cabinet Directive on the Critical Election Incident Public Protocol sets out the ministers’ expectations with respect to the general directions and the principles to guide the process for informing the public during the writ period of an incident that threatens Canada’s ability to have a free and fair election. Consult the document here

In the event of a threat by a foreign power to disrupt the election, a top level national security panel “will inform the prime minister”,  (see Global News, July 9, 2019)

Russia Dirty Tricks? 

With some exceptions, Canada’s media has remained silent on the matter. According to a recent “authoritative”  CTV  report  the Kremlin is once again up to “Dirty Tricks”, intent upon manipulating Canada’s elections. Which party are they going to support?

In an attempt to stop foreign interference during the 2019 Canadian federal election, Canada’s top security agencies are monitoring the web 24/7. Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), works hand in hand with a largely secret organization, Communication Security Establishment (CSE), …

….  Former Russian troll Vitaly Bespalov thinks the Russians have already come up with new ways to meddle with our political views. After being implicated for interfering in the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, they have to be more creative as Canadians get ready to go to the polls.

“So now I think they are going to invent some other schemes of influencing the audience. It will be done in a different way. No need to look for trolls on Facebook, they will find a new way.”

 

Intervention of an Unnamed Foreign Power: The United States of America

There is ample of evidence of foreign interference by an “unnamed foreign power”, which has barely been mentioned in the course of the election campaign.

In Canada’s history, as well as during the mandate of the Justin Trudeau’s government, the United States of America (rather than “unnamed foreign powers”) has intervened in what is euphemistically called  “America’s Backyard”, i.e. a nation state inside America’s sphere of influence.

And I am not referring to former president Obama’s recent statement in support for Justin Trudeau.

 

 

Washington is on record of having interfered in elections  in 45 countries according to political scientist Dov H. Levin of Carnegie Mellon University.  

While Canada is not mentioned in Don H Levin’s study, the history of US interference in Canada’s internal affairs goes far beyond the process of meddling in Canadian elections.

Canadian farmers are acutely aware of how the Trump administration in 2017 imposed without real negotiation, a complete overhaul of trade and investment relations leading to the formation of the so-call United States, Mexico, Canada USMCA trade agreement which is intended to replace NAFTA.

Politicians in the Trudeau government were coopted. The economic impacts of this agreement on Canada’s economy are potentially devastating.

But there is much more in our history which has a direct bearing on national sovereignty and democracy in Canada. While US interventionism is part of our history, US-Canada relations are not an issue for debate in the election campaign.

Flashback to 1930…

America’s Plan to Invade Canada

While the US plan to Annex Canada in 1866 (a de facto act of war formulated as a Bill by the US Congress) is on record, most Canadians are unaware that the US in the late 1920s had formulated a detailed plan to invade Canada, entitled “Joint Army and Navy Basic War Plan — Red”. The plan was approved by the US War Department under the presidency of Herbert Hoover in 1930.

It was updated in 1934 and 1935 during the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt. It was withdrawn in 1939 following the outbreak of the Second World War. (The full text of the 1935 Invasion Plan is in Annex)

This insidious military agenda which was intent on ultimately annexing Canada to the US as well as disabling the British Empire, involved the planned bombings of four major cities: Vancouver, Montreal, Quebec City and Halifax.

And guess who was assigned to oversee these bombings: General Douglas MacArthur (image left, 1940s), who was US Army chief of staff (1930-37). MacArthur’s mandate coincided with  the release of the 1930 and 1935 invasion plan of Canada. As we recall MacArthur was subsequently put in charge of leading the bombing raids against Japan during World War II. (See Floyd Rudman)

The 1935 plan to invade Canada consisted of a 94-page document “with the word SECRET stamped on the cover.” It had been formulated over a period of over five years (See full text in Annex).

In February 1935, the [US] War Department arranged a Congressional appropriation of $57 million dollars to build three border air bases for the purposes of pre-emptive surprise attacks on Canadian air fields. The base in the Great Lakes region was to be camouflaged as a civilian airport and was to “be capable of dominating the industrial heart of Canada, the Ontario Peninsula” (from p. 61 of the February 11-13, 1935, hearings of the Committee on Military Affairs, House of Representatives, on Air Defense Bases (H.R. 6621 and H.R. 4130). This testimony was to have been secret but was published by mistake. See the New York Times, May 1, 1935, p. 1.

In August 1935, the US held its largest peacetime military manoeuvres in history, with 36,000 troops converging at the Canadian border south of Ottawa, and another 15,000 held in reserve in Pennsylvania. The war game scenario was a US motorized invasion of Canada, with the defending forces initially repulsing the invading Blue forces, but eventually to lose “outnumbered and outgunned” when Blue reinforcements arrive. This according to the Army’s pamphlet “Souvenir of of the First Army Maneuvers: The Greatest Peace Time Event in US History” (p.2). ( Professor F.W. Rudmin Queen’s University Kingston, Ontario, Comments on “War Plan Red”,

One of the updates to the 1930 invasion plan was the use of chemical weapons against civilians:

In 1934, War Plan Red was amended to authorize the immediate first use of poison gas against Canadians and to use strategic bombing to destroy Halifax if it could not be captured.” (Ibid)

It is worth noting that in the course of World War II,  a decision was taken by the War Department to retain the invasion plan on the books. War Plan Red was declassified in 1974.

Raiding the Icebox. How the US Media Trivializes History

The Washington Post, which casually dismissed the historical significance of “Joint Army and Navy Basic War Plan — Red”, nonetheless acknowledged the aggressive nature of the proposed military endeavor:

“A bold plan, a bodacious plan, a step-by-step plan to invade, seize and annex our neighbor to the north. …First, we send a joint Army-Navy overseas force to capture the port city of Halifax, cutting the Canadians off from their British allies.

Then we seize Canadian power plants near Niagara Falls, so they freeze in the dark.

Then the U.S. Army invades on three fronts — marching from Vermont to take Montreal and Quebec, charging out of North Dakota to grab the railroad center at Winnipeg, and storming out of the Midwest to capture the strategic nickel mines of Ontario.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Navy seizes the Great Lakes and blockades Canada’s Atlantic and Pacific ports.  … “(Raiding the Icebox; Behind Its Warm Front, the United States Made Cold Calculations to Subdue Canada, by Peter Carlson, Washington Post, 30 December 2005, emphasis added)

The original documents pertaining to the invasion of Canada including “War Plan Red” and “Defence Scheme No. 1.” are in the archives of the US Army War College in Carlisle, Pa.  (url link no longer functional)

The  plan is detailed. It involves both military as well an intelligence components. According to historian John Major “War, Plan Red” also consisted in “a series of possible pre-emptive American campaigns to invade Canada in several areas and occupy key ports and railways before British troops could provide reinforcement to the Canadians…”

Concluding Remarks Concerning US Interference

While the 1935 invasion of Canada Plan was never carried out, historically “the military threat of an invasion plan served to oblige Canada to ultimately surrender to US political and economic pressures.”

In recent history, this hegemonic objective was achieved in 2002 with the creation of US Northern Command (NorthCom).

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced unilaterally that US Northern Command would have jurisdiction over the entire North American region. US Northern Command’s jurisdiction as outlined by the US DoD includes, in addition to the continental US, all of Canada, Mexico, as well as portions of the Caribbean, contiguous waters in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans up to 500 miles off the Mexican, US and Canadian coastlines as well as the Canadian Arctic.

Rumsfeld is said to have boasted that:

“NORTHCOM – with all of North America as its geographic command – ‘is part of the greatest transformation of the Unified Command Plan [UCP] since its inception in 1947.’”

NorthCom’s stated mandate is to “provide a necessary focus for [continental] aerospace, land and sea defenses, and critical support for [the] nation’s civil authorities in times of national need.”(Canada-US Relations – Defense Partnership – July 2003, Canadian American Strategic Review (CASR),


ANNEX

The complete text of the 1935 Invasion of Canada can be consulted here  (Introduction by Prof Floyd Rudmin, Queens University) See below
See also Michel Chossudovsky, America’s Plan to Annex and Invade Canada
 and America’s Plan to Invade Canada 
US Invasion of Canada Plan 
 .
Full-text reproduction of the 1935 plan for a US invasion of Canada prepared at the US Army War College, G-2 intelligence division, and submitted on December 18, 1935.
 .
The following is a full-text reproduction of the 1935 plan for a US invasion of Canada prepared at the US Army War College, G-2 intelligence division, and submitted on December 18, 1935. This is the most recent declassified invasion plan available from the US archival sources. Centered pagination is that of the original document.
 .
The spelling and punctuation of the original document are reproduced as in the original document, even when in error by present-day norms. This document was first identified by Richard Preston in his 1977 book, “The Defence of the Undefended Border: Planning for War in North America 1867-1939” (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.)
 .
Preston’s reference citation (p. 277) identified this to be archived at the US Military History Collection, Carlisle Barracks, Pa., coded AWC 2-1936-8, G2, no. 19A. It was located by the US National Archives and supplied on microfilm.
 .
                       SUPPLEMENT NO. 3

                             TO

                 REPORT OF COMMITTEE NO. 8

                          SUBJECT:

      CRITICAL AREAS OF CANADA AND APPROACHES THERETO
      _______________________________________________
 .

                        Prepared by:

                     SUBCOMMITTEE NO. 3

               Major Charles H. Jones, Infantry, Chairman.
               Lt. Col. H.W. Crawford, Engineers.

  I. Papers Accompanying.
     ___________________
  1. Bibliography.                      (Omitted, filed in Rec.Sec.)
  2. List of Slides.                                "
  3. Appendices (1 and 2).                          "
  4. Annexes. (Incl. A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,K, and L)      "

  II. The Study Presented.
      ___________________
       Determine under the geographical factor, the critical areas in
 Crimson (Canada) and the best approaches thereto for Blue.  A critical
 area is assumed to be any area of such strategic importance to either
 belligerent that control thereof may have a material bearing on the out-
 come of the war.

 III. Facts bearing on the study.
      __________________________
   1. General Considerations:
       An area in Crimson territory may be of strategic importance from
 the viewpoint of tactical, economic, or political considerations.  In the
 final analysis, however, critical areas must be largely determined in the
 light of Red's probable line of action and Crimson's contribution to that
 effort.
   2. Geographical Features of Canada.
   a. Location and extent.  The location and extent of the Dominion of
   _
 Canada is shown on the Map herewith (see Exhibit A).  It comprises the
 entire northern half of the the North American continent, excepting only
 Alaska and the coast of Labrador, a dependency of the colony of New-
 foundland.
       The principal political subdivisions are those located along the
 border of the United States.  These from east to west are:
       (1) The Maritime Provinces:
            Prince Edward Island.
            Nova Scotia.
            New Brunswick.
       (2) Quebec.
       (3) Ontario.
       (4) The Prairie Provinces:
            Manitoba.
            Saskatchewan.
            Alberta.


                                   -41-

       (5) British Columbia.
       Newfoundland, while not a part of the Dominion of Canada, would
 undoubtedly collaborate in any Crimson effort.
   b. Topography. (Slide 14852)
   _
      The great area in eastern Canada underlain by rocks of Precambrian
 age is known as the Canadian Shield.  Its northern boundary crosses the
 Arctic archipelago; the eastern boundary lies beyond Baffin Island and
 Labrador, and reaches the depressed area occupied by the St. Lawrence, a
 short spur crossing this valley east of Lake Ontario to join the Adirondack
 Mountains of New York.  The southern boundary runs from this spur west to
 Georgian Bay thence along the north shore of Lake Huron and Lake Superior,
 thence northwest from the Lake of the Woods to the western end of Lake
 Athabaska.  Its average elevation does not exceed 1500 feet.  The greatest
 known elevations are in the eastern part of Baffin Island and along the
 coast of northern Labrador.  Peaks of the Torngat Mountains of Labrador
 have elevations of between 4000 and 5000 feet.  The coast is one of the
 boldest and most rugged in the world, with many vertical cliffs rising
 1000 to 2000 feet high.  Occasional exceptions occur in which there are
 reliefs of several hundred feet, as in the hills along the north shore of
 Lake Huron and Lake Superior.  The area is dotted with lakes, large and
 small, and of irregular outline.  A lowland of considerable extent
 stretches for some distance into Ontario and Manitoba from Hudson Bay.
      Extending south and west form the Canadian Shield, between the Ap-
 palachian Mountains on the east and the Cordilleras on the west, lies the
 Great North American plain.  The northeastern portion of this plain called
 the St. Lawrence lowlands occupies southern Ontario, south of a line ex-
 tending from Georgian Bay to the east end of Lake Ontario; eastern Ontario
 lying between the Ottawa and St. Lawrence rivers, and that part of Quebec
 lying adjacent to the St. Lawrence between Montreal and Quebec.
      The plain west of the Canadian Shield, known as the Interior Plains,
 stretches northward to the Arctic Ocean between a line approximately join-
 ing Lake Winnipeg and Lake Athabasca, Great Slave Lake and Great Bear Lake
 on the east, and the foothills of the Rocky Mountains on the west.
      That part of the St. Lawrence Lowlands lying in the eastern angle of
 Ontario, and in Quebec south of Montreal and extending down the St. Law-
 rence is comparatively flat and lies less than 500 feet above sea level.
 On the lower St. Lawrence it is greatly narrowed by the near approach of
 the Appalachian system to the Canadian Shield.  The part lying adjacent to
 Lakes Ontario, Erie and Huron is of less even surface, has its greatest
 elevation of over 1700 feet south of Georgian Bay and slopes gently to
 the Great Lakes.
      The Interior Plains region is in general rolling country with broad
 undulations and a slope eastward and northward of a few feet per mile,
 descending from an elevation of 3000 to 5000 feet near the mountains on the
 west to less than 1000 feet at the eastern border.  The rolling character
 of the area is relieved by several flat topped hills, by flat areas that
 formed the beds of extensive lakes, and by deep river valleys.
      The Appalachain and Arcadian regions occupy practically all that part
 of Canada lying east of the St. Lawrence, with the exception of the lowlands
 west of a line joining Quebec City and Lake Champlain.  The Applachain
 region is a continuation into Quebec of three chains of the Applachain
 system of mountains.  The most westerly of these ranges, the Green Mountains
 of Vermont, stretches northeast into the Gaspe peninsula, where it forms
 flat topped hills some 3000 feet high.  The Acadian region, which includes

                                  -42-

 New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island is an alternation of
 upland with hills and ridges rising 2500 feet and higher.  Adjacent to the
 Bay of Fundy is a series of ridges rising in places to 1200 feet.  Between
 these two New Brunswick uplands, which converge toward the southwest is a
 lowland forming the whole eastern part of the province.  This lowland ex-
 tends east to include Prince Edward Island, the western fringe of Cape
 Breton Island and the mainland of Nova Scotia north of the Cobequid moun-
 tains, which have an elevation of 800 to 1000 feet.  South of the Cobequid
 Mountains lies a long narrow lowland stretching from Chedabucto Bay to
 Minas Basin, and along the Cornwallis Annapolis valley between North and
 South Mountains.  South of this lowland is a highland sloping to the Atlantic
 Coast.  The northern part of Cape Breton Island is a tableland 1200 feet
 high with its central part rising to an elevation of over 1700 feet.
      The Cordelleran region, a mountainous area bordering the Pacific
 extends from the United States through Canada into Alaska and embraces
 nearly all of British Columbia and Yukon and the western edge of Alberta
 and the Northwest Territories.  The eastern part of the Cordillera is occu-
 pied by the Rocky Mountains, with peaks rising to 10,000 feet and 12,000
 feet.  They extend northwest and fall away towards the Liard River.  The
 western part of the Cordillera is occupied by the Coast Range and the
 mountains of Vancouver and Queen Charlotte Islands.  The Coast Range rises
 to heights of 7000 to 9000 feet. Between the Rocky Mountains and the Coast
 Range lies a vast plateau 3000 to 4000 feet high and cut by deep river
 valleys.
   3. Population.
      According to the census of 1931, the total population on June 1, 1931
 was 10,376,786, of whom 5,374,541 were males.  The inhabited areas of the
 Dominion are essentially confined to a narrow strip along the United States
 boundary, generally south of the 56th parallel of latitude west of the Lake
 Winnipeg, and south of the 49th parallel of latitude east of Lake Superior.
 Approximately 10% of the total population are found in the Maritime provinces,
 61%  in Quebec and Ontario, 23% in the Prairie Provinces and 6% in British
 Columbia.
      Of the present population, 51.86% are of British descent, 28.22%
 French, and the remainder of widely scattered nativity.
   4. Climate.
      The climate of southern Canada is comparable to that of the northern
 tier of the states of the United States.  The west coast of British Columbia
 tempered by the Pacific Ocean is mild and humid.  The prairie provinces
 generally experience extreme cold weather from November to March, with heavy
 snow fall.  The climate of southern Ontario, the St. Lawrence Valley and the
 Maritime Provinces is much milder that that of the prairie provinces, but
 freezing temperatures are general between the end of November and the first
 of April, and the ground is usually covered with between one and three
 feet of snow.  Any extensive military operations in Canada between November
 1st and April 15th would be extremely difficult, if not impossible.
   5. Communications.
   a. Railways.
   _
      There are only two railway systems in Canada, both crossing Canada
 east and west from the Atlantic to the Pacific.  These lines generally
 parallel the United States border, in some instances crossing through the
 United States.


                                -43-

      (1) The Canadian national Railways system (See inclosure B) belonging
 to and operated by the government, has eastern terminals at Halifax, N.S.,
 Portland, Maine (Grand Trunk), and through the Central Vermont, at Boston,
 New London and New York.  Western terminals are Vancouver and Prince Rupert
 B.C.  An extension from Cochrane, Ontario, to Moosonee, Ontario on James
 Bay, was completed by the Province of Ontario in July 1932, to connect with
 water routes to Churchill, Hudson Bay and with the northern route to Europe.
      (2) The Canadian Pacific system (see inclosure C) has its eastern
 terminus at Saint John, N.B. and it western terminus at Vancouver, B.C.
 As indicated by the systems maps, there are numerous branch lines serving
 the industrial and farming areas of the Dominion, and connecting lines ty-
 ing in with various railroads of the United States.
      From a military viewpoint, these railroads provide excellent trans-
 portation facilities for Blue, if invasion of Crimson is decided upon, and
 being located in close proximity to the border are, from the Crimson view-
 point, very liable to interruption.  This is particularly true at Winnipeg
 some 60 miles north of Blues border, through which both transcontinental
 systems now pass.  This fact probably encouraged Canada to construct the
 railroad from The Pass, Manitoba and develop the port at Churchill.
      Complete details concerning all railroads of Canada are contained in
 Appendix No. 1.
   b. Highways.
   _
      In recent years Canada has greatly increased and improved her road con-
 struction and while there are enormous stretches of country, particularly
 in the northern portion of the Dominion, with few or no roads, the southern
 portion is well served with improved roads.  A number of transcontinental
 motor roads are under construction or projected, the most important being
 the "Kings International Highway" from Montreal to Vancouver, via Ottawa,
 North Bay, Sudbury, Sault Ste. Marie, Winnipeg, MacLeod, Crow's Nest Pass,
 Fernia and Cranbrook.  Another highway is being constructed from
 Calgary to Vancouver.
      The principal roads in Ontario, Quebec and the Maritime Provinces
 are shown on Inclosure D, herewith.  Roads in the Prairie Provinces and
 British Columbia are shown on inclosure E.
      The majority of improved roads are classified as gravel; macadam and
 concrete construction amounting to only 7870 miles out of a total of some
 95,000 miles improved.  Gravel roads will require extensive maintenance
 under heavy motor traffic, especially during the spring.
   c. Water Transportation.
   _
      (1) Inland Waterways.
           The Great Lakes, with the St. Lawrence River, is the most im-
 portant fresh water transportation system in the world.  At the present
 time it affords a draft of 21.0 feet over all the Great Lakes and through
 the Welland Canal into the St. Lawrence.  From the Atlantic Ocean to Mon-
 treal, the present head of ocean navigation on the St. Lawrence, a draft
 of 30.0 feet is available, adequate for the great majority of ocean shipping.
 For some distance above Montreal the present channel has an available depth
 of only 14.0 feet.
          The inland waterway is of prime importance to the economic life
 of both the United States and Canada for the transportation of bulk com-
 modities, especially for the movement of wheat from the western plains to
 shipping centers on the eastern seaboard; of iron ore from the mines in
 Minnesota to foundaries along Lake Ontario; and for coal from  the mines of
 Pennsylvania and West Virginia to Ontario, Quebec and the northwest.


                                  -44-

          The locks at Sault Ste. Marie, the boundary channels between Port
 Huron and Detroit and to a lesser degree the Welland Canal are the critical
 points on this waterway and effective control of such areas is vital to
 Blue.
          Navigation on the Great Lakes is generally closed by ice from
 about the end of November to the first of April.
          The St. Lawrence River is ordinarily ice bound for a similar period,
 but somewhat later about early in December to the latter part of April.
 While there are a number of Canadian lake ports of importance, Montreal is
 the only one which would not be automatically closed by Blue control of the
 Lakes.  Montreal is also an important ocean port and will be considered
 along with other deep sea ports.
      (2) Ocean Shipping.
          The Dominion of Canada owns and operates a cargo and passenger
 carrying fleet consisting of some 57 cargo vessels and 11 passenger ships.
          The principal ocean ports and the magnitude of Canadian ocean
 traffic is indicated by the following tabulation:

 A. Number and tonnage of sea-going vessels entered and cleared at the
 principal ports of Canada. (For year ending March 31, 1934.)

                            SEA-GOING VESSELS
          PORT       arrived      departed    TOTAL TONS (REGISTERED)
          ____       _______      ________    _______________________
 Halifax, N.S. *        1259        1484            7,540,990
 Yarmouth, N.S.          535         519            1,102,191
 St. John, N.B. *        684         688            2,924,822
 Montreal, Quebec *     1078         907            7,266,569
 Quebec, Que.  *         397         308            3,388,829
 Prince Rupert, B.C.    1141        1155              251,881
 Vancouver, B.C. *      2332        2137           11,705,775
 Victoria, B.C.         1927        1938            8,874,481
 New Westminster, B.C.   678         700            3,123,606

                         IMPORTANT SECONDARY PORTS.

 Churchill, Man. *        15          15              132,000
 Three Rivers, Que        79          79              424,560
 Windsor, N.S.            56          69              201,032

 Note: The above figures do not indicate amount of commerce; Register tons
                         ______
 are gross tons. (Namely cubical contents in cubic feet divided by 100)
 less deductions for crews space, stores, etc.

          A brief description of the above ports to indicate size, avail-
 able depths and important terminal facilities is included in Appendix No.
 2.
          While the above tabulation lists the principal ports, it should be
                                               _________
 realized that there are a large number of less desirable ports having
 available depths at low water of from 20 to 30 feet and provided with satis-
 factory terminal facilities, which can be used in an emergency for landing
 troops or supplies.  Examples of this class of harbors are:
                  Pictou, N.S.
                  Sydney, N.S.
                  Canso, N.S.
                  Gaspe', Quebec
                  Sorel, Quebec


                                  -45-

      The port of Montreal, favorably located at the head of ocean naviga-
 tion on the St. Lawrence and the foot of inland navigation of the Great
 Lakes, is a natural shipping and railroad center.  The port of Quebec is
 less favorable situated economically being more than 100 miles northeast
 of Montreal.  Strategically, however, Quebec controls the commerce of Canada
 moving to or from the Atlantic seaboard.  Its possession by Blue would
 interrupt eastern rail and water communication between England and the Mari-
 time Provinces and the rest of Canada.
      The port of Halifax is one of the best harbors on the Atlantic Coast
 and the principal winter port of Eastern Canada.  The harbor has been ex-
 tensively developed by the Dominion government as a modern ocean terminal
 and naval base.  It is fortified, though much of the armament is obsoles-
 cent.  In case of war with Red, Halifax would become of prime importance
 to Red as a naval base and as a debarkation point for overseas expeditions
 in case Blue controlled the St. Lawrence.  However, the routes available
 for a Red advance from Halifax into northeastern United States or towards
 Quebec and Montreal are quite difficult.
      The port of Saint John, New Brunswick is similar in many respects to
 the port of Halifax.  It is open throughout the year and equipped with the
 most modern terminal facilities, including one of the largest drydocks in
 the world.  It is an important shipping center for grain and dairy products.
 Due to the proximity of the port to the United States border and the fact
 that the principal rail connections (C.P. Ry.) passes through the state of
 Maine, the port would be of little use to Crimson or Red, at least in the
 early stages of war, provided Blue made any effort to control this area.
      The port of Vancouver, B.C. came into prominence with the opening of
 the Panama Canal, providing an alternate route to that of the transcontinental
 railroads for grain, dairy, lumber and the other products of western Canada
 to Europe.
      The port of Victoria, on Vancouver Island, is similarly situated,
 but due to the absence of rail connection with the mainland is more concerned
 with passenger and mail traffic than with bulk commodities.  Esquimalt, two
 miles west of Victoria, and the only Canadian naval base on the west coast,
 is equipped with a large modern drydock, and affords good anchorage for the
 largest vessels.  Consequently this area is of prime importance to Crimson.
 With the closing of the Panama Canal to Red traffic and the presence of
 Blue naval forces based on Honolulu, its commercial value is largely des-
 troyed.  Assuming that Blue controls the St. Lawrence and cuts Crimson's
 eastern communication with Red, the areas importance is enhanced, although
 it remains a decidedly unsatisfactory outlet.  If Red should win control of
 the Pacific steamship lanes, the area becomes of first importance to Red.
 All factors considered, it must be controlled by Blue.
      The port of Prince Rupert is a first class harbor with modern terminal
 facilities and excellent and extensive anchorages.  It becomes of extreme
 importance to Crimson, if and when they are denied the use of the southwest
 British Columbia ports, although, as in the case of Vancouver, it affords
 a most unsatisfactory and hazardous route to Europe.  Physical occupation
 of Prince Rupert harbor by Blue is not vital, but closing the port to ocean
 traffic should be effected.
      The port of Churchill, Manitoba now offers a good harbor and limited
 but modern terminal facilities, affording a back door to the Prairie Provin-
 ces and, by way of Moosonee, Ontario, and the Temiskaming and Northern
 Ontario Railroad, with central and western Ontario.  Hudson Bay and James
 Bay are open to navigation only about 4 months of the year, but this condition
 is partially offset by the fact that the distance from the Prairie Provinces


                                 -46-

 to Europe, via Churchill is from 500 to 1000 miles shorter than the rail-
 water route via Montreal.  In case Red is denied the use of the Atlantic
 or Pacific ports, or both, Churchill will afford an outlet for grain and
 meat products from Ontario, Manitoba and Sasketchewan and an inlet for mili-
 tary supplies and troops from Europe unless the northern trade route through
 Hudson Strait is controlled by the Blue fleet, and this is improbable.
   d. Air Transportation (Civil).
   _
      During 1933 there were 90 commercial aircraft operators in Canada.
 Their activities included forest file patrols, timber cruising, air photo-
 graphy, transportation of passengers, express and mail, etc.
      To encourage a more widespread interest and knowledge of aviation
 the Department of National Defense, since 1928, has issued two light air-
 planes and made certain grants to each of 23 flying clubs and a large air
 terminal has been built at St. Hubert, seven miles south of Montreal and
 a terminal airdrome at Rimouski, Quebec for the reception of trans-atlantic
 mails.
      At the close of 1934 there were 101 air fields of all types, 368
 civil aircraft and 684 licensed pilots in Canada.  Some details of airports
 in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia are given in a letter from the Office of
 the Chief of Air Corps, herewith. (See inclosure F)
   e. Telephone and Telegraph.
   _
      (1) Cables.
          Six transoceanic cables have termini in Canada, five on the Atlantic
 and one on the Pacific.  The Atlantic cables are landed at Halifax, though
 several of them are routed through Newfoundland.  The Pacific cable lands
 at Vancouver from whence a cable also leads to the United States.
      (2) Radio.
          A transoceanic commercial radio beam service is carried on by a
 station at Drummondville, Quebec, with Australia, Great Britain and the
 United States.  In 1932 a direct radio telephone circuit with Great Britain
 was opened through the medium of this beam station.
      (3) General.
          Canada is well supplied with local telephone, telegraph and radio
 service.
          Interruption of Canada's trans-oceanic telegraph and radio service
 will seriously handicap Red-Crimson cooperation.
   6. Other Economic Factors.
   a. Agriculture.
   _
      Agriculture, including stock raising and horticulture, is the chief
 single industry of the Canadian people.  Canada is not only self-sustaining,
 as far as food is concerned, but has a large excess for export.  Food pro-
 duction is varied and so distributed throughout the dominion that each
 section is practically self-sustaining and cutting her off from the outside
 would would mere serve to deny her people certain luxuries, such as
 coffee, tea, sugar, spices and tropical fruit.
      The Maritime Provinces are noted for their fruit and vegetable crop,
 particularly for the oat and potato crops of Prince Edward Island and New
 Brunswick and apples in Nova Scotia.  Quebec and Ontario are mixed farming
 communities with the Niagara peninsula specializing in fruit.  Manitoba,
 Saskatchewan and Alberta are the principal wheat producing centers, with
 other grains and stock raising of increasing importance.  The rich valleys
 of British Columbia produce apples, other fruit and vegetables.


                                  -47-

   b. Forests.
   _
      The principal forests are in the provinces of British Columbia, Ontario,
 Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.  The manufacture of lumber, lath,
 shingles and other products such as paper pulp, is the second most important
 Canadian industry.
   c. Mineral Resources.
   _
      Canada is one of the greatest mineral producing countries of the world.
 Nova Scotia, British Columbia, Quebec, Ontario, Alberta and the Yukon Ter-
 ritory contain the chief mining districts.  The following summary notes
 pertinent facts concerning minerals of primary military importance.
      Aluminum.  Aluminum was the 16th ranking Canadian export in 1934.
 Large quantities of bauxite, the principal source of supply were imported
 from the United States.
      Coal.
          There are enormous deposits of coal in Canada, largely in Nova
 Soctia and New Brunswick, in the east and in Alberta, Saskatchewan and
 British Columbia in the west.  Due mainly to the distance of the fields from
 the manufacturing and industrial centers, about 50% of the coal consumed
 is imported from the United States, via the Great Lakes.  Statistics for
 the calendar year 1933 show:
          Produced:
            Nova Scotia               6,340,790 tons
            New Brunswick               314,681  "
            Manitoba                      3,036  "
            Saskatchewan                903,776  "
            Alberta                   4,748,074  "
            British Columbia          1,484,653  "
            Yukon Territory                 638  "
          Imported:
            From United States        8,865,935 tons
            From United Kingdom       1,942,875  "
          Total - - - - - - ............................22,265,235 tons.
 (see slide 14855)
          In case of war with the United States, Canadas coal imports from
 this country would be cut off and her railroads and industrial activities
 seriously handicapped.  If Blue controlled the Quebec area and Winnipeg,
 Canada's railroads and industries dependent upon "steam power" would be
 crippled.
      Copper.
          The world production of copper in 1933 was (in short tons):
            Canada        149,992      Mexico         43,900
            Rhodesia      144,954      Peru           28,000
            Belgian Congo  73,409      Spain and )
            Chile         179,200      Portugal  )    34,720
            Japan          75,459      United States 196,190
          Canada's production was distributed approximately as follows:
            Province                   Tons
            ________                   ____
            Quebec                     35,000 Eastern Townships
            Ontario                    72,700 Sudbury area
            Manitoba                   19,000 Flin Flon
            Saskatchewan                1,600
            British Columbia           21,600 Western Manitoba


                                  -48-

      Iron and Steel.
         Canada ranks seventh among the nations as a producer of iron and
 steel but only a small percentage of her production is derived from domestic
 ores, in view of the abundant supply of higher grade ores in Newfoundland
 and Minnesota.  The Wabana section of Newfoundland contains the largest
 known single deposit of iron ore in the world.  There are large iron ore
 deposits in Quebec, northern Ontario and British Columbia but for various
 reasons they are handicapped for blast furnace treatment.  Iron and steel
 are produced in Nova Scotia (Sydney) and in Ontario.  Iron ore is obtained
 from the Mesabi Range in Minnesota, via the Great Lakes and from Newfound-
 land. (See slide 14856)  The bulk of iron and steel products, however, are
 imported, principally from the United States and the United Kingdom.
      Lead.
          Lead is obtained in Canada largely from deposits in British Columbia,
 the largest porting being exported to England.
      Nickel.
          The world production of nickel in 1933 was about 50,736 tons, of
 which about 82% originated in the Sudbury district, north of Georgian Bay
 in Ontario.  The remainder came chiefly from New Caledonia (Fr.).  A new
 deposit of nickel was recently discovered in northern Saskatchewan but has
 not yet been worked.
          Nickel is necessary to industry and indispensable in war.  Control
 of the Sudbury mines, in case of war, is therefor of vital importance.
      Petroleum.
          The production of crude oil or petroleum in Canada during 1934
 amounted to 1,417,368 barrels, principally from the Turner Valley field in
 Alberta.  A small amount is also obtained from wells near Monkton, New
 Brunswick and in southwest Ontario, between Lake Huron and Lake Erie.
 Considerable quantities are also imported from the United States.
      Zinc.
          Canada ranks fourth among the worlds producers of zinc.  Her out-
 put in 1934 totaled 298,579,531 pounds.  The principal producing mines are
 located in the Kootenay district of British Columbia and near Flin-Flon
 in northwest Manitoba.  Approximately 2/3 of the zinc exported goes to Great
 Britain.
   d. Manufacturing.
   _
      (1) General.
          Canada is the second largest manufacturing country in the British
 Empire, with Ontario and Quebec the most important industrial centers.  The
 relative standing of the various provinces during 1933, based on the value
 of products manufactured, was approximately as follows:
                 Ontario             $1,000,000,000.
                 Quebec                 650,000,000.
                 British Columbia *     146,500,000.
                 Manitoba                91,000,000.
                 Alberta                 55,000,000.
                 Nova Scotia             53,000,000.
                 New Brunswick           45,000,000.
                 Saskatchewan            36,000,000.
                 Prince Edward Island     3,000,000.
        *Includes Yukon Territory


                                  -49-

          The principal industries ranked according to gross value of
 products (1932) are:
           Pulp and Paper                 $123,415,492.
           Central Electrical Stations     117,532,081.
           Non-ferrous metal smelting      100,561,297.
           Slaughtering and meat packing    92,366,137.
           Flour and food mills             83,322,099.
           Butter and Cheese                80,395,887.
           Petroleum Products               70,268,265.
           Bread and other bakery product   51,244,162.
           Cotton yarn and cloth            51,197,628.
           Printing and publishing          50,811,968.
           Clothing factory, women's        44,535,823.
           Automobiles.                     42,885,643.
           Rubber goods.                    41,511,556.
           Hosiery and knitted goods        40,997,210.
           Sawmills.                        39,438,057.
      (2) Munitions.
          (a) Aircraft.
              There are at present six firms manufacturing aircraft as
 follows:
                Canadian-Vickers...............Montreal, Que.
                De Haviland....................Toronto, Ont.
                Curtis Reid....................Cartierville, Que.
                Fairchild......................Longueuil, Que.
                Boeing.........................Vancouver, B.C.
                Ottawa Car Mfg. Co.............Ottawa, Que.
              Aero engine factories have been established by:
                Armstrong-Siddeley Motors Co. at Ottawa, Que.
                Aero Engines of Canada at Montreal, Que.
                Canadian Pratt-Whitney Aircraft Co. at Longueuil, Que.
          (b) Miscellaneous.
                During the World War Canada demonstrated her ability to
 divert her peace time industries to the production of munitions, when she
 manufactured and exported large quantities of shells, fuses, cartridge
 cases, explosives, gun forgings, machine guns and small arms ammunition.
 This production could not be obtained in case of war with Blue but some
 munitions could be produced if her factories were free to operate and raw
 materials were available.  The government arsenal at Lindsey, Ont., is
 equipped to produce small arms ammunition and the arsenal at Quebec manu-
 factures some small arms and artillery ammunition.
   e. Commerce.
   _
      Analysis of Canada's industry and resources indicate that she has a
 sufficiency or surplus of certain raw materials but a deficiency of others.
 The more important of these materials are as follows:
      (1) Sufficiency or surplus;
          Arsenic, asbestos, cadmium, cobalt, copper, feldspar, fish oil,
 fluospar, foodstuffs, furs, gold, graphite, gypsum, lead, leather, magnesium,
 mica, nickel, silver, talc, wood and zinc.
      (2) Deficiency;
          Aluminium, antimony, bauxite, barytes, camphor, chromite, coal,
 cotton, flax, hemp, iron, jute, kaolin, manganese, mercury, nitrates,
 phosphate, petroleum, opium, quinine, rubber, silk, sugar, sulphur, tea,
 tin, tobacco and wool.


                                  -50-

   7. Combat Estimate.
   a. All matters pertaining to the defense of Canada are under a Department
   _
 of National Defense (Act of Jan. 9, 1923) with a minister of National De-
 fense at the head.  A Defense Council has been constituted to advise the
 Minister.
   b. The Navy has an authorized complement of 104 officers and 812 men, a
   _
 large majority serving under 7 year enlistments.  In addition certain spec-
 ialists are loaned from the British Royal Navy.  The Reserve consists of
 from 70 to 113 officers and from 430 to 1026 men recruited from sea-faring
 personnel.
      The ships of the Royal Canadian Navy are:

 Built    Class     Displacement  Name          Location     Status   Armament
 1931  Destroyer     1337 tons    Saguenay    Halifax, N.S. In comm.  4-4.7"
 1931     "          1337  "      Skenna      Esquimalt,B.C. "   "    4-4.7"
 1919     "           905  "      Champlain   Halifax, N.S.  "   "    3-4"
 1919     "           905  "      Vancouver   Esquimalt,B.C. "   "    3-4"
 1918  Mine Sweeper   360  "      Armentieres Esquimalt,B.C. "   "
 1918   "     "       360  "      Festubert   Halifax, N.S.  " reserve
 1918   "     "       360  "      Ypres       Halifax, N.S.  "   "

   c. Army.
   _
      (1) Personnel: Estimated Strength (by G-2):
                            Organized Forces.
                            ________________
                                          Active        Reserve     Total
                                          ______        _______     _____
 Permanent Active Militia                   403                      403
      Officers                              403                      403
      Men                                  3300                    3,300
 Non Permanent Active Militia
      Officers                                           6,911     6,911
      Men                                               44,962    44,962

 Reserves, Non-active
      Officers                                          10,000    10,000
      Men                                               30,000    30,000
                                                     __________________
   Total Organized                        3,703         91,873    95,576 *
 Note: The Canada Year Book, 1935, pp 1114, gives permanent and non-permanent
 active militia 1934:
      Permanent Officers and men---------    3,760
      Non-permanent officers and men-----  135,184
                                           _________
                                   Total   138,941
      The latest information concerning the distribution of the active militia
 is shown on the accompanying map. (Incl. G)
      (2) It is probable that the Non-permanent Active Militia can be brought
 to a strength of 60,000 at M plus 15 and to full strength of 126,000 in M
 plus 30 days.  (Note: This estimate is approximately twice that of G-2,
 First Army.) New troops will begin to appear in 180 days at the rate of
 50,000 monthly.
   d. Air Service.
   _
      The Royal Canadian Air Force operates under a directorate in the office
 of the Chief of Staff of the Army.
           Strength (Dec. 1, 1934)
                Active:
                  Officers          117
                  Men               664
                Reserve:
                  Officers           38
                  Men               236
                                  _____
                          Total   1,055


                                   -51-

      The equipment consists of some 84 combat planes with probably 20 on
 order. (G-2 estimate)  The Armaments Year Book, League of Nations, gives
 a total of 166 planes of all kinds and the Statesman Year Book, 1935 gives
 189 planes of all kinds.  It is probable that about one squadron of pursuit
 and one squadron of observation could be organized for immediate service.
   e. Comment.
   _
      The location of Canada's industry and population along a narrow extent
 front facing the northern United States border and her relatively weak
 military and naval forces, widely dispersed, will necessitate a defensive
 role until Red forces are landed.  The promptness and effectiveness of
 British aid must depend upon suitable debarkation points on Canada's east
 coast.  The West Coast does not favor overseas operations unless Red controls
 the Pacific, and even then is too remote from critical Blue areas.
   f. Red Reinforcements.
   _
      Various estimates have been made of the size, composition, and time of
 placing Red reinforcements in Canada.  In any such estimate, the time factor
 is of prime importance but depends on an unknown quantity, viz, "the period
 of strained relations."
      The following estimate is considered conservative:
                    Probable Enemy Forces in Canada
                    _______________________________
                                   Empire
 Days after       Crimson      (Less Crimson)                 Total
   M Day      men      Div.     Men        Div.        Men         Divisions
    15      25,000      5       ---        ---       25,000            5
    30      50,000      5       ---        ---       50,000            5
    60      50,000      5       126,000*    8       176,000           13
    90      50,000      5       203,000    13       253,000           13
   120      50,000      5       238,000    16       288,000           21
   150      50,000      5       255,000    16       305,000           21
   180      90,000      6       255,000    16       345,000           22
 *Under certain conditions this force might be landed in Canada by 30 M.

                                Air Forces.
                                __________
      Red has available at once 48 squadrons of 10 to 12 planes each.  The
 following forces can probably be landed in Canada as indicated.
                       10 M         13 squadrons.
                       30 M         30 squadrons.
                       60 M         41 squadrons.
                       90 M         56 squadrons.
                      120 M         74 squadrons.
   f. Conclusion.
   _
      Crimson cannot successfully defend her territory against the United
 States (Blue).  She will probably concentrate on the defense of Halifax
 and the Montreal-Quebec line in order to hold bases of operation for Red.
 Important secondary efforts will be made to defend her industrial area and
 critical points on her transcontinental railroad lines.

   8. Areas of Strategic Importance.
      Analysis of the above data and discussion indicates certain areas which
 would become of considerable military importance in the event of war with
 Red; namely,
   a. The Halifax Monkton St. John area, sometimes called the Martime
   _
      Province area.
   b. The Montreal Quebec area, sometimes called the St. Lawrence Area.
   _


                                   -52-

   c. The Great Lakes Area.
   _
      (1) Niagara River Area.
      (2) Sarnia-Windsor Area.
      (3) Sault Ste. Marie Area.
      (4) Sudbury Area.
   d. Winnipeg Area.
   _
      (1) Winnipeg City and vicinity.
      (2) Churchill, Manitoba Area.
   e. Vancouver-Victoria Area.
   _
      (1) Ports of Vancouver and Victoria, area.
      (2) Prince Rupert area.
   f. The reasons why these various areas are strategically important may be
   _
 briefly summarized as follows:
      (1) Halifax Monkton St. John Area. (Maritime Province)
          The port of Halifax is the key point in the area, for while the
 port of St. John affords excellent facilities for an overseas expedition,
 it is so close to the United States border that uninterrupted use by Red
 cannot be expected.  At Monkton, the peninsula connecting Nova Scotia and
 the mainland narrows to 14 miles.  With Halifax in possession of Crimson,
 this area affords the best defensive position to prevent any advance west-
 ward by Red.
          (a). Control of Halifax by Blue would:
               1. Deny Red the only ice free port on the east coast and the
               _
 only ports, other than the St. Lawrence River ports, suitable as an overseas
 base.
               2. Deny Red a prepared naval base on the east coast, from which
               _
 to operate against Blue naval forces or commercial shipping.
               3. Disrupt transoceanic submarine cable service between Crimson
               _
 and Red (except from Newfoundland) and between Crimson and the West Indies.
               4. Deny Red the use of certain air bases from which to operate
               _
 against northeastern United States.
          (b) The control of Halifax by Blue, renders the Port of St. John
 and the Monkton area of secondary importance. Failing to secure Halifax
                                               _______
 control of the Monkton area by Blue would:
 ___________________________
               1. Deny Red the use of St. John Harbor.
               _
               2. Cut the lines of communication between the port of Halifax
               _
 and St. John and the remainder of Canada.
               3. Place Blue directly across the only line of advance (by
               _
 Red) from Halifax, on the shortest possible defensive line.
               4. Deny Red the use of certain air bases from which to operate
               _
 against northeastern United States.
               5. Give Blue the use of various small air fields at Monkton
               _
 and St. John.
      (2) Montreal - Quebec Area (St. Lawrence River Area).
          The ports of Montreal and Quebec, while ice bound about four months
 of the year, still afford the best overseas base both as to facilities and
 location.  In addition the area is of great commercial importance in that
 it controls all lines of communication, by land, sea and wire between in-
 dustrial and agricultural centers of Canada and the eastern seaboard.  While
 Montreal has the larger and more commodius harbor and terminal facilities,
 Quebec, due to its physical location, is the key point of the area.
         Control of this area by Blue would:
         (a) Deny the use of all good St. Lawrence River ports to Red.
         (b) Cut all Canada, west of Quebec, viz. industrial, and agricult-
 ural centers from the eastern seaboard.


                                   -53-

          (c) Deny Red and Crimson and make available to Blue, the principal
 air bases in eastern Canada.
          (d) Deny Crimson coal and iron from Nova Scotia and Newfoundland as
 well as all imports via the Atlantic.
      (3) The Great Lakes Area.
          This area comprises several critical points:
          (a) Niagara River crossings and Welland Canal.
          (b) The waters connecting Lake Huron and Lake Erie.
          (c) The great industrial area of Canada - that part of Ontario lying
 between Lake Huron and Lakes Erie and Ontario.
          (d) The waters connecting Lake Superior and Lake Huron, including
 the Soo Locks.
          (e) The Sudbury nickel-copper mines.
      Control of the Great Lakes waterway is vital to Blue, for the transporta-
 tion of iron ore, coal and grain and such control will necessitate occupation
 of a bridgehead covering the narrow boundary waters at and near the Soo
 Locks and in the Detroit Area.  The bridges over the Niagara River and the
 Welland Canal, connecting Lake Erie and Lake Ontario are of importance to
 Blue for occupation of the Important industrial area of the Niagara-Ontario
 peninsula.  The Welland Canal would become of importance as a line of communi-
 cation if Blue seized the peninsula.  While control of that area is of
 importance in crippling Crimson industry, it is probably of greater importance
 in denying the enemy Crimson and Red, a most convenient base for operations
 against highly industrialized areas in the United States.
      (4) Winnipeg Area.
          Winnipeg is the nerve center of the transcontinental railroad
 system.  Control by Blue will effectively separate eastern and western
 Canada and block transportation on men, grain, coal, meat and oil to the
 east.  The completion of the Canadian National Railroad to Churchill
 Manitoba on Hudson Bay and the development of the port at Churchill provide
 an alternate route to Europe via Moosonee, Ont., and the Tem. and Ont.
 Ry. to northeast Ontario.  While the water route through Hudson Bay is only
 open about four months of the year, and the ports are supplied by single
 track railroads, a considerable amount of traffic could be developed in an
 emergency.
      (5) Vancouver - Victoria Area.
          As pointed out above, the ports in this area are of secondary im-
 portance only under the conditions, which may reasonable be assumed.  How-
 ever, the area has certain military importance, due to the naval base at
 Esquimalt, and is a possible outlet for the Canadian plan provinces and
 western Canada.  Its control by Blue would deny the enemy any base or outlet
 on the West Coast; simplify the problem of protecting our shipping in the
 Puget Sound area; and interrupt cable communication with the far east.
          While Prince Rupert, B.C. has an excellent harbor and terminal
 facilities with good rail connections leading east, naval blockade of this
 port would be readily possible, once the Vancouver - Victoria area was in
 Blue control.

   9. Routes of Approach to the Areas of Strategic Importance.
   a. Halifax - Monkton - St. John Area (Maritime Provinces) (Incls. D & H).
   _
      Three possible routes of approach are considered, viz:
      (1) Via water from Boston or New York to Halifax or vicinity.
      (2) Via water from Boston or New York to ports in Western Nova Scotia
 and thence overland to Halifax.


                                   -54-

      (3) From Eastern Maine, via St. John and/or Fredericton to Monkton -
 Amherst - Truro to Halifax.
   b. Discussion of Routes of Approach to the Halifax - Monkton  - St. John
   _
 (Maritime Province) Area.
      (1) The distance by water from Boston to Halifax is 370 miles and from
 New York 600 miles, or in time about 30 or 50 hours respectively.  The
 Port of Halifax is fortified and would undoubtedly be mined.  A frontal
 attack would require a large force and would involve undesirable delays.
 Other developed ports of Nova Scotia on the Atlantic are too distant from
       _________
 Halifax and involve a long advance after a landing is effected and this
 advance would be over difficult terrain.
          A number of undeveloped bays along the east shore offer favorable
 conditions for landing operations and of these, St. Margarets Bay, the near-
 est, being some 16 miles by road west of Halifax, appears satisfactory.
 Deep water, with a minimum depth of 7 fathoms extends nearly to the head of
 the Bay, not far from Hubley and French Village, which are on an improved
 road and on the railroad from Yarmouth to Halifax.  The bay is protected
 from all winds and seas, except those from the south and is of sufficient
 size to harbor any fleet required for the expedition.  Tidal range is the
 same as at Halifax, 6 to 6 1/2 feet.  There are numerous small but adequate
 boat and barge landings on the west, north and east shore of the bay, from
 whence improved roads lead to the main highway.
          The highway Hubbard - French Village - Hubley - Halifax is 18
 feet wide, of macadam, with east grades and with concrete bridges capable
 of carrying heavy artillery and tanks.  The railroad is single track,
 standard gauge and parallels the road.  It has rather heavy grades and is
 of light construction.
          Rocky wooded hills rise rather steeply to a height of 200 to 400
 feet all around St. Margarets Bay, but the roads are within the 50 foot
 contour and the terrain between the roads and the water is greatly rolling.
 The main highway French Village - Halifax, runs through low rocky hills
 and movement off the roads by wheeled vehicles would be practically im-
 possible.
      (2) The ports on the western shore of Nova Scotia off the Bay of Fundy
 are subjected to extremely high tides - 20 to 25 feet, and generally afford
 only limited terminal facilities and have depths generally inadequate for
 docking transports.  Tidal currents are strong.  From Windsor, on the Avon
 River, to Halifax, there is one improved road and a branch of the Canadian
 Northern Railroad.  The distance is about 50 miles, with high ground and good
 defensive positions in the center of the island.  As a route of approach to
 Halifax it is considered inferior to the route from St. Margarets Bay.
      (3) The All Land Route via Eastern Maine.
          This route involves an advance from the Maine border of approximately
 320 miles over difficult terrain.  The St. Johns River, rising near the border
 of northern Maine, flows south just east of the Maine - New Brunswick border
 to Woodstock, thence generally southeast through Fredericton to St. John.  It
 is navigable from the mouth to the falls some distance above Woodstock, N.B.
 The average tidal range at St. John is 20 1/2 feet, decreasing up stream.  The
 river is crossed by a highway and a railroad bridge at Fredericton, each
 nearly 1/2 mile long.  Two other bridges, a cantilever railroad bridge and a
 suspension bridge span the river about one mile above the city of St. John.
 There are numerous ferries operating alone the river.  It is apparent that
 the St. John River is a serious obstacle to any advance overland from
 Maine.  While the St. John could be bridged, such operations would
 result in considerable delay.


                                  -55-

          The railroad and road nets available are shown on Inclosures B,
 C and D.  They are reasonably adequate for a force of the size probably
 required for this operation.
      (4) Conclusion.
          If Halifax is to be captured without the use of large forces and
 expenditure of considerable time and effort, it must be accomplished promptly
 before Red reinforcements can be landed or Crimson organize for its defense.
 Any advance overland from Maine would eliminate all elements of surprise and
 make the capture extremely difficult - a major operation.
          An overseas expedition is one of the most uncertain of military
 operations, and with the Red fleet on guard in the North Atlantic, with
 Red's immediate military objective the retention of a base in eastern
 Canada for future operations against Blue, a joint operation against Halifax
 must be promptly and perfectly executed to assure any hope of success.  This
 route is considered the best but existing conditions at the time, may make
 this route impracticable, and the all land route necessary.
   c. The St. Lawrence Area. (Quebec - Montreal)
   _
      The only practicable routes of advance for Blue, into this area, are
 from northern New York, New Hampshire and Vermont and from northwest Maine.
 (See map) (Incl. K)
      (1) Rivers.
          (a) The St. Lawrence River flanks the left side of all routes of
 approach to Quebec.  From Montreal to Three Rivers it flows through an
 alluvial plain, with the south bank 25 to 75 feet above the river.  Below
 Three Rivers the banks increase steadily in height to Quebec, where they are
 140 to 175 feet high. The normal rise and fall of the river above the tidewater
 is 10 feet but this maybe doubled by ice jams.  Tidal range reaches a
 maximum of 18 feet at Quebec, and practically disappears at Richelieu Rapids
 40 miles above Quebec. The river above Quebec is obstructed by ice from
 November to April but ice breakers can get through.  The river from Quebec
 to Montreal, generally about 1/2 to 2 miles wide (except at Lake St. Peter)
 is navigable on a 30' draft to Montreal.  The distance from Quebec to Mon-
 treal is 160 miles.
              In the area south of the St. Lawrence, between Quebec and Mon-
 treal, are several rivers of importance which will naturally influence any
 plans for an advance on Quebec, viz:
                          Richelieu River
                          St. Francis River
                          Nicolet River
                          Becancour River
                          Chaudiere River
                          Etchemin River
              Other streams will create obstacles of lesser importance.
          (b) The Richelieu River flows north from Lake Champlain to enter
 the St. Lawrence about 35 miles north of Montreal.  It is navigable on a
 6 1/2 foot draft throughout its length.
          (c) The St. Francis River rises in St. Francis Lake some 50 miles
 northwest of Jackman, Maine.  It flows southwest to Lennoxville, Quebec,
 where it turns sharply northwest to flow into the St. Lawrence (Lake St.
 Peter).  Headwaters are controlled.  The regulated flow is some 3000 feet
 per second or more, with an average fall of 6.6 feet per mile. It is not
 fordable below Sherbrooke.


                            -56-

          (d) The Nicolet River rises in Nicolet Lake, 8 miles west of Lake
 Alymer, and flows generally northwest to empty into the St. Lawrence at the
 east end of Lake St. Peter.  The average low water flow is about 2000 feet
 per second. Banks in the upper reaches - hilly wooded terrain - are steep
 and from 200 to 500 feet higher.  The average fall is about 21 feet per mile
 but there are a number of dams.  From Arthabaska to Lake St. Peter the stream
 flows through a flat open country, with banks 25 feet high or less, except
 for a gorge starting about 4 miles north of St. Clothilda and ending 3 miles
 from Lake St. Peter.  The river is not a serious obstacle but there are many
 swampy areas between it and the Becancour River.
          (e) The Becancour River rises about 5 miles northwest of Lake St.
 Francis and flows north, then southwest, then northwest to enter the St.
 Lawrence a few miles below Three Rivers, Que.  The lower reaches of the
 river, below the vicinity of Lyster, Que, flows through generally flat country
 of gentle slope.  The stream averages 300 to 400 feet wide and is fordable
 at few places.  From Maddington Falls to within 3 miles of the St. Lawrence
 the river flows through a narrow gorge 100 to 250 feet below the surrounding
 flat country.  The river is not a serious obstacle to an advance on Quebec,
 by reason of the general direction of flow in its lower reaches and the
 characteristics of the country.
          (f) The Chaudierre River rises in Lake Megantic, about 45 miles
 west of Jackman, Maine and flows generally north into the St. Lawrence, op-
 posite Quebec.  From Lake Megantic to Hersey Mills, it flows swiftly between
 steep banks in a narrow valley.  The adjacent terrain is rugged and heavily
 timbered.  From St. George to Valley Junction the valley widens materially
 and the country is less rugged.  Below Valley Junction the river flows through
 gentle undulating country between relatively low banks.  The Chaudiere is a
 strong swift stream with an average discharge of over 4000 feet per second.
 The width varies from 200 feet at St. George to 400 feet or more in the lower
 reaches.  From St. Maxine to the St. Lawrence it is 600 to 1500 feet wide.
 This river must be considered a serious obstacle.
          (g) The Etchemin River rises in Lake Atchemin and flows northwest
 into the Chaudiere.  It is 200 to 300 feet wide in the lower reaches, with
 banks generally high and steep.  It forms a considerable obstacle.
      (2) Terrain.
          The southerly portion of the area bordering on the United States,
 east of the Richelieu River, is hilly verging on mountainous (up to 3000').
 The Notre Dame Mountains extend the Green Mountains of Vermont in the form
 of a series of ridges, gradually decreasing in elevation from Lake Champlain
 northeast to the meridian of Quebec, thence northeast parallel to the St.
 Lawrence.  From the St. Lawrence the terrain rises smoothly and gradually
 toward the southeast to the foothills of the Notre Dame Mountains.  On the
 line Montreal Sherbrooke a serious of eight hills (wooded) rise sharply
 to heights varying from 800 to 1500 feet or more above the surrounding
 country.
          In general the hills of the Quebec theatre are wooded, those below
 the 500 foot contour and east of the Becancour River sparsely, while west
 of the river there are densely forested areas at intervals.
      (3) Roads.
          The main roads to Montreal lead north from Plattsburgh, New York and
 Burlington, Vermont.  Quebec may be reached via routes No. 1 and 5, through
 Sherbrooke, Que; via route No. 3 along the south bank of the St. Lawrence;
 or via Montreal and the north bank of the St. Lawrence.  The latter is the
 longest route and undoubtedly the most difficult.  Another route is available
 from Jackman, Maine, via route No. 23 through Valley Junction.  The road
 net available is shown on inclosure No. "D" and "K."


                                   -57-

      (4) Railroads.
          The railroads available are shown on inclosures "B" and "C."  They
 are entirely adequate for any probable movement against this area.
      (5) Discussion of routes.
          (a) Northern New York - Vermont to Montreal
               Roads: No. 9 from Plattsburgh to St. Lambert and South Mon-
 treal.  Distance 69.2 miles, all paved.
                      No. 7 from Burlington, Vt., via St. John, Que. to
 St. Lambert or South Montreal.  Distance 94.2 miles, all paved.  There is
 a bridge across the Richelieu River at St. Johns.  There are two highway
 bridges across the St. Lawrence at Montreal.
              Railroads: Delaware and Hudson - Albany to Montreal.
                         New York Central - Malone to Montreal.
                         Rutland and C.P. - Burlington to Montreal.
                         Central Vermont and C.N. Montpelier to Montreal.
              Comments: The terrain is favorable and no physical barrier
 to the advance as far as the St. Lawrence, except the crossing of the Rich-
 elieu River, for a force moving from Vermont.  An advance on Quebec from
 Montreal is possible, but offers the longest route, with many rivers per-
 pendicular to the line of advance (down the St. Lawrence) which offer
 excellent defensive positions.
          (b) Northern Vermont and New Hampshire to Quebec.
                Physical features: The Richelieu River on the west and the
 Chaudiere and Etchemin Rivers on the east tend to delimit the zone of advance.
              Roads:
                No. 5 - Newport, Vt. to Sherbrook then No. 7 to Valley
 Junction to the highway bridge on the St. Lawrence and to Quebec, or via
 No. 23 from Scott Junction to Levis, Que and the ferry to Quebec.  Distance
 212.5 miles from Newport, Vt.  All improved road, mostly gravel.  Some of
 the road through the hilly country is paved.  No. 5 from Sherbrooke via
 Victoriaville is an alternate route.
                No. 23, Jackman, Maine - Valley Junction - Levis.  This dis-
 tance is 109 miles.  The road is improved and about 50% paved.  It is the
 shortest route.  It crosses the Chauderie and Etchemin Rivers. There are
 numerous alternate routes and connecting roads.
                Railroads:
                   Canadian Pacific - Newport to Quebec.
                   Canadian Pacific - Jackman via Megantic to Quebec.
                   Canadian National - Portland, Me., via Sherbrooke to Quebec.
                Comments:
                   While the terrain in this sector is hilly verging on the
 mountainous, with several defiles and river crossings, it offers the short-
 est and best route of advance on Quebec.

    d. The Great Lakes Area.
    _
        This area must be considered under the following subdivisions, as the
 routes of approach vary, and approach must be made from all of these direc-
 tions.
            The Buffalo - Niagara River Area.
            The Port Huron - Detroit Area.
            The Sault St. Marie or Soo Locks - Sudbury Area.
       (1) The Buffalo - Niagara River Area.
             Bridges cross the Niagara River at Buffalo (Peace Bridge);
 at Niagara Falls (suspension Bridge) and the (lower Arch Bridge) and at
 Lewiston, New York. "      "   "


                                -58-

           Roads: The road net approaching the Niagara River from the
 United States and leading across the river into southern Ontario and through
 Hamilton to Toronto and Montreal, is one of the best along the inter-
 national boundary and is entirely adequate for any probably movement.
           Railroads: The Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National rail-
 roads have a network of railways connecting Buffalo with Toronto and points
 east.  Branch lines lead to all important parts of the Niagara peninsula.
           Comment: The crossings over the Niagara River should be promptly
 secured to assure a line of advance into the Niagara Peninsula of Ontario.

      (2) The Detroit - Port Huron Area.
           This area has much the same characteristics as the Buffalo
 Niagara River Area but beyond securing the crossings over the boundary
 waters, sufficient area to cover the Great Lakes water routes against
 Crimson interference is essential.
           Crossings:
              Ambassador Bridge - Detroit - Windsor.
              Two tunnels (one railroad) Detroit - Windsor.
              Numerous ferries.
           Railroads and roads: There is an excellent railroad and road net
 available for any advance eastward from Detroit and Port Huron.
           Comment: The Ontario Peninsula is of great industrial importance
 to Canada and a military area of great strategic value, as a base for air
 or land operations against the industrialized areas between Chicago and
 Buffalo.  Any Blue operations should advance via Buffalo - Niagara Falls and
 Port Huron - Detroit simultaneously.

      (3) Sault Ste. Marie - Sudbury Area.
           The best route of approach to the Sudbury area, about 200 miles
 east of the Soo, is obviously via Sault St. Marie, along the north shore
 of North Channel.  An operation along this route, automatically covers the
 Soo.  The Canadian Pacific railroad and one good gravel road leads east
 from the Soo.  These provide ample facilities for supply of the probable
 force required.  The southern flank of this line is protected by North
 Sound and the north flank by rough heavily wooded terrain entirely devoid
 of roads or other communications suitable for the movement of armed forces.

      (4) Winnipeg Area.
            The main route from the United States to Winnipeg is north
 from Grand Forks and Crookston through Emerson.  A main road follows the
 west bank of the Red River, from Emerson into Winnipeg.  A good hard sur-
 face road from Grand Forks and one from Crookston furnishes a suitable
 road net south of the border.  There are several secondary roads on both
 sides of the border to supplement the hard surface roads.
            The Canadian Pacific has two main lines extending north from
 the border, one leading from Fargo through Gretna along the west bank of
 the Red River, and one from Thief River Falls, through Emerson along the
 east bank of the Red River.  The Canadian Northern has a line from Grand
 Forks through Emerson Junction to Winnipeg on the west bank of the Red
 River and another line connecting with Duluth and extending through
 Warroad to Winnipeg.
            The best and only practicable route of approach is obviously
 north from Grand Forks and Crookston.  The terrain is flat and open and
 offers no natural obstacles to an advance.


                                     -59-

            Churchill, on Hudson Bay, has rail connection by the Canadian
 National system at Hudson Bay Junction about 325 miles northwest of Winni-
 peg.  The best and only route of approach to cut this line is along the
 railroad from Winnipeg.

      (5) The Vancouver Area (Vancouver - Victoria) (See Incl. E & L) (Omitted)
            The best practicable route to Vancouver is via Route 99 through
 Bellingham, a distance of 55 miles and over a paved highway, through wooded
 and farming country.  A secondary and longer route lies about 15 miles fur-
 ther to the east running through Sumas to strike the highways running east
 from Vancouver at the meridian of Mission City.
             The Grand Trunk Railroad extending from Vancouver to Seattle fur-
 nishes a satisfactory rail service.
             Victoria and Esquimalt, on the island of Vancouver can be reached
 by water only.  Ferry service is maintained between Vancouver and Nanaimo on
 the east shore of the island, some 50 miles north of Victoria and between
 Vancouver, Burlingham and Port Angeles and Victoria.  The best route of ap-
 proach is by water from Port Angeles, Washington.

  IV. Conclusions:
      ___________
   a That the critical areas of Canada are:
   _
          (1) The Halifax-Monkton-St.John Area (The Maritime Provinces).
          (2) The St.Lawrence Area (Quebec and Montreal).
          (3) The Great Lakes Area.
          (4) The Winnipeg Area.
          (5) The Vancouver Area (Vancouver and Victoria).

    b. That the best routes of approach to these areas are:
    _
    To  (1) By joint operations by sea from Boston.
        (2) From Northern New Hampshire-Vermont area.
        (3) (a) From Sault St. Marie and the Soo Locks Area.
            (b) From Port Huron - Detroit Area.
        and (c) From the Buffalo-Niagara Falls Area.
        (4) From Grand Forks-Crookston through Emerson.
        (5) Along Puget Sound through Everett and Bellingham, supported
               by an attack by water in Puget Sound.

    V. Recommendations.
       _______________
          None.

   VI. Concurrences.
       ____________
          The committee concurs in the foregoing conclusions.

                                       CHARLES H. JONES
                                       Major, Infantry,
                                    Subcommittee Chairman.

The original source of this article is Global Research

 

US/Turkey Deal on Syria Like Carving up Cuba Scene from the Godfather Trilogy

BY Stephen Lendman

Source

Comment: Rick Sterling or Stephen Lendman, perhaps one must view the situation in Syria bearing both viewpoints, the latter’s below and the former’s in the previous post. A quagmire such as one in Syria is far too multi-faceted to be comprehended by looking through a singular lens. 

One of the trilogy’s most memorable scenes was in pre-liberated Cuba where mafia dons are seen carving up a cake representing the country.

The Hyman Roth character explains that “all of you will share” in plundering the island state in collaboration with its ruling authorities, adding:

“These are wonderful things that we’ve achieved in Havana, and there’s no limit to where we can go from here.” 

“This kind of government knows how to help business to encourage it…(W)e have now what we have always needed —real partnership with the government.”

Cuba’s strongman despot Fulgencio Batista was like Nicaragua’s Anastasio Somoza, a figure Franklin Roosevelt called “a son of a bitch, but he’s our son of a bitch.”

The characterization applied to Batista, today to all despots serving US interests and their own at the expense of peace, equity and justice.

Since early 2011, Obama’s war on Syria, now Trump’s, using ISIS and likeminded jihadists as proxy Pentagon/CIA foot soldiers continues.

It’s gone on endlessly because bipartisan US hardliners reject restoration of peace and stability to the country and others the US attacked aggressively.

They want all nations not controlled by the US transformed into vassal states, Assad and other independent leaders replaced by pro-Western puppet rule.

War in Syria is also about isolating Iran regionally, ahead of a similar scheme against its ruling authorities.

What’s going on in the Middle East post-9/11 is part of a US-led NATO/Israeli plot to redraw the Middle East map, carving up nations for easier control, looting their resources and exploiting their people.

Tactics include endless wars and chaos in one country after another, serving US imperial interests. Peace and stability defeat its aims.

Russia’s intervention in Syria four years ago changed the dynamic on the ground, most of the country liberated from the scourge of US-supported ISIS and other terrorists, Idlib province the key remaining battleground.

Infested with thousands of heavily armed US-supported al-Nusra jihadists, they’re holding around three million civilians hostage as human shields, defeating them requiring protracted struggle that’s winnable.

The greater issue is occupation of northern Syria by US and Turkish forces, its south bordering Iraq and Jordan by Pentagon troops.

As long as Syria is occupied by foreign forces, liberation remains unattainable.

The illegitimate October 17 US/Turkish deal leaves troops from both countries occupying and controlling Syrian territory — a flagrant international law breach, a scheme Damascus rejects.

It includes redeploying US forces in northern areas largely or entirely cross-border to Iraq and perhaps Jordan, unknown numbers remaining in Syria — thousands more sent to Saudi Arabia, increasing the Pentagon’s regional military footprint.

As portrayed in the Godfather trilogy, the US and Turkey agreed to carve up Syria’s north, ruling authorities of both countries wanting control over its oil-producing areas.

Damascus has no intention of relinquishing any of its territory to foreign occupiers, war likely to continue until all parts of Syria are liberated.

On Friday, Bashar al-Assad met with Kremlin special representative for Syria Alexander Lavrentiev and Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Vershinin.

Discussing the latest developments on the ground, notably Turkish aggression and Erdogan’s deal with the Trump regime, Assad stressed that Syria’s liberation depends on halting Ankara’s offensive and freeing the country from foreign occupiers.

Russian officials affirmed support for Syrian sovereignty and territorial integrity, what the Kremlin backed throughout the war, along with restoration of peace and stability to the country.

On Saturday, the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) reported that Turkish terror-bombing and cross-border shelling continue for the second day following Thursday’s deal in Ankara, saying:

“(R)esidential neighborhoods in Ras al-Ayn and targeted places of worship from mosques, churches and monasteries, which caused the people fleeing the targeted areas” were struck, adding:

A “SANA reporter said that eight civilians were martyred and about 25 others were injured in the ongoing Turkish aggression on Syrian territory in and around Ras al-Ayn city despite the announcement of the Turkish regime reaching an agreement with Washington…”

“(G)roups of the Turkish occupation forces and their mercenaries infiltrated into Ras al-Ayn city and the surrounding villages and attacked with medium and light weapons the people in the villages of Lazka, Abah, Mraikiz, Bab al-Khair and Sheikh Hussein Tomb in Ras al-Ayn countryside.”

“The Turkish regime is launching offensive on a number of villages and towns in the countryside of Hasaka and Raqqa, which resulted in the martyrdom and injury of hundreds of civilians, including children, women and workers in the service sectors, and considerable material damage to service facilities, vital infrastructure such as dams, power and water plants.”

On Saturday, Southfront said the “northeastern Syria ceasefire is collapsing.” Turkish forces continue to attack sites, at least 28 civilians killed or injured.

AMN News said “Turkish forces (are) advanc(ing) (on a) key border city despite (Thursday’s) ceasefire” agreement, attacking Kurdish YPG fighters.

Hardline US and Turkish regimes can never be trusted, time and again agreeing to one thing, then going another way.

Is this what’s now playing out in Syria? What follows Thursday’s deal remains very much uncertain.

If past is prologue, there’s little reason for optimism.

Sorting Facts From Fiction About the US Withdrawal From Syria

By Rick Sterling

Source

The foreign policy elite is in an uproar. They claim we have abandoned our allies, they question how can America be trusted, they say the decision to withdraw from northern Syria was a gift to Russia, Iran, and Assad, to ISIS even. It is true that the U.S. and NATO policy of interventionism is failing, but that has been true since the invasion of Iraq or earlier. After the disastrous invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and an 8-year undeclared war on Syria, isn’t it time to question the foreign policy elite?

If one believes in the restoration of international law and the tenants of the UN Charter, then the withdrawal of U.S. military forces from northern Syria is a good thing. Here are some facts and history that explain why.

Fact: Syria is not our country and U.S. troops were never authorized by its sovereign government to be there. Whether or not Washington likes Damascus is irrelevant, under international law U.S. troops have no right to be there. Even flights over Syrian airspace by the U.S. coalition are a violation of international agreements. The resposbilibility is on Syrians to defend their country against an invading Turkey, and if the Syrian government does choose to enlist support from another country, that is their right.

Fact: President Barack Obama was correct when he said that “putting boots on the ground” in Syria would be a “profound mistake.”  He later said, “We have a very specific objective, one that will not lead into boots on the ground or anything like that.” But the hawks prevailed. There were not only “boots on the ground”, but there was also a shifting rationale of their reasons for being there.

The U.S. and its myriad allies in the region have done all they can, short of a direct invasion, to overthrow the government of Syria. They have spent tens of billions of dollars on weapons, training, equipment and recruitment, all in direct contravention of international law. More than one hundred thousand Syrians have died defending their country against a foreign-sponsored army of mercenaries and foreign fighters.

Fact: The U.S. encouraged the emergence of the Islamic State. Why? Because it put pressure on the Assad government in Damascus and provided a casus belli the US. to enter Syria. While the U.S. carpet-bombed Raqqa, it looked the other way as hundreds of massive convoys carried oil from eastern Syria into Turkey to fund the ISIS operations. The U.S. carried out airstrikes against the Syrian Arab Army in the midst of a critical battle against ISIS near Deir Ezzor. In a now-famous secretly recorded conversation with Syrian opposition activists in New York, Former Secretary of State John Kerry admitted that the United States was hoping to use ISIS to undermine the Syrian government. To put it bluntly, U.S. foreign policy was duplicitous and used terrorism as a tool. This, of course, is a well-documented fact.

After the U.S.-backed “Free Syrian Army” failed to overthrow the Syrian government, the U.S. sought out alternative means. They began to fund Syrian Kurdish militias known as the Peoples Protection Unit (YPG/YPJ). They gave the militias a new name, the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), and encouraged the group’s secessionist tendencies.

Meanwhile, in Turkey, home to the region’s most sizable Kurdish population, Kurds are fighting for their rights and have formed a political party (Peoples Democratic Party – HDP) to unite progressives of all ethnicities. In the 2015 Turkish election, the HDP emerged as the third most popular party and was able to stifle Erdogan’s election domination. The party is currently busy campaigning against Turkey’s invasion of Syria, dubbed Operation Peace Spring.

Back in Syria, Syrian Kurdish militias came to an agreement with the Syrian government on October 13, to jointly combat the Turkish invasion. The agreement specifies that the Syrian Arab Army will control and defend the entire area from Jarablus on the Euphrates River to Syria’s far eastern border with Iraq.

Advocates of U.S. intervention claim that the Kurds were fighting and dying “for us.” Yet, they were defending their own community. The extent to which they accepted and welcomed U.S. air support, equipment, weaponry, etc. was to their own benefit, not a favor to the United States. There were two parties using each other for their own benefit.

Syria Tanf

Whenever the United States attacks or occupies a country, it needs a rationalization. In 1991, it was false claims about incubators being stolen by Iraqi troops in Kuwait. In 2003, there were false claims about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In 2011 there were false claims of civilians being threatened by Libyan troops in Benghazi. All these claims were subsequently found to be either greatly exaggerated or entirely false.

One of the main justifications for a continued U.S. presence in Syria is that we must keep our word and not abandon Kurdish forces. This is a favorite rationalization for war. In Cuba, the CIA-trained Cuban exiles that attacked Playa Giron “were counting on us.” Fortunately, JFK resisted the pressure and said no. In Vietnam, the U.S. continued the war for a decade because “we could not let down our ally,” the governments of Saigon. Millions of Vietnamese were killed and 55,000 U.S. troops lost their lives because we could not “abandon” a government that was, in reality, little more than a proxy.

During the October 15 Democratic Debates, Joe Biden said that the withdrawal of U.S. troops from northern Syria was “the most shameful thing any president had done in modern history in terms of foreign policy.” This is absurd. Over one million died in Iraq including 4,500 and at least 100,000 severely injured U.S. soldiers. Joe Biden was an influential supporter of the 2003 Iraq invasion. Later, as Vice President, he supported the overthrow of the Libyan government. The country is still in chaos with tens of thousands dead. These two countries were devastated by U.S. action. It is evidence of shameless unaccountability in media and politics that Biden is a serious candidate for President after having destroyed so many lives at a cost of trillions of taxpayer dollars. In the same Democratic debates, Tulsi Gabbard was honest and accurate as she said that the plight of the Kurds in northern Syria is “yet another consequence of the regime change war we’ve been waging in Syria.”

Despite the howls of indignation and disinformation,  withdrawing U.S. troops from northern Syria is a step in the right direction.

روسيا «وصفة سحرية» للسعودية والإمارات؟

أكتوبر 16, 2019

د. وفيق إبراهيم

المعادلة التي يستند اليها الرئيس الروسي بوتين في زياراته الحالية لكلّ من السعودية والإمارات تقوم على مبدأ التوقيت الاستراتيجي الملائم، وتبادل منافع فيها سياسة متوسطة والكثير من الاقتصاد.

أما وسائل الإعلام فتتعامل مع هذا الاختراق الروسي لقلب الجيوبوليتيك الأميركي على أساس انه إعلان باقتحام روسيا نادي العالم المتعدّد القطب من بواباته الأساسية وتموضعها المريح في أرجائه.

هذه الزيارة اذاً هي الخطوة الأولى في مسيرة بوتينية طويلة الأمد والمدى، لكنها تأتي مثابة إعلان جهوري بأنّ لدى روسيا حلولاً للبلدان المتراجعة التي تكتنز أهميات استراتيجية واقتصادية.

اما عناصر تسهيل مهماتها فتبدأ من أنّ روسيا لم تعُد دولة ايديولوجية كسلفها السوفياتي. وبالتالي فهي لا تفرّق في علاقاتها بين الدول على أسس مبدئية لأنها تريد الاستثمار في نجاحاتها الاستراتيجية في أميركا الجنوبية وأوروبا الشرقية والغربية وآسيا والشرق الأوسط على مستوى الترجمة الاقتصادية.

هناك إذاً مسلّمة روسية جديدة تناقض ما كان يؤمن به أسلافها الذين كانوا يقسمون العالم بين صديق وعدو، فيما يعتبر الروس الحاليون أنّ العدو هو مشروع صديق يحتاج الى توقيت ملائم وإنجازات كي ينتقل من تموضع الى آخر، وكذلك الحيادي.

لذلك تريّث بوتين بالذهاب الى بلدان قلب المحور الأميركي لاستكمال عدة الإقناع الخاصة به.

وما ان عاودت موسكو الانتشار في أصقاع الأرض بعد سلسلة حروب حتى انحازت فيها الى الخطوط المناهضة للهيمنة الأميركية ونجحت بتشكيل مدى جيوبوليتيكي جديد بانتزاع مدى واسع حتى بدأت أخيراً برحلة القطب الباحث عن المتانة الاقتصادية.

لماذا التدحرج الروسي نحو الخليج الآن؟

هناك نوع من الحلف الروسي السعودي ينظم أوضاع إنتاج النفط في العالم ومتانته أمّنت نسبياً تفاهمات سياسية بينهما في أكثر من مكان مع الاختلاف في بلدين فقط هما سورية وإيران.

حتى انّ وجهة النظر الروسية في أزمة اليمن هي أقرب إلى السعودية من منافسيها هناك.

ما يؤكد انّ روسيا المنتصرة في سورية على الحلف الأميركي السعودي الإماراتي انتظرت تراجع الأدوار السعودية في سورية والعراق واليمن وإيران واستثمرت في الرفض الأميركي لما كانت تريده الرياض من قصف لإيران بعد إصابة مصافٍ في أرامكو بصواريخ ومسيّرات تبناها أنصار الله الحوثيون، لكن الرياض والأميركيين اتهموا الحرس الثوري الإيراني بها.

كما أنّ البيت الأبيض تخلّى عن سورية فيما أدواره في العراق واليمن لم تعد حاسمة ومقابل تراجع الأدوار السعودية الإماراتية في الشرق الأوسط والعالم الإسلامي يتقدم الدور الإيراني على الرغم من الحصار الاميركي.

لقد شكلت السياسات المتردّدة للرئيس الأميركي ترامب قلقاً سعودياً وإماراتياً أصبح ذعراً على مستقبل بلادهما السياسي وسط عودة سورية سياسياً وتقدّم إيران وصلابة حلف إيران في العراق وسورية ولبنان، وعودة الأتراك إلى لغة الاستعمار القديم لتلبية مشروعين: عثماني كامن وآخر للاخوان المسلمين بلبوس تركي. وهذا يرفع من الرهبة السعودية الإماراتية. فإذا كانت حدود إيران الإقليمية لا تستطيع ان تتعدّى حدود السنة العرب والمسلمين لشيعية بلاد فارس فإنّ الطموح التركي يُقدّم نفسه ممثلاً تاريخياً للمسلمين السنة ابتداء من العام 1516 أيّ قبل تأسيس السعودية بأربعة قرون على الأقلّ.

لذلك وجدت السعودية نفسها أمام تخلّ أميركي وحصار تركي إيراني متواكب مع منافسة لأميركيين يريدون تسويق نفطهم وغازهم الصخريين على حساب إنتاجها من الأنواع الرملية.

لجهة الروس فهم على عكس السعودية والإمارات، لا ينفكّون يسجلون الصعود السياسي تلو الآخر ولديهم معوقات اقتصادية وأولها أنّ أراضي روسيا تحتوي على أربعين في المئة من ثروات الأرض، لكن لا قدرة لهم على استثمارها، وهم في طليعة منتجي الأسلحة، لكن اسواقهم لا تزال في بداياتها، كما يواصلون الاعتماد في 40 في المئة من موازناتهم على بيع النفط والغاز.

لذلك بدت الحاجة متبادلة والتوقيت ملائم للبدء بنسج علاقات اقتصادية عميقة بين الطرفين تتمتع بقدرة على وقف التراجع السعودي والإماراتي المريع ودفع موسكو الى مزيد من التقدم.

إنّ ما تريده روسيا هو الاستثمار الخليجي في مواردها الاقتصادية بقسم من تلك الاحتياطات المالية الضخمة المودعة في مصارف الغرب.

هذا الى جانب شرعية المرور الروسي الى العالم الإسلامي بلبوس أصحاب الحرمين الشريفين مع التنسيق الدائم في أسواق الطاقة والتركيز على الغاز الذي تحتلّ روسيا رأس لائحة منتجيه. فيما تمتلك السعودية احتياطات هائلة منه.

الحاجات إذاً متبادلة، لكن موسكو لديها القدرة على وقف التراجعات السياسية الضخمة للرياض بطريقة وقف التدهور المريع في علاقاتها مع إيران وسورية وبالتالي مع العراق واليمن. وهذا بمفرده أكثر من كافٍ لوقف الأزمة البنيوية للسعودية.

فبوتين قادر على أداء دور الوسيط الفاعل بين الرياض وطهران بما له من أهمية عند الإيرانيين وربما يؤمّن الروس مصداقية للوساطة الحالية التي يقوم بها بين البلدين رئيس وزراء باكستان عمران خان فيدفعونها الى النجاح، وبمقدورهم أيضاً تحقيق سجل أبيض جديد بين آل سعود وسورية على قاعدة التعاون ضمن الحدود المقبولة، وهذا يستتبع انفراجات واسعة مع العراق.

أما العقدة الأهمّ فهي اليمن المستتبع الذي أوقعت السعودية نفسها فيه.

لذلك ترى السعودية انّ دفعاً إيرانياً بزخم روسي قادر على إيجاد حلّ سياسي للصراع اليمني السعودي وبشكل جذري.

لذلك فإنّ روسيا وصفة سحرية تعيد تجديد الأدوار السعودية المنهارة ومعها أدوار دولة الإمارات اللاهثة وراء استثمارات اقتصادية موجودة بشكل أكيد في 14 مليون كيلومتر مربع تقريباً هي مساحة روسيا.

يتبيّن بالاستنتاج مدى التكامل الممكن بين الدول الثلاث، لكن السؤال هنا يتعلق بمدى القبول الأميركي به والمدى الذي قد يستعملونه لإيقافه.

لذلك، فالمرجّح ولادة تطور اقتصادي صرف في علاقات هذه الدول، يترقب الفرص الأكثر ملائمة لترجمتها سياسياً في أوقات لم تعد بعيدة أبداً ويصنعها جنون ترامب وشركائه.

Related

Iraq Protests: Spontaneous or Made in the US?

By Stephen Lendman

Source

Iraq Protests e8717

Time and again, when peaceful protests turn violent in various countries, US dirty hands are involved.

There’s no ambiguity about months of protests in Hong Kong, US dirty hands all over them, local elements involved having met with Trump regime and congressional officials, as well as a US consular one in the city.

Nearly a week of violent protests in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq, killing over 100, injuring thousands, security forces among the dead and wounded, bear similarity to the US-orchestrated late 2013/early 2014 color revolution in Ukraine.

The Euromaidan uprising was and remains all about replacing independent democratic governance with pro-Western fascist rule — controlled by the US.

Russia and then-Ukrainian President Yanukovich were falsely blamed for sniper shootings of protesters and police, killing around 100 people, injuring hundreds more.

Then-Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet said “there is now stronger and stronger understanding that behind the snipers, it was not Yanukovich, but it was somebody from the new (putschist) coalition.”

“All the evidence shows” they were shooting at people from both sides. They targeted police and protesters.

Kiev Dr. Olga Bogomolets reported the same thing, citing photos for proof. Paet called her evidence “quite disturbing.”

Snipers were likely CIA-recruited neo-Nazi hitmen. Shots came from one or more buildings overlooking the Maidan.

Snipers with automatic weapons were inside. Eyewitnesses saw them leaving the area’s Philharmonic Hall, carrying military-style bags used for sniper and assault rifles with optical sights.

Former Ukrainian Security Service head Aleksandr Yakimenko confirmed what happened, planned well in advance he said, adding:

Elements involved “carried out everything that they were told by their leadership – the United States.” Maidan leaders practically lived at Washington’s embassy, he stressed.

The battle for Ukraine’s soul was lost, Washington gaining an imperial trophy bordering Russia.

Is what’s going on in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq similar to US-orchestrated Hong Kong protests and the Obama regime’s coup in Ukraine?

Long-suffering Iraqis have legitimate grievances, notably rampant corruption, high unemployment, impoverishment affecting millions, the nation’s youths notably affected, and lack of essential to life public services.

This is unacceptably going on in the oil-rich country with the world’s fifth largest reserves, its ruling authorities serving privileged interests and themselves exclusively, subjecting ordinary people to neoliberal harshness.

Therein lies the root cause of what’s going on. Extreme violence causing thousands of casualties, along with setting dozens of public and private buildings ablaze, storming others, raises red flags — a scenario appearing like dirty hands behind it.

Iraq’s interior ministry spokesman Saad Maan denied security forces were using live fire on protesters, adding “malicious hands” are targeting ordinary Iraqis, police, and other government forces.

Over the weekend, US-installed prime minister Adel Abdul Mahdi’s cabinet issued a decree, including over a dozen intended reforms, notably land distribution, increased welfare payments for needy families, 100,000 new housing units, and benefits for the unemployed — if follow-through actually occurs and makes a difference.

Individuals killed were declared “martyrs,” their families granted special benefits.

Iraqi ruling authorities are allied with the US and Iran, its split loyalty riling Trump regime hardliners, wanting Baghdad allied with their war on the Islamic Republic by other means, along with their overall regional agenda.

They’re reportedly furious over Mahdi blaming Israel for terror-bombing sites in Iraq, opening the al-Qaem crossing between the country and Syria, along with expressing interest in buying Russian S-400 air defense systems and other military hardware from the country, partnering with China to construct essential infrastructure in exchange for oil, and choosing a German company over a US one for an electricity project.

The Trump regime is especially angry over normalized Iran-Iraq relations. Baghdad is notably dependent on Tehran for natural gas and electricity. Both countries share a common border.

Mahdi has tried to stay neutral to avoid greater regional conflict, rather than ally with the US, Israel and the Saudis against Iran. All of the above leaves him vulnerable to regime change by the US.

Iranian leader Khamenei tweeted the following on Sunday: “Iran and Iraq are two nations whose hearts & souls are tied together through faith in God, love for Imam Hussein and the progeny of the Prophet (PBUH).”

“This bond will grow stronger day by day. Enemies seek to sow discord but they’ve failed and their conspiracy won’t be effective.”

Various Arab media sources and independent observers believe the Trump regime is behind days of violent protests in Iraq, internal elements enlisted as proxies to serve its interests by destabilizing the country.

A statement from PM Mahdi’s office said the following:

“(D)emonstrations were already planned a couple of months ago. Baghdad was working to try and ease the situation in the country, particularly since the demands of the population are legitimate.”

“The prime minister has inherited the corrupt system that has developed since 2003. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been diverted into the pockets of corrupt politicians” — and the West not mentioned.

“(T)he (US) war on terror used not only all the country’s resources but forced Iraq to borrow billions of dollars for the reconstruction of the security forces and other basic needs.”

“The latest demonstrations were supposed to be peaceful and legitimate because people have the right to express their discontent, concerns and frustration.”

“However, the course of events showed a different objective: 16 members of the security forces were killed along with tens of civilians, and many governments and party buildings were set on fire and completely destroyed.”

“This sort of behavior has misdirected the real grievances of the population onto a disastrous course: creating chaos in the country. Who benefits from the disarray in Iraq?”

What’s going on is likely connected to a failed plot to kill Quds Force commander of Iran’s IRGC General Qassem Soleimani, a key figure in the country’s counterintelligence operations.

The US seeks unchallenged regional control, part of what years of war on Iraq, Syria, and Yemen is all about.

Other US aggression in Central Asia, north Africa, and economic terror war on Iran remain ongoing for the same reason.

A Final Comment

According to the Lebanon-based Arabic-language al-Akhbar broadsheet, the Trump regime planned ongoing violence and chaos in Iraq months earlier.

An unnamed Iraqi security source said US preparations were made for a “hot fall” in the country, adding:

The US and Saudis may have similar tactics planned in Iran and Lebanon.

A Generation Deleted: American Bombs in Yemen Are Costing an Entire Generation Their Future

By Ahmed Abdulkareem

Source

ADAA, NORTHERN YEMEN — Third-grader Farah Abbas al-Halimi didn’t get the UNICEF backpack or textbook she was hoping for this year. Instead, she was given an advanced U.S bomb delivered on an F-16 courtesy of the Saudi Air Force. That bomb fell on Farah’s school on September 24 and killed Farah, two of her sisters, and her father who was working at the school. It will undoubtedly have an irrevocable effect on the safety and psyche of schoolchildren across the region.

Over the course of Yemen’s pre-war history, which locals fondly refer to as the happy Yemen years, never has an entire generation been subjected to the level of disaster and suffering as that levied upon Farah’s generation by the Saudi-led Coalition, which has used high-tech weapons supplied by the United States and other Western powers to devastating effect since it began its military campaign against Yemen in 2015.

Last week a new school year in Yemen began, the fifth school year since the war started, and little has changed for Yemen’s schoolchildren aside from the fact that the Coalition’s weapons have become more precise and even more deadly, leaving the futures of the country’s more than one million schoolchildren in limbo.

“I want to go to school, I can’t wait any longer,” a relative of six-year-old Ayman al-Kindi told MintPress, recalling how Ayman, surrounded by proud family members, waited impatiently to leave for his first day of school. Ayman would never make it to school; in fact, he never even made it outside. “Ayman wanted to become a doctor but a bomb took him away from school. What these American bombs do to our children is terrifying,” his relative told us.

In late June 2019, Coalition aircraft targeted Ayman’s family home located on their farm in the Warzan area, south of Taiz province in southwestern Yemen. Six of Ayman’s family members were killed, including three children aged 12, nine and six. According to  Amnesty International, the laser-guided precision weapon used in the attack was made by Raytheon. Amnesty’s arms experts analyzed photos of the remnants of the weapon recovered from the scene of the attack by family members and identified it as a U.S.-made 500-pound GBU-12 Paveway II.

The use of a U.S.-made weapon in the attack on the al-Kindi home was no anomaly: most of the weapons possessed by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which between them have carried out a quarter of a million raids on Yemen since the beginning of the war, are American-made. This week, families who lost loved ones in Coalition airstrikes held an exhibition called “Criminal Evidence” in the city of Sana`a. The event was an opportunity to consolidate evidence of potential war crimes and prompted hundreds of Yemeni civilians to attend the event with remnants of U.S.-made weapons in tow, remnants recovered from the rubble of the attacks that killed their loved ones.

Yemen Raytheon

The airstrike on the al-Kindi home was one of nearly a dozen carried out by Saudi Arabia using U.S. weapons that were included in a recent UN report. A team of investigators appointed by the UN Human Rights Council found numerous cases of Saudi airstrikes that violated international humanitarian law and, for the first time, directly implicated the United States, Britain, France and Australia for supplying the weapons used in the attacks.

Charles Garraway, a former military lawyer and one of the experts behind the report, recently told PBS, “We have a war that’s going on. It’s causing immense suffering and frankly most of that suffering is caused by arms.” Garraway continued, “The tragedy in Yemen is so awful at the moment that somehow one has got to reach some form of settlement to stop the war.”

Despite the abundance of evidence proving that Saudi Arabia and the UAE have routinely targeted schools and other civilian facilities, the United States continues to replenish the Coalition’s arsenal. Earlier this year, the Trump administration tried to force through an $8.1 billion arms deal to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Jordan; and, despite growing opposition within his own government, President Donald Trump seems determined to maintain the flow of U.S. weapons to Saudi Arabia and its allies.

Not your normal “back-to-school” day

Eleven-year-old Mohammed AbdulRaham al-Haddi is one the few schoolchildren to have survived the horrific August 9, 2018, Saudi airstrike on a school bus on the outskirts of Dahyan in Yemen’s northwestern province of Saada. The attack killed more than 35 of his classmates, but Mohammed miraculously survived. Today, he returns to school for the first time since the deadly attack, but to an underserved school and without his classmates. Al-Faleh, Mohammed’s new school, lies nestled in a dusty valley near Yemen’s northeastern border with Saudi Arabia

Yemen War Children

The attack on Mohammed’s school bus was carried out using a Mark 82 (MK-82) bomb, jointly manufactured by U.S. weapons companies Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics. The MK-82, along with other general-purpose MK-series bombs, has been sold to the Saudi-led Coalition by the United States through a series of contracts made in 2016 and 2017. In addition to last year’s atrocity, the Coalition has used the MK-82 to target Yemeni civilians in the past, such as its bombing of a funeral in 2016 that left over 140 dead and 525 wounded.

As the war in Yemen enters its fifth year, the tragic consequences of these weapons deals are difficult to describe, but their effects are noticed everywhere. Some 3,526 educational buildings have been at least partially destroyed by bombs since the war began, with most yet to be rebuilt. Of those, 402 were completely destroyed, according to a new field survey conducted by the Ministry of Education. Approximately 900 of Yemen’s schools are still being used as shelters for the internally displaced. And 700 schools have been closed as a result of ongoing clashes.

The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) estimates that two million children are out of school in Yemen. “A fourth of the two million Yemeni children have dropped out since the beginning of the Saudi war in March 2015,” UNICEF representative in Yemen Sara Beysolow Nyanti said in a statement released last Wednesday.

Beysolow raised concerns about the future of Yemeni children, saying:

[They] face increased risks of all forms of exploitation including being forced to join the fighting, child labor and early marriage. They lose the opportunity to develop and grow in a caring and stimulating environment, ultimately becoming trapped in a life of poverty and hardship.”

According to the Geneva-based human rights monitoring organization, SAM, four hundred thousand schoolchildren in Yemen suffer from acute malnutrition, exposing them to the risk of sudden death, 7 million schoolchildren face hunger, and more than 2 million do not go to school.

Even before the war began, the education system in Yemen, the Arab world’s poorest country, was not in good health; a lack of equipment, unqualified teachers, and a shortage of textbooks plagued the country’s schools, which were bursting at the seams with overcrowding. Coalition bombs and a blockade supported by the United States have effectively destroyed what was left, just as schools were beginning to show signs of recovery.

Many of Yemen’s teachers have not received a paycheck in years and some, unable to eke out a living, have sought work as soldiers-for-hire on Yemen’s battlefields, leaving millions of children without prospects for education and the country as a whole with a 70 percent rate of illiteracy. Beysolow warned that the education of a further 3.7 million Yemeni children is at risk, as teachers have not received their salaries for over two years, adding that one fifth of schools in Yemen can no longer be used as a direct result of the conflict. “Violence, displacement and attacks on schools are preventing many children from accessing school,” she said.

In a bid to stop teachers from leaving schools, the Ministry of Education, based in Sana`a, has imposed a fee on students of $2 per month to pay teacher salaries, but that seemingly nominal fee has added a huge burden to families with more than one child, many of whom are living in extreme poverty as a result of the war and siege. “I have six students, meaning that I need to pay $12 a month; I can’t save that amount,” one mother told us. She lost her husband in the clashes that erupted between the former president Ali Saleh and opposition tribes on Hasabah Street in 2011. Now, her only source of income is begging and it is not enough to feed her six children, let alone send them to school.

To make matters worse, just weeks before the new school year began, the Saudi-led Coalition prevented 11 oil tankers from entering Yemen. The move sparked an acute shortage of fuel, which meant that school buses could no longer run, leaving even those with the means to pay school fees unable to send their children to school.

The severe psychological toll

The effect of U.S.-made weapons upon Yemen’s children does not end there. Children who have survived the fighting are often left with physical disabilities and severe and chronic psychological symptoms, turning their environment into the worst place in the world, according to UNICEF.

Beyond the direct casualties from airstrikes, the largely unnoticed and unrecorded (by the world) sounds of explosions and buzzing warplanes are leaving Yemen’s children with irreversible psychological damage.

Yemen War Children

Like other students, Mohammed often gets distracted while at home or sitting in class, unable to focus and laden with severe anxiety. While students the world over occupy their minds with the day-to-day matters that should accompany adolescence, Yemen`s students, especially those who live in border districts, are filled with an ever-present fear of an impending airstrike.

Since the school year began on September 15, the Saudi-led Coalition has reportedly dropped more than a thousand bombs and missiles in 400 separate airstrikes targeting border districts including Sadaa, Hajjah, Sana`a, Amran, Dhali, and Hodeida. The hundreds of sorties are accompanied by frightening whizzing noise and have left great panic in the hearts of civilians, especially Yemen’s schoolchildren.

“Before the war, the sound of planes meant happiness for families who were expecting loved-ones returning [from abroad], but now the sound of planes mean destruction, death, blood,” Dr. AbdulSalam Ashish, a consultant for psychological and neurological diseases, told MintPress. Dr. Ashish continued, “Now, the planes bring nothing but fear and panic and are a reminder of tragedies and crimes that were committed with U.S., British, and French weapons.”

“It was 1:45 p.m., when we heard a missile strike; we were able to calm the students down but when the third strike hit we lost control of the students as they began to scream and chaos spread throughout the school,” Hana Al Awlaqi, a school agent at the  “Martyr Ahmed Abdul Wahab Al Samawi” School, said, recounting the moment a Saudi attack took place just tens of meters away from the school. “The sound of the fourth bomb made matters worse, as the school was being broken into by panicked parents and many teachers were fainting.”

Yemen War Children

Al Awlaqi went on to say that many students convulse into spasms when they hear the sound of airplanes, while others have refused to come back to school. “The sound of an explosion or the buzz of the aircraft stays in the mind. The sound of an aircraft can send these children into severe panic attacks and anxiety,” Dr. Ashish confirmed.

Jalal Al-Omeisi, a pediatric nurse at the Psychiatric and Neurological Hospital in Sana`a told MintPress that most of the cases that arrive at the hospital are from areas subjected to intensive Saudi Coalition raids, such as Sana`a, Hodeida, and Saada, as well as the border areas. Al-Omeisi went on to say that most medics lack the training to deal with the complex psychological issues that these children are developing.

Such experiences in children go well beyond the temporary impact on their education and, without proper care and the knowledge necessary to address treat these psychological issues, many will suffer life-long consequences that hinder their ability to obtain an education. This is especially true in light of the lack of programs, centers or hospitals for the rehabilitation of war-affected children in Yemen.

Asking Americans to open their eyes

Schoolchildren living along Yemen’s porous border with Saudi Arabia and throughout its southern districts face a reality even more grim than that faced by their peers. Many are recruited or even forced to join the fight to defend the Saudi border via local trafficking networks, which funnel children into training and recruitment camps in the southern Saudi provinces of Jizan and Najran, as well as to Yemen’s southern districts.

According to a recent report by SAM, Saudi Arabia has been enlisting thousands of Yemeni children to fight along its southern border with Yemen over the past four years. Those have who died as a result of the fighting at the border are often buried in the Kingdom without their families’ knowledge. At least 300 had to have their limbs amputated as a result of their military injuries.

Yemen Child Soldiers

MintPress managed to speak to dozens of school-aged Yemeni children who were captured in a recent Houthi operation that saw thousands of militiamen, including dozens of schoolchildren, and Saudi officers taken into captivity. Fifteen-year-old Adel was among those captured. He left his home in the southern city of Taiz, chasing promises of a regular paycheck of up to 3,000 Saudi riyals ($800). Adel told MintPress: 

We were left alone in Wadi Abu to face our destiny. Older recruits were fleeing on pickup trucks and armored personnel carriers; Saudi airstrikes hit us as we were surrendering to the Houthis.”

Saudi warplanes targeted the captured mercenaries in Wadi Abu Jubarah, killing more than 300 of their own recruits.

Adel, who left school for the promise of a paycheck, went on to say, “Me and the others were recruited to wash the clothes of Saudi soldiers but they gave us rifles and forced us to go to battlefields.” When asked what he would do when freed, Adel said simply, “I want to go back to my mom and school. I don’t want to fight.”

The recruitment of Yemeni children by Saudi Arabia is not without precedent. Although the Kingdom signed the international protocol banning the involvement of children in armed conflict in 2007 and again in 2011, it was accused of recruiting Sudanese children from Darfur to fight in Yemen on its behalf as late as 2018.

Mohammed, who often visits the memorial to his classmates located only a few hundred meters away from his new school, said he will continue to attend school every day, regardless of how much bombing there is. He asked that Americans open their eyes to see what their weapons are doing to Yemen’s children.

An Unfaithful Servant of Imperialism: The Real Reason Trump Is Facing Impeachment

By Roger D. Harris

Source

The United States has spent EIGHT TRILLION DOLLARS fighting and policing in the Middle East. Thousands of our Great Soldiers have died or been badly wounded. Millions of people have died on the other side. GOING INTO THE MIDDLE EAST IS THE WORST DECISION EVER MADE.”

— Tweet, Donald J. Trump, October 9, 2019.

Granted Trump may arguably be more corrupt than Biden. But that’s splitting hairs over which crook is more crooked. Bullying vassal states and “doing well by doing good” are indicators of finesse in Washington. Inside the beltway, corruption is not a liability for holding high political office, but a requirement. The key to membership in the power elite club is carrying water for the imperial state, and most club members must go through an elaborate vetting process to prove that they are reliable. Some such as Trump slip through.

The sine qua non for membership in this exclusive club is to prove you’ll take a hit for the empire. When the results of the 2000 US presidential election were inconclusive, Al Gore took a fall rather than risk instability at the top: “(for) the strength of our democracy, I offer my concession.” There are higher callings than merely winning the presidency for good servants of the empire.

But would Trump have been so compliant? Maybe not. So, impeachment is in order to either chasten him to faithful obedience or get rid of him.

The Not Thoroughly Vetted President

The presidential primaries are an audition process to see who can best serve the ruling class while conning the public. If the presidential “debates” demonstrate anything, it is that all the contestants are aspiring reality TV stars. Trump was different only in that he had previous experience.

Whenever one of the contestants shows vacillation on empire, they get slapped on the side of the head. Gabbard got summarily dismissed from the debates for her failure of faith in wars of imperial aggression as the highest expression of humanitarianism. Sanders had to grovel, calling the democratically elected president of Venezuela a “vicious tyrant.”

And to qualify for the debates, a contestant must first prove that they are a “serious candidate.” In a “democracy” where bribing politicians is considered “free speech” and where corporations are afforded the constitutional rights of “persons,” the single overriding measure of seriousness is raising bundles of money from the rich. Of course, the rich did not become rich without expecting a return on their investments. Warren’s surge, as it was dutifully reported in the press, came when some of the big money began to shift from Biden to her.

Trump, on the other hand, had his own billionaire’s booty to back him, plus a little help from his wealthy cohorts. As billionaire Ross Perot proved in 1992, if you are filthy rich, you can independently run for president. And, in his case, throw the election from Bush the Elder to Bill Clinton.

To win a presidential election, however, you need more than deep pockets…you need a little help from your friends in getting a major party backing. Why a major party ballot line is so useful has constitutional antecedents.

The revolution of 1776, the last revolution that the US elites liked that was not rigged by the CIA, gave us the Articles of Confederation as the ruling document for the new sovereign. By 1787 the US elites of the time, Hamilton and supporting cast, were chafing under what they characterized as the “excesses of democracy.” A new constitution was drafted and approved with “checks and balances.” What needed to be checked and balanced? Democracy, the direct rule of the people, was what was checked in the new document, while slavery was reaffirmed under the highest law of the land.

The new constitution gave us the Electoral College, whereby presidents are selected by “electors” rather than trusting the direct vote of the people and states can vote as a block. This allowed Trump to triumph even when his opponent received some 3 million more votes. Oddly, his Democratic Party opponents have since focused on alleged Russian interference through Facebook ads rather than the need to make the US Constitution an instrument for the expression of the popular will.

But we are getting ahead of the story because Trump still had to become the frontrunner in a crowded Republican field before he could even take on the other party of capital. Here he had help from friends in unexpected quarters. The Republican establishment hated him, but Clinton and the so-called liberal media became Trump boosters. The corporate media gave the flamboyant Trump a bully platform because it was good for ratings.

Clinton and the Democratic National Committee, as revealed in their leaked emails published by Wikileaks, pulled for Trump because they thought him an easier opponent than, say, the mainstream Republican heir-apparent Jeb Bush. There was precious little difference between the positions of Jeb and Hillary, though the popular images projected by the two major parties superficially diverged. The core of both parties greatly overlaps, while the right fringe of the Republicans and the left fringe of the Democrats provide the contrasting colors but not the contending policy directions.

The 2016 electoral contest was a spectacle of insurgencies. Initially, there was Sanders. That he was somehow considered an “outsider” is a symptom of just how terminally ingrown the US polity has become. How could someone who served years in the US Senate and caucused with the Democrats be an outsider? Sanders ran on two premises: supporting the Democratic Party and raising suppressed issues such as income inequality. He succeeded in the first and failed in the second.

Meanwhile, after 40 years of neoliberalism, CEO compensation has grown 940%  as compared to 12% for typical employees in the US.

Trump in his way also pandered to the genuinely deteriorating condition of US workers. Both the Trump and the Sanders anti-establishment insurgencies, however, were contained within the two-party system and thus were structurally destined not to come to fruition. The establishment won’t come down by joining them.

Unfaithful Servant of Imperialism

Defying even the Las Vegas bookies’ predictions, Trump became the 45th President of the US. He had kvetched about the plight of US workers and made some noise about ending unending wars, but was he for real? After all, Obama had promised to get out of Gitmo and NAFTA, but ended up doing neither. Obama, the former critic of Bush’s Iraq war, continued Bush’s wars and started a handful of his own.

Upon occupying the Oval Office, Trump not unexpectedly threw the working class under the bus with his tax cut for the rich and similar actions, which must have won him some brownie points from the owning class. But to date he has failed to start a new war. The last US president with a similar failing was the one-term Jimmy Carter. And now Trump is showing insufficient enthusiasm for continuing the war in Syria and possibly even a closet aversion to starting World War III with nuclear-armed Russia. These may be impeachable offenses in the estimation of parts of the ruling class.

David R. Sanger, writing in the October 7 New York Times, represents “liberal” establishment views in support of US imperialism: “Mr. Trump’s sudden abandonment of the Kurds was another example of the independent, parallel foreign policy he has run from the White House, which has largely abandoned the elaborate systems created since President Harry Truman’s day to think ahead about the potential costs and benefits of presidential decisions.”

There you have it. Trump is accused of having an “independent” foreign policy, emanating out of his office of all places, even though he is the elected President of the US and the one charged with executing foreign policy.

Who is Trump “independent” from? It’s not the US citizenry according to the Times. As the article points out: “Mr. Trump sensed that many Americans share his view – and polls show he is right… Mr. Trump has correctly read the American people who, after Iraq and Afghanistan, also have a deep distaste for forever wars.”

So, who might Trump have betrayed? According to the article, it’s “circumventing the American generals and diplomats who sing the praises of maintaining the traditional American forward presence around the world.” This is who his alleged crime of independence is against. They fear Trump could “abandon” the post-war imperial consensus.

Donald Trump military spending

Note that the Times, as reflective of current ruling class ideology, no longer bothers to justify the dictates of the world’s sole hegemon as a crusade against the current evil, be it communism or terrorism. Simply, the imperial state must be supported. Hence, Trump’s view that “acting as the world’s policeman was too expensive” or his tweet, “time for us to get out,” have become grounds for impeachment.

The article favorably cites Republican majority leader Senator Mitch McConnell, who called on Trump “to exercise American leadership” by capitulating to the dictates of the imperial state, while contrasting it to that glory day “not even three months after his inauguration, [when] he ordered the first military strike of his presidency.”

The Times article continues: “That system is badly broken today. Mr. Trump is so suspicious of the professional staff – many drawn from the State Department and the C.I.A. – and so dismissive of the ‘deep state’ foreign policy establishment, that he usually announces decisions first, and forces the staff to deal with them later.”

“That system,” cited above, is the post-WWII permanent state. Trump is chastised in the Times for being “so dismissive of the ‘deep state’ foreign policy establishment.” Trump instead, according to the article, has the temerity to make his own decisions and then he expects the agencies of government to follow his instructions. For some, having the elected representative formulate policy and the unelected state apparatus follow it would be democratic. But not so for the cheerleaders of US imperialism.

The Dark Knight Rises

Trump’s habitual corruption and bullying have now been outed by a whistleblower. Unlike Ellsberg, Manning, and Snowden, who sought to correct US imperial policy, this whistleblower comes from the very gatekeeper of imperialism, the CIA. According to his lawyers, there is not a lone whistleblower but a whole cabal of well-placed spooks in the secret US security apparatus. The deep state (I would prefer the term “permanent” state) is more than a conspiracy theory.

The impeachment imbroglio is bigger than Trump. That the outing of Trump was done by a current employee of a US agency shrouded in secrecy, who is unaccountable and unknown, should be a subject of enormous concern for all small-d democrats and not just anti-imperialists. The CIA has the means and mission to overthrow regimes, and now ours may be one of them, however undesirable the current president may be.

We, the people, should take no solace that Trump, in his careening about, may stumble in the direction of anti-imperialism. Trump is just as much an imperialist as the rest. Only he is not as reliably consistent and that is what has gotten leading segments of the ruling class into a hissy fit. The ruling class is not always unified on policy. Here we are, witness, to an intra-class struggle. But we needn’t take sides, because the ruling class is always unified in serving their class interests, which are not ours.

A policy conflict, some have speculated, is raging within the ruling class between Trump’s “isolationist” and a more “globalist” imperialism. Rest assured the ruling class has institutions to adjudicate these disputes such as the Council on Foreign Relations. For the neocons and the “liberal” right-to-protect “humanitarian imperialists,” Trump’s lurches in the direction of non-intervention and rapprochement are only venial sins. The mortal sin would be if the erratic Trump fails to listen to what the Times delicately calls the “professionals.”

A corollary fear is if the “populist” (note how the ruling class thinks of this is a pejorative) Trump listens to the people’s desire for peace. Unlike the first fear, the latter is unwarranted. That is, unwarranted unless and until the people rebuild an independent peace movement to check the rising tide of US militarism.

%d bloggers like this: