The Greanville Post • Vol. VIII All captions, well-deserved insults, and pull quotes provided by the editors, not the authors. Wed, 22 Oct 2014 01:27:15 +0000 en-US hourly 1 Joaquin Flores: Ukraine’s Junta Knows The Hague Is NATO’s Kangaroo Court Wed, 22 Oct 2014 00:45:02 +0000

In this timely interview, Joaquin Flores, Director of the Center for Syncretic Studies, with headquarters in Belgrade, Serbia, correctly denounces the Hague tribunal as chiefly an instrument of US policy and propaganda.


Dr. Vojisalv Šešelj has been subjected to 11 years of detention without conviction in the Hague prison. The court itself is a kangaroo court, created from thin air by the security council and not through the UN’s General Assembly as is mandated by UN provisions.
Joaquin Flores


]]> 0
Now even recognized by the New York Times: Cuba’s Impressive Role on Ebola Tue, 21 Oct 2014 16:16:16 +0000

The Opinion Pages  | EDITORIAL (The New York Times)

Cuba is an impoverished island that remains largely cut off from the world and lies about 4,500 miles from the West African nations where Ebola is spreading at an alarming rate. Yet, having pledged to deploy hundreds of medical professionals to the front lines of the pandemic, Cuba stands to play the most robust role among the nations seeking to contain the virus.

Cuba’s contribution is doubtlessly meant at least in part to bolster its beleaguered international standing. Nonetheless, it should be lauded and emulated.

The global panic over Ebola has not brought forth an adequate response from the nations with the most to offer. While the United States and several other wealthy countries have been happy to pledge funds, only Cuba and a few nongovernmental organizations are offering what is most needed: medical professionals in the field.


EDITOR’S NOTE: The outstanding (but not surprising!) role played by Cuba in this African tragedy was noted already in a previous article on TGP penned by Black Agenda Report editor Glen Ford, who stated: “The Cuban contribution to fighting the disease is enormous. 165 Cuban health workers already arrived in Sierra Leone, a contingent that will soon grow to 461 – part of the 50,000 health professionals the island nation deploys in 66 countries….”


Doctors in West Africa desperately need support to establish isolation facilities and mechanisms to detect cases early. More than 400 medical personnel have been infected and about 4,500 patients have died. The virus has shown up in the United States and Europe, raising fears that the epidemic could soon become a global menace.

It is a shame that Washington, the chief donor in the fight against Ebola, is diplomatically estranged from Havana, the boldest contributor. In this case the schism has life-or-death consequences, because American and Cuban officials are not equipped to coordinate global efforts at a high level. This should serve as an urgent reminder to the Obama administration that the benefits of moving swiftly to restore diplomatic relations with Cuba far outweigh the drawbacks.

What is conveniently not mentioned in this otherwise commendable editorial is America’s shameful and often criminal record of lawlessly stifling and destabilizing Cuba for generations, and the role played by the American mainstream media in supporting and whitewashing this abject exercise. Now obviously a sector of the US ruling class is seeing some benefit in a rapprochement with the island, hence the change in tune we see in its major media, of which this editorial by the New York Times is emblematic. 

The Cuban health care workers will be among the most exposed foreigners, and some could very well contract the virus. The World Health Organization is directing the team of Cuban doctors, but it remains unclear how it would treat and evacuate Cubans who become sick. Transporting quarantined patients requires sophisticated teams and specially configured aircraft. Most insurance companies that provide medical evacuation services have said they will not be flying Ebola patients.

Secretary of State John Kerry on Friday praised “the courage of any health care worker who is undertaking this challenge,” and made a brief acknowledgment of Cuba’s response. As a matter of good sense and compassion, the American military, which now has about 550 troops in West Africa, should commit to giving any sick Cuban access to the treatment center the Pentagon built in Monrovia and to assisting with evacuation.

The work of these Cuban medics benefits the entire global effort and should be recognized for that. But Obama administration officials have callously declined to say what, if any, support they would give them.

RECENT COMMENTS (by NYTimes readers)


Cuba’s compassionate response shames us all. If we are capable of shame, that is.

Gordon Jones

Bravo Cuba. Once again you had stepped up to the plate when world health needs call for it. Would that we could get these US midterms over…

john jones

Will the last Cuban leaving Cuba for the USA please bring your flag!!!!Including all the Cuban doctors and medical people living in…




Bill Maher: the liberal icon either did not know or chose to ignore Cuba’s contribution to the ebola epidemic when he discussed the topic (10.17.14) with David Miliband, heir to the “Miliband” brand of liberaloid/progressive politics in Britain, which is a phony these days as the Clinton/Obama brand. Miliband, too, forgot to mention Cuba. In his case, since ignorance is not a likely reason, the omission is more dastardly.

The Cuban health sector is aware of the risks of taking on dangerous missions. Cuban doctors assumed the lead role in treating cholera patients in the aftermath of Haiti’s earthquake in 2010. Some returned home sick, and then the island had its first outbreak of cholera in a century. An outbreak of Ebola on the island could pose a far more dangerous risk and increase the odds of a rapid spread in the Western Hemisphere.

Cuba has a long tradition of dispatching doctors and nurses to disaster areas abroad. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the Cuban government created a quick-reaction medical corps and offered to send doctors to New Orleans. The United States, unsurprisingly, didn’t take Havana up on that offer. Yet officials in Washington seemed thrilled to learn in recent weeks that Cuba had activated the medical teams for missions in Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea.

With technical support from the World Health Organization, the Cuban government trained 460 doctors and nurses on the stringent precautions that must be taken to treat people with the highly contagious virus. The first group of 165 professionals arrived in Sierra Leone in recent days. José Luis Di Fabio, the World Health Organization’s representative in Havana, said Cuban medics were uniquely suited for the mission because many had already worked in Africa. “Cuba has very competent medical professionals,” said Mr. Di Fabio, who is Uruguayan. Mr. Di Fabio said Cuba’s efforts to aid in health emergencies abroad are stymied by the embargo the United States imposes on the island, which struggles to acquire modern equipment and keep medical shelves adequately stocked.

In a column published over the weekend in Cuba’s state-run newspaper, Granma, Fidel Castro argued that the United States and Cuba must put aside their differences, if only temporarily, to combat a deadly scourge. He’s absolutely right.



]]> 0
Institutionalized US Spying: More Than NSA’s Involved Tue, 21 Oct 2014 15:15:27 +0000

US information agencies grid (click to expand).

Stephen Lendman

Cyrano’s Journal Today 

Washington has 16 known US spy agencies. NSA and CIA are best known. Perhaps few Americans know much about the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA).

It calls itself “first in all-source defense intelligence to prevent strategic surprise and deliver a decision advantage to warfighters, defense planners, and policymakers.”

“DIA deploys globally alongside warfighters and interagency partners to defend America’s national security interests.”

Last December, the Washington Post headlined “DIA sending hundreds more spies overseas,” saying:

It’s “part of an ambitious plan to assemble an espionage network that rivals the CIA in size, US officials said.”

Perhaps it includes covert domestic spying. CIA’s charter prohibits it. According to the ACLU, it “didn’t stop the (agency) from spying on Americans.”

It’s done it for decades. Post-9/11, it’s more stepped up than ever. Information sharing among US spy agencies and local law enforcement nationwide is official US policy.

The pretext is fighting terrorism. It’s a ruse. It’s about control. It targets dissent. It’s about advancing America’s imperium. It wants threats challenging it eliminated.

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) is tasked with coordinating and overseeing intelligence community operations.

DNI’s information sharing’s a platform for what’s becoming the largest/most expansive ever domestic intelligence operation.

No matter what the pretext or excuses, the central purpose of these often redundant and overlapping intelligence agencies is to identify and neutralise dissent and any threats to the global rule of capital.


Virtually anything considered suspicious is monitored. Numerous federal agencies are involved. So-called guidelines authorize intrusive powers.

In 2008, the National Academy of Sciences said data-mining for terrorism methodologically was scientifically “not feasible.” It’s likely to severely infringe on civil liberties and other privacy rights.

WaPo said DIA’s being transformed “into a spy service focused on emerging threats and more closely aligned with the CIA and elite military commando units.”

When expansion’s completed, it’s expected to have around 1,600 “collectors.” They’ll operate globally.

Numbers are “unprecedented for an agency whose presence abroad numbered in the triple digits in recent years.”

Operatives include military attaches and others not associated with “undercover” work. Washington plans “a new generation of clandestine operatives.”

CIA will provide training. The US Joint Special Operations Command’s involved. The Defense Department will decide assignments.

DIA director Lt. General Michael T. Flynn said:

“This is not a marginal adjustment for DIA.” It’s a “major adjustment for national security.”

It’s part of a far-reaching trend. It reflects “convergence of the military and intelligence agencies that has blurred their once -distinct missions, capabilities and even their leadership ranks.”

It’s what the Pentagon calls its Defense Clandestine Service (DCS). It’s the military’s “largest foray into secret intelligence work.”

DIA’s DCS combined with CIA, NSA, and other US intelligence agency growth “will create a spy network of unprecedented size.”

Doing so reflects Obama’s “affinity for espionage and covert action over conventional force.”

It’s about administration counterterrorism policies for sustained conflict. Pieces are being enhanced to do it.

General Flynn said realigning DIA won’t hamper congressional scrutiny. “We will have to keep congressional staffs and members in the loop,” he claimed.

Saying and meaning it are polar opposites. CIA does what it pleases. So do FBI and NSA. DIA’s no different. They’re rogue agencies. They do what they want.

According to US officials, transforming DIA’s “enabled by a rare syncing of personalities and interests among top officials at the Pentagon and CIA, many of whom switched from one organization to the other to take their current jobs.”

Speaking on condition of anonymity, a former senior Pentagon official said “(t)he stars have been aligning on this for a while.”

Top Pentagon intelligence official/CIA veteran Michael Vickers heads the project. Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta approved it. So did former CIA chief David Petraeus.

The Pentagon announced DCS months earlier. It’s highly classified. Details aren’t revealed.

DIA has about 500 “case officers.” Plans call for doubling their numbers by 2018. “Cover” arrangements for hundreds of new spies will be created.

They’ll operate from US embassies and other locations. Perhaps they’ll be in neighborhoods near you. They could be stationed anywhere.

DIA plans global operations. It includes hundreds of diplomatic posts and other operations. Overt “positions will represent a declining share amid the increase in undercover slots, officials said.”

“Placing operatives in conventional military units means finding an excuse for them to stay behind when the unit rotates out before the end of the spy’s job.”

“Having DIA operatives pose as academics or business executives requires painstaking work to create those false identities, and it means they won’t be protected by diplomatic immunity if caught.”

DIA is part of Washington’s global spying network. It’s growing. It’s increasingly menacing. It targets freedom for destruction.

A Final Comment

On August 15, the Huffington Post headlined “Exclusive: Edward Snowden Says Media Being Misled ‘About My Situation.’ ”

He wants the record set straight. He said his father, Lon, attorney Bruce Fein, nor his wife and spokeswoman, Mattie , “represent (him) in any way.”

Snowden wants correct information known about legal advice he’s getting. His full statement says:

“It has come to my attention that news organizations seeking information regarding my current situation have, due to the difficulty in contacting me directly, been misled by individuals associated with my father into printing false claims about my situation.”

“I would like to correct the record: I’ve been fortunate to have legal advice from an international team of some of the finest lawyers in the world, and to work with journalists whose integrity and courage are beyond question.”

“There is no conflict amongst myself and any of the individuals or organizations with whom I have been involved.”

“Neither my father, his lawyer Bruce Fein, nor his wife Mattie Fein represent me in any way. None of them have been or are involved in my current situation, and this will not change in the future.”

“I ask journalists to understand that they do not possess any special knowledge regarding my situation or future plans, and not to exploit the tragic vacuum of my father’s emotional compromise for the sake of tabloid news.”

Thank you.

The ACLU’s been in contact with Snowden for weeks. At his request, it’s “playing a coordinating role to ensure that he receives appropriate legal advice and representation.”

An ACLU statement said:

“(W)e believe that the information Mr. Snowden has disclosed about the nature, scope, and putative legal authorization of the NSA’s surveillance operations has generated a remarkable and long-overdue public debate about the legality and propriety of the government’s surveillance activities.”

“The ACLU has long held the view that leaks to the press in the public interest should not be prosecutable under the nation’s espionage laws.”

Exposing government wrongdoing is a fundamental duty. Whistleblowing reflects exemplary patriotism.

It’s a noble tradition. Doing the right thing is its own reward.


Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at  His new book is titled “Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity.”     Visit his blog site at

 Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.  It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.•••••


]]> 0
The American oligarchy Tue, 21 Oct 2014 14:03:02 +0000



Steve Ballmer: one of America’s REAL super rich and member of the 0.0002% of the bloodsucker class. He just dropped $2 billion to buy a status toy, the LA Clippers. Such morally blind fools determine the course of history today.

There is an unspoken rule in American politics [eagerly enforced by the media—Eds], expressed ever more clearly in each election cycle, that the more important an issue is, the less it can be discussed—much less decided—by the election. The US military has embarked on a new war in the Middle East, democratic rights have been eviscerated, millions are without jobs, household incomes are falling, and a record number of people are being deported from the country. Yet, with the 2014 midterm election just 17 days away, none of these issues are being discussed.

What accounts for this hollowing-out of American politics and the transformation of elections into empty biennial rituals? As with all significant political transformations, these changes are rooted in deeper social processes. One does not have to look all too far to identify them.

Over the past several weeks, report after report has been released documenting the extraordinary growth of social inequality in the United States and throughout the world.

Late last month, Forbes magazine reported that the 400 richest people in the United States saw their wealth grow 14 percent over the past year. The following week, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development reported that global social inequality has eclipsed the pre-Great Depression highs of the 1920s.

This week, Credit Suisse reported that the top one percent of the world’s population control nearly half of all wealth, with the ultra-rich concentrated in the United States.

This was followed by the release of a paper by economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman showing that wealth in the US is increasingly monopolized not merely by the wealthiest 10 percent or even the top 1 percent, but by the top 0.1 percent. They concluded, “Virtually all the increase in the top 10 percent and top 1 percent shares over the last three decades is due to the rise in the top 0.1 percent share, from 7 percent in the late 1970s to 22 percent in 2012.” (PLEASE SEE OUR NOTE BELOW)

Even US Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen, who is overseeing the continued handout of oceans of cash to the financial markets, felt compelled to warn of the “extent of and continuing increase in inequality in the United States.” She noted in remarks Friday, “By some estimates, income and wealth inequality are near their highest levels in the past hundred years, much higher than the average during that time span and probably higher than for much of American history before then.”

What accounts for this hollowing-out of American politics and the transformation of elections into empty biennial rituals?
Incidentally, there’s no “1%” sucking our blood. To those at the apex of the social pyramid, the 1% are pikers. The real sucking is done by the 0.00002% of the population, and imitated by the lower echelons of the super rich.


How can these vast changes in economic relationships not have had a profound and transformative impact on political life?

The historian Edward Gibbon once summed up the political form of the Roman Empire as “an absolute monarchy disguised by the forms of a commonwealth.” Taking our cue from his definition, we can say that the United States has become an oligarchy disguised by the outward, increasingly threadbare trappings of a democracy.

Whatever the pretense of “one person, one vote,” the fact is that the top 0.1 percent dictates policy and essentially selects the personnel tasked with carrying it out. A somewhat broader, still highly privileged and small, section of the population has some influence—the top 5 or 10 percent. The interests and concerns of the bottom 90 percent have absolutely no impact on government actions.

Money buys elections. The 2012 election, the most expensive election cycle in history, was decided by some $6.3 billion in campaign cash. An analysis of elections to the House of Representatives found that 93 percent were decided by which candidate raised the most money. In the 2004 elections, a stunning 98 percent of victorious candidates out-spent their opponents.

2014 is set to be the most expensive non-presidential election in US history, despite widespread popular indifference.

Not only do the politicians do the bidding of the wealthy, they are themselves increasingly numbered among the rich and super-rich. Earlier this year, the Center for Responsive Politics reported that, for the first time in history, most members of the US Congress are millionaires.

Not content with the power it already has, the US ruling class is moving to remove all remaining restraints on money in politics. In April, the United States Supreme Court issued a ruling removing the cap on the total amount of money individuals can contribute to political campaigns.

The financial oligarchy has used its unlimited political power and influence to divert an ever-greater share of the US economy to financial speculation and fraud. The Obama administration and the Federal Reserve, after bailing out the banks, have kept interest rates at zero for nearly six years, fueling a raging financial bubble.

The dictatorship of the wealthy is inextricably tied to the basic structure of the capitalist system. Economic life is totally subordinated to the insatiable profit demands of the giant banks and corporations, whose top executives account for a growing portion of America’s ultra-rich. As the Socialist Equality Party program states, “All the basic needs of the working class come into immediate and direct conflict with the dictatorship of the giant banks and financial institutions over every aspect of political and economic life.”

No progressive change—ending social inequality, guaranteeing the social and economic rights of working people, halting the drive to dictatorship, preventing a new world war—can be achieved without expropriating the vast fortunes of the financial aristocracy and nationalizing the banks and corporations under the democratic control of the working class, i.e., initiating the socialist restructuring of the US and world economy.


Andre Damon is a senior editorialist with, information arm of the Social Equality Party (Trotskyist).



]]> 0
Haiti’s Betrayal by Latin America Tue, 21 Oct 2014 13:25:48 +0000

Et Tu, Brute? 

 Peacekeeping - MINUSTAH

DADY CHERY | NewsJunkiePost

For the 10th year since the forcible removal of elected Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide from Haiti, the United Nations has renewed the mandate of an occupying “peacekeeping force” in the country. The unanimous vote about Haiti happened in an October 14, 2014 meeting of the Security Council that took less than 25 minutes.

The UN’s occupation of Haiti with its Stabilization Mission (Mission des Nations Unies pour la Stabilisation en Haïti, MINUSTAH) is not merely due to the high-handed decisions of its Security Council. At a meeting of the General Assembly on May 7, 2014, for example, when the Secretary General proposed a reduction of MINUSTAH’s yearly budget from $575.89 to $511.31 millions, Brazil proposed that the UN troops should be replaced with UN law enforcement for the same budget. Guatemala argued that the higher sum would be needed to support MINUSTAH’s “essential role in helping Haiti hold legislative and local elections expected later this year,” and Haiti’s representatives said that MINUSTAH could not withstand this 11.2 percent budget reduction because of its need for “a well-balanced budget to fight cholera, among other challenges.” The disparity between Haitian public opinion, which has for years demanded an immediate and total removal of MINUSTAH, and the statements of its politicians is to be expected. Haiti’s representatives were, after all, installed in UN-sponsored elections that excluded the Fanmi Lavalas party and 80 percent of the electorate.

For their repression of Haitians, Brazil and Guatemala expect, not only prestige on the world scene, but also a significant chunk of MINUSTAH’s massive yearly budget. Other Latin-American occupiers of Haiti with similar aspirations include Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Honduras, Paraguay, Peru, and Uruguay. The behavior of these countries’ heads of state is in accord with the expectations of Niccolo Machiavelli, who wrote in The Prince that one should expect the worst treatment from those whom one has helped, because no one wants to reminded of a time when they needed to be helped.

Indeed, without Haiti’s help, there would not have been any independent country in Latin America. On January 1, 1816, when Simon Bolivar arrived in Haiti, downtrodden and desperate for help to fight the Spanish, the only two republics in the Western Hemisphere were the United States, where slave ownership was in force, and Haiti, which had fought for and earned its independence from France, Spain, and the United Kingdom in what is still the only successful slave rebellion ever in the world. Bolivar had been beaten by a massive Spanish expedition in his attempt to free the northern regions of South America. He had been refused help by the British in Jamaica. Before Bolivar, only two years after Haitian Independence, the Venezuelan revolutionary Francisco Miranda had sought and received help from Haitian founding father Jean-Jacques Dessalines; Miranda had left in February 1806 carrying, among other things, a Venezuelan flag that had been designed in Jacmel, Haiti. Bolivar came to Haiti to seek an audience with President Alexandre Petion. Petion agreed to see him the next day.

When the two men met, Petion was 46 years old and had already twice been reelected President of a republic of former slaves. By contrast, Bolivar was 33 and had once been a rich plantation and slave owner. Petion asked Bolivar: “How can you found a republic where slavery exists?” He agreed to help Bolivar on condition that all slaves would be freed in the liberated areas. The pact between these two major historical figures, almost half a century before Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, was necessarily secret because Haiti’s assistance would have been considered an act of war by the United States and Spain. Petion gave Bolivar and his men food and shelter for three months in Haiti. He also built cohesion among Bolivar’s officers and prevented at least one rebellion that would have caused the loss of a ship. Among other things, he forbade the ship’s use for any attack not approved by Bolivar, and he generally warned the men that those who did not follow Bolivar’s leadership would be forced to stay in Haiti and not join the expedition.

Bolivar left Haiti on March 31, 1816 with plans to take Venezuela. He had with him about 250 men, most of them officers, and he was outfitted by Petion with a small fleet, a printing press for propaganda, and weapons for 6,000 men, including 4,000 muskets and 15,000 pounds of gunpowder, money and food. After a disastrous six-month campaign, some of which was blamed on Bolivar’s tactical mistakes due to a reckless appetite for women even in the midst of his battles, he returned to Port-au-Prince, Haiti. Petion, who had just been elected President of Haiti for Life, helped Bolivar once again to recover and organize his most loyal officers. This time he supplied Bolivar not only with materials but also with Haitian soldiers. According to Bolivar’s later writings, “This group of Haitians that faced down 10,000 European tyrants numbered 300 men.” This second expedition left for Venezuela on December 21, 1816. Bolivar’s campaign would be tortuous, but ultimately he would win independence for an area that includes modern-day north-west Brazil, Guyana, Venezuela, Ecuador, Colombia, Panama, northern Peru, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, and Bolivia. As promised to Petion, Simon Bolivar abolished slavery in his territories.


This is where the narrative about Petion and Bolivar usually ends, and it is a great story if one believes in fairy tales. Latin America does not like to be reminded that its great liberator, Simon Bolivar, never formally recognized the Republic of Haiti and never sent any diplomatic representative of his new government to our island republic. In 1826, for the first meeting of the independent states of the Americas, i.e. the Congress of the American States in Panama, Bolivar invited United States President John Quincy Adams, a proponent of the Monroe Doctrine and supporter of the slave trade, but he excluded Haiti.

Ironically, current-day occupiers of Haiti from the regions that had been freed by Bolivar like to recall the “glorious relationship of Bolivar and Petion,” as if this could hypnotize Haitians and ever be a distraction as these occupiers continue a tradition of betrayal. Venezuela does not participate in MINUSTAH, but it is helping the current Haitian regime to build villas on Ile a Vache, an offshore island that the regime’s ministry of tourism is trying to expropriate forcibly from its residents. Leaders of countries like Bolivia, Ecuador and Uruguay present themselves as being independent and anti-imperialistic, yet they do as the US says, as per tradition. All supply MINUSTAH with “peacekeeping troops.”

Like any other occupation force, the UN troops harass, shoot, prostitute, infect and rape as a matter of routine. Moreover, they do so under cover of UN immunity. For example, in 2011, five Uruguayan troops raped a Haitian boy, Johnny Jean and, with their government’s complicity, they got away with their crime despite having videotaped it. Likewise, Argentinian, Brazilian, and Chilean (ABC) troops have faced no criminal charge for their massacres of thousands of Aristide partisans, some of which is immortalized on videotape. Ecuador has sung praises to Petion even as it embraced Michel Martelly and offered to train his army and paramilitary police. Of all the group, Brazil has been the most shameful in securing Haitian reconstruction contracts for its more corrupt industries and trafficking Haitian nationals to work with its worst employers in an arrangement that amounts to slavery.

MINUSTAH Peacekeepers Distribute Food Rations

As Latin America contributes to UN occupation forces in Haiti and elsewhere, it is amassing a repressive army away from the prying eyes of its citizens. The size of this army is unprecedented; it can be activated at a moment’s notice against its home population, and it is loyal mainly to multinational corporations. As this army continues to grow, the so-called Latin-American democracies are becoming nothing more than banana republics with figurehead elected leaders and a powerful military that calls all the shots. We, Haitians, have no choice but to continue our revolution and follow Dessalines’ admonitions to: “Vow before me to live free and independent, and to prefer death to anything that will try to place you back in chains. Swear, finally, to pursue forever the traitors and enemies of your independence.” By denying Haiti, pretending that Haitian independence never happened and trying to destroy Haiti’s slave revolution, Latin America cannot become more powerful on the world scene, it can only lose its way and Haiti’s great gift of independence.

Dady Chery is the co-Editor in Chief at News Junkie Post



]]> 0
Palestinian suffering the media will not show Tue, 21 Oct 2014 12:35:15 +0000

Sad beyond words, but scenes like these are common in Gaza and countless other places where Zionist/American-sponsored imperialism and their allies sow constant destruction and death to subdue target populations. How long must this go on before Americans wake up from their infamously long moral slumber? It is now clear and imperative that the world should hold Western mainstream media moguls and their thousands of overpaid hirelings accountable for high crimes of systematic misinformation and gross omission of truth.


]]> 0
Vote all you want. The secret government won’t change: Even mainstream media admit it Tue, 21 Oct 2014 11:38:19 +0000

The pseudo-democracy at work—
The people we elect aren’t the ones calling the shots, says Tufts University’s Michael Glennon



WHO put Barack Obama in office expected some big changes. From the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping to Guantanamo Bay to the Patriot Act, candidate Obama was a defender of civil liberties and privacy, promising a dramatically different approach from his predecessor.


But six years into his administration, the Obama version of national security looks almost indistinguishable from the one he inherited. Guantanamo Bay remains open. The NSA has, if anything, become more aggressive in monitoring Americans. Drone strikes have escalated. Most recently it was reported that the same president who won a Nobel Prize in part for promoting nuclear disarmament is spending up to $1 trillion modernizing and revitalizing America’s nuclear weapons.

Why did the face in the Oval Office change but the policies remain the same? Critics tend to focus on Obama himself, a leader who perhaps has shifted with politics to take a harder line. But Tufts University political scientist Michael J. Glennon has a more pessimistic answer: Obama couldn’t have changed policies much even if he tried.

Though it’s a bedrock American principle that citizens can steer their own government by electing new officials, Glennon suggests that in practice, much of our government no longer works that way. In a new book, “National Security and Double Government,” he catalogs the ways that the defense and national security apparatus is effectively self-governing, with virtually no accountability, transparency, or checks and balances of any kind. He uses the term “double government”: There’s the one we elect, and then there’s the one behind it, steering huge swaths of policy almost unchecked. Elected officials end up serving as mere cover for the real decisions made by the bureaucracy.

Glennon cites the example of Obama and his team being shocked and angry to discover upon taking office that the military gave them only two options for the war in Afghanistan: The United States could add more troops, or the United States could add a lot more troops. Hemmed in, Obama added 30,000 more troops.

The fly in the ointment is that Glennon, for all his scholarly honesty, is still myopic in locating the cause of this fraud, which is simply the usurpations of power by the reality of capitalist class rule. Class explains it all, it is the 800 lb gorilla in the room, but it is never mentioned by American social scientists.

Glennon’s critique sounds like an outsider’s take, even a radical one. In fact, he is the quintessential insider: He was legal counsel to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a consultant to various congressional committees, as well as to the State Department. “National Security and Double Government” comes favorably blurbed by former members of the Defense Department, State Department, White House, and even the CIA. And he’s not a conspiracy theorist: Rather, he sees the problem as one of “smart, hard-working, public-spirited people acting in good faith who are responding to systemic incentives”—without any meaningful oversight to rein them in.

How exactly has double government taken hold? And what can be done about it? Glennon spoke with Ideas from his office at Tufts’ Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. This interview has been condensed and edited.

IDEAS: Where does the term “double government” come from?

GLENNON:It comes from Walter Bagehot’s famous theory, unveiled in the 1860s. Bagehot was the scholar who presided over the birth of the Economist magazine—they still have a column named after him. Bagehot tried to explain in his book “The English Constitution” how the British government worked. He suggested that there are two sets of institutions. There are the “dignified institutions,” the monarchy and the House of Lords, which people erroneously believed ran the government. But he suggested that there was in reality a second set of institutions, which he referred to as the “efficient institutions,” that actually set governmental policy. And those were the House of Commons, the prime minister, and the British cabinet.

IDEAS: What evidence exists for saying America has a double government?

GLENNON:I was curious why a president such as Barack Obama would embrace the very same national security and counterterrorism policies that he campaigned eloquently against. Why would that president continue those same policies in case after case after case? I initially wrote it based on my own experience and personal knowledge and conversations with dozens of individuals in the military, law enforcement, and intelligence agencies of our government, as well as, of course, officeholders on Capitol Hill and in the courts. And the documented evidence in the book is substantial—there are 800 footnotes in the book.

IDEAS: Why would policy makers hand over the national-security keys to unelected officials?

GLENNON: It hasn’t been a conscious decision….Members of Congress are generalists and need to defer to experts within the national security realm, as elsewhere. They are particularly concerned about being caught out on a limb having made a wrong judgment about national security and tend, therefore, to defer to experts, who tend to exaggerate threats. The courts similarly tend to defer to the expertise of the network that defines national security policy.

The presidency itself is not a top-down institution, as many people in the public believe, headed by a president who gives orders and causes the bureaucracy to click its heels and salute. National security policy actually bubbles up from within the bureaucracy. Many of the more controversial policies, from the mining of Nicaragua’s harbors to the NSA surveillance program, originated within the bureaucracy. John Kerry was not exaggerating when he said that some of those programs are “on autopilot.”

IDEAS: Isn’t this just another way of saying that big bureaucracies are difficult to change?

GLENNON: It’s much more serious than that. These particular bureaucracies don’t set truck widths or determine railroad freight rates. They make nerve-center security decisions that in a democracy can be irreversible, that can close down the marketplace of ideas, and can result in some very dire consequences.

IDEAS: Couldn’t Obama’s national-security decisions just result from the difference in vantage point between being a campaigner and being the commander-in-chief, responsible for 320 million lives?

GLENNON: There is an element of what you described. There is not only one explanation or one cause for the amazing continuity of American national security policy. But obviously there is something else going on when policy after policy after policy all continue virtually the same way that they were in the George W. Bush administration.

IDEAS: This isn’t how we’re taught to think of the American political system.

GLENNON: I think the American people are deluded, as Bagehot explained about the British population, that the institutions that provide the public face actually set American national security policy. They believe that when they vote for a president or member of Congress or succeed in bringing a case before the courts, that policy is going to change. Now, there are many counter-examples in which these branches do affect policy, as Bagehot predicted there would be. But the larger picture is still true—policy by and large in the national security realm is made by the concealed institutions.

IDEAS: Do we have any hope of fixing the problem?

GLENNON: The ultimate problem is the pervasive political ignorance on the part of the American people. And indifference to the threat that is emerging from these concealed institutions. That is where the energy for reform has to come from: the American people. Not from government. Government is very much the problem here. The people have to take the bull by the horns. And that’s a very difficult thing to do, because the ignorance is in many ways rational. There is very little profit to be had in learning about, and being active about, problems that you can’t affect, policies that you can’t change.



]]> 0
Sino/Russian Alliance Challenges West Mon, 20 Oct 2014 21:51:47 +0000

Stephen Lendman

Sino-Soviet ties go a long way back.

Sino-Soviet ties go a long way back.

In his book titled “The Sino-Russian Challenge to World Order,” Gilbert Rozman says both countries have much closer ties than commonly thought.
They’re deepening. United they challenge US hegemony. Leonid Bershidsky is founding editor of Russia’s leading business daily, Vedomosti.

He expects ties between both nations to strengthen and endure. Russia needs to pivot East. China needs access to its enormous resources.
According to Bershidsky, both countries “are made for each other. Despite many cultural differences, their people have more values in common than either share with the West.”
“(D)ifferent paths led (them) to the same spot…They suit each other.” Putin and Xi call each other “good friends.”
“After 25 years of exploring vastly different models of organizing society, Russians and Chinese are close enough in attitudes to join in partnership against the West.”


The Russians have helped China on a number of occasions, although in the past the relationship has had its share of up-and-downs. (click to expand)

Michael J. Green is Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) Asia and Japan Chair senior vice president.
“Is the new alignment between Russia and China a threat to the United States,” he asked? “Moscow and Beijing have not been this close in half a century.”
Xi’s “New Model of Great Power Relations” stresses  “manag(ing) relations with America and “ally(ing)” with Russia.
Both countries share significant interests, Green stresses. Putin and Xi promised increased “coordination” on policy.
Together they challenge Obama’s Asia pivot. They’re a powerful counterforce.
According to Green, “(t)he new Sino-Russian alignment (might) help cure (Washington) of its myopia and force it to think globally as it acts locally.”
Artyom Lukin is Vladivostok-based Far Eastern Federal University School of Regional and International Studies deputy director.
He believes Washington’s dual containment policy binds Russia and China closer together. At the same time, it risks possible WW III.
“The current security situation in the Asia-Pacific – with competing sovereignty claims, the rise of nationalism among both major and lesser countries, and great power rivalry – increasingly resembles Europe a century ago,” he said.
China’s rising power “put(s) it on a collision course with” America. Much like Anglo/German antagonism launched WW I.

Experts believe Washington’s dual containment policy binds Russia and China closer together. At the same time, it risks possible WW III.

Allied with Moscow, Beijing has greater security and access to Russia’s vast resources. United, they “could have Central Asia (and) Mongolia to themselves, effectively shutting out all external powers from the heart of Eurasia.”
“An alliance with Moscow would also put Russia’s military-industrial complex and its vast military infrastructure in Eurasia at Beijing’s service. What might ultimately emerge is a Eurasian league, which, in controlling the continental heartland, would be reminiscent of the Central Powers alliance formed in the middle of Europe by Imperial Germany and the Habsburg empire.”
Washington and other Western nations underestimate the potential for Sino/Russian entente, Lukin believes.  Both countries need each other. They face a common foe. America’s hegemonic ambitions threaten them.
Washington’s Ukraine policy draws them closer together. Lukin calls it “a tipping point, sealing the fate of Eurasian alignments.”  Putin and Xi comprise a “formidable force.” They’ll be around a long time. In 2018, Putin is likely to win reelection. Xi will maintain power until 2022. Perhaps longer as “paramount leader.”
US unipolarity is waning. New order “contours” are taking shape. It remains to be seen how they develop. Will they reflect multipolarity or East/West hostile alliances? Two “grand” ones preceded WW I.
US-led NATO comprises one today. Washington’s dual containment policy forces Russia and China to form an anti-Western counterweight. They’ve done so with BRICS countries Brazil, India and South Africa, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), some G20 countries and Non-Aligned Movement (SCO) ones.

“In return, however, we have seen various reservations and attempts to interfere in our domestic affairs.” (click to expand)

At issue is forgetting history’s lessons. Repeating its mistakes may follow. Not because of Sino/Russian policy. US hegemonic ambitions risk the unthinkable.

Putin hopes for better Moscow/Washington relations. He wants potential confrontation avoided. “(O)ur aim has always been to build open partnership relations with the United States.” he said.  “In return, however, we have seen various reservations and attempts to interfere in our domestic affairs.”
“Everything that has happened since the beginning of this year is even more disturbing.”
“Washington actively supported the Maidan protests, and when its Kiev henchmen antagonized a large part of Ukraine through rabid nationalism and plunged the country into a civil war. It blamed Russia for provoking the crisis.”
“Now President Barack Obama in his speech at the UN General Assembly named ‘Russian aggression in Europe’ as one of the three major threats facing humanity today alongside with the deadly Ebola virus and the Islamic State.”
“Together with the sanctions against entire sectors of our economy, this approach can be called nothing but hostile.”
“The United States went so far as to declare the suspension of our cooperation in space exploration and nuclear energy.”
“They also suspended the activity of the Russia-US Bilateral Presidential Commission established in 2009, which comprised 21 working groups dedicated, among other things, to combating terrorism and drug trafficking.”
“At the same time, this is not the first downturn in relations between our countries.”
“We hope that our partners will realize the futility of attempts to blackmail Russia and remember what consequences discord between major nuclear powers could bring for strategic stability.”
“For our part, we are ready to develop constructive cooperation based on the principles of equality and genuine respect for each other’s interests.”
A previous article discussed strengthening Sino/Russian ties. Western policies draw both countries closer together. For security and trade.
A separate article discussed their hugely important gas deal. Worth about $400 billion over 30 years.
It’s Gazprom’s largest deal ever. No other contractual arrangement approaches it. No other bilateral one anywhere.
Russia will supply China with around 38 billion cubic million meters of natural gas annually. For the next 30 years.
Potentially it could nearly double in size. Depending on China’s future needs.
Both countries are natural partners. They pledged stronger economic and financial ties.
Wider-ranging cooperation. Increasingly trading in their own currencies.
Bypassing dollar transactions. Weakening it in the process. At the time, other key trade deals were agreed on.
In technological, industrial, and commercial sectors. In military hardware.
Growing Sino/Russian trade lessens reliance on increasingly undependable Western sources. China is Russia’s leading foreign trade partner.
A Sino/Russian Investment Committee was established. Its purpose is expanding economic and financial ties.
Diversifying trade. Reducing dependence on global economic conditions.
Promoting cooperation in technology-intensive areas. Including industrial, commercial, banking and military ones.
They’re increasing bilateral ruble/renminbi trade. It bears repeating. Doing so bypasses dollar hegemony. Weakening its reserve status strength over time.
Eventually perhaps ending it. Money printing madness defeats it. So does America’s drive for world dominance.
By yearend, China will surpass America as the world’s top economy. Based on purchasing power parity (PPP). What a representative basket of goods in one country costs v. another.
The speed of its growth is remarkable. Analysts call it one of the greatest success stories in modern times.
As recently as 2005, its economy was less than half the size of America’s.
By 2019, IMF economists expect it to be 20% larger based on PPP. Its phenomenon reflects overall emerging market growth v. developed ones.
In 2007, they accounted for around half of global output. It’s now about 57% and rising.
By the 2020s, it may approach, reach or surpass two-thirds. Since 2007, it’s ninefold what developed nations achieved.
China’s growth is polar opposite America’s. It’s gaining at the expense of its Western rival. It benefits from closer Russian ties.
On October 9, Itar Tass headlined “China plans to sign about 50 agreements with Russia.” In aviation, energy, finance, innovations and infrastructure development.
According to Chinese Foreign Minister Cheng Guoping, both countries will sign dozens of inter-governmental, inter-departmental and corporate documents on different aspects of bilateral cooperation.
From October 12 – 14, Chinese State Council Prime Minister Li Keqiang visited Moscow. His first time ever.
Promoting “stronger political trust, higher mutual support between Russia and China in the field of sovereignty and territorial integrity,” according to Cheng.
Beijing intends “build(ing) up practical cooperation with Russia in aviation and space, energy, high-speed railways, finance, innovations and projects for infrastructure development,” he added.
It’ll “develop humanitarian exchanges, particularly during the Year of Youth Exchanges between Russia and China, as well as joint preparation for celebrations on the occasion of the 70th anniversary of the Victory in World War II in 2015.”
It “intends to expand cooperation with Russia on international issues.” During Li’s visit, energy cooperation will be stressed.
According to Cheng, “(g)as cooperation is an important aspect of Russian-Chinese energy cooperation.”
Beijing and Moscow “are working closely on creating” an alternative route for Russian gas to China.
On September 1, Putin and Chinese Vice Premier Zhang Gaoli launched construction of Gazprom’s Power of Siberia (PoS) pipeline.
It’s hugely important. When completed, it’ll deliver around four trillion cubic meters of gas to China over the next 30 years.
Perhaps double that amount depending on Beijing’s future needs. According to Putin:
“The new gas branch will significantly strengthen the economic cooperation with countries in the Asia-Pacific region and above all – our key partner China.”
PoS will extend 3,968 km when completed. It’ll link eastern Siberian gas fields to China. It’ll be the world’s longest fuel transmission network.
It’s one of the world’s largest construction projects. It’s estimated to cost over $70 billion. It’s a vital investment for both countries.
In his opening remarks, Putin said it’ll “increase energy security and ensure Russia’s ability to fulfill (its) export obligations.”
It’s expected to begin operating in 2019. Siberian gas will supply China’s Northeast and Russia’s Far East. In 2015, China will begin construction on its end.
“Once we create a gas pipeline network here in the Far East and Siberia, we will be able to connect the European pipeline system to the East,” said Putin.
“And this, in terms of export opportunities and expanding Russia’s ‘gasification,’ is very beneficial.”
“Depending on the situation in world markets, we can more effectively implement gas flows – either more to the West or to the East.”
“We generally take a very careful approach to the approval of our foreign partners, but of course, for our Chinese friends there are no restrictions.”
Their relationship is hugely important for both nations. It promises to strengthen over time.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at
His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”
Visit his blog site at
Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.


It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs.




]]> 0