Friday, June 26, 2015

Palestinians submit Israeli war crimes files to ICC

News | 27.06.2015 | 00:01 - The Palestinian Authority on Thursday submitted a first dossier of evidence to the International Criminal Court (ICC) in support of its campaign to have Israel investigated for alleged war crimes.
"The state of Palestine has pledged to cooperate with the court including by providing it with relevant information and it is fulfilling its pledge today," Palestinian Foreign Minister Riad al-Malki told journalists after leaving the court.
"The information provided by the state of Palestine make a compelling case for the prompt opening of an investigation," Malki added.
ICC chief prosecutor Fatou Bensouda in January launched a preliminary probe to see whether there was enough evidence for a full-blown war crimes investigation into last year's conflict in the Gaza Strip between Israel and the Palestinian Islamist movement Hamas.
The documents handed over on Thursday consist of two files: one about alleged Israeli crimes committed in Gaza during the 50-day war in July and August last year that killed 2,200 Palestinians, mostly civilians, and 73 Israelis, mostly soldiers.
The other file deals with Israel's occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, including "information about the issue of Palestinian prisoners," the Palestinian mission in The Hague said.
"Achieving justice is essential for the Palestinian victims, dead and alive," said Malki. "Palestine has chosen to seek justice not vengeance, this is why we are here today."
- 'Counterproductive' -
Israel, which has not signed up to the ICC, has vehemently opposed the Palestinians attempt to trigger an investigation.
Reacting to Thursday's move by the Palestinian Authority, Israeli foreign ministry spokesman Emmanuel Nahshon said it was "nothing more than an attempt to manipulate the ICC", adding "we hope that the prosecutor will not fall into the trap."
The United States, which is also not a signatory to the ICC, also condemned the Palestinian initiative.
The US has "made clear that we oppose actions against Israel at the ICC as counterproductive," National Security Council spokesman Alistair Baskey said.
Thursday's submission is part of an increased focus on diplomatic manoeuvring by the Palestinians, who have been frustrated with the lack of progress in ending the Israeli occupation and creating their own independent state.
The Palestinian Authority ratified the statute creating the International Criminal Court in January.
Its submission of evidence comes three days after the release of a UN report that said both Israel and Palestinian militants may have committed war crimes during the 2014 Gaza conflict.
Bensouda has warned that both sides to the Gaza war could face war crimes charges in the case.
Among the more controversial events of the conflict was Israel's bombing of UN schools being used as shelters for the displaced.
Israel said it was forced to carry out the strikes, claiming Hamas used them to store weapons or fire rockets at Israel.
The ICC was set up in 2002 to investigate and try those responsible for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, where national authorities cannot or will not prosecute.

White House opposes Palestine’s bid to sue Israel

News | 26.06.2015 | 14:02
PressTV - The White House has expressed opposition to a bid by the Palestinian Authority to prosecute Israel for war crimes in Gaza.
Palestinian Authority Foreign Minister Riyad al-Maliki has submitted a dossier to the International Criminal Court (ICC). The files detailed Israeli war crimes in Gaza and its illegal construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
The files were prepared by a 45-member committee, appointed by President Mahmoud Abbas in February, and chaired by Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) negotiator Saeb Erekat.
They complement a preliminary investigation done by ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda into probable crimes on Palestinian territory.
The United States has “made clear that we oppose actions against Israel at the ICC as counterproductive,” National Security Council spokesman Alistair Baskey said on Thursday.
"We do not believe the Palestinians are eligible to accede to the Rome Statute and join the International Criminal Court," added Baskey.
In addition, two US lawmakers warned on Thursday that the US would suspend its economic assistance to the Palestinian Authority. 
“By formally submitting allegations against Israeli forces to the ICC Chief Prosecutor, President [Mahmoud] Abbas has triggered a provision in US law that suspends all economic assistance to the PA,” said Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.), the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee.
Also, Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas) put forward a bill that would include instructions for the assistance in the next fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1.
On Thursday, she sent out a reminder that the directive includes possible limitations on the US financial support to the Palestinian Authority.
Israel also criticized the move, calling it an “attempt to manipulate and politicize the judicial mechanisms of the ICC.”
A separate investigation by the United Nations Human Rights Council has accused Israel of committing war crimes in Gaza War last summer. 
The Tel Aviv regime started its latest aggression against the Gaza Strip in early July 2014. The war, which lasted for 50 days, claimed the lives of over 2,130 Palestinians, including many children and women, and injured some 11,000 others.

Lybia, Another Example of Unlawful Horror Created by The Empire That Needs to Be Confronted

Libya: Situation is Unpredictable

Alexander MEZYAEV | 27.06.2015 | 00:00

The situation in Libya is continuing to develop alarmingly. The current situation in the country is characterised by a complete lack of any signs of a state system. Libya is being devoured by civil war, disintegration, and the seizure of its territory by a huge variety of forces, most notably the Islamic State. Despite the fact that Prime Minister al-Thani took part in the recently concluded African Union summit in Johannesburg as the head of Libya, suggesting that he is actually the one ruling the country would be a sad joke. And although al-Thani’s government is actually recognised by the African Union (and the majority of other countries) as ‘legitimate’, this is more out of despair.
At present, the ‘legitimate’ government is located in Tobruk, about a thousand miles from the country’s capital, Tripoli. But even there, neither Prime Minister Abdullah al-Thani nor his government are in control of anything. In February, the residence of the head of parliament, Saleh Issa, was bombed by Islamic State militants and in May, Prime Minister al-Thani was lucky to survive an assassination attempt. 
Parallel government bodies are operating in Tripoli that also have no control over the situation in the country, just individual parts of the former Libyan Jamahiriya. There is a total of five competing ‘governments’ in Libya, not counting those that have not proclaimed themselves to be a government, but are simply taking power into their own hands. Not a single one of the Libyan ‘governments’ has managed to resolve the country’s main problem – putting an end to the mass violence and establishing at least some kind of control over the situation – and the number of armed groups is only increasing.
The situation was triggered back in 2012 when the latest in a series of favourites in the rank of ‘government’ officially decided to form armed brigades and provide them with law enforcement functions and the right to detention, establishing relatively high rates of pay for those working in them. This immediately led to the emergence of not one, but several parallel armies, police forces and other ‘gendarmes’. Since then, many armed groups have become more efficient, improved their weapons and begun to outperform the national army and police force, while remaining on the payroll of the government. The weapons that once belonged to Muammar Gaddafi’s army have been looted and there is now a powerful uninterrupted flow of weapons into the country from abroad, including heavy artillery and ammunition. Despite efforts to tighten up the arms embargo, weapons continue to flow into the country (1).
Since 90 per cent of Libya’s economy depends on the sale of oil, there is an ongoing bloody struggle for the possession of oilfields, pipelines and ports. In the western parts of the country, the Libya Dawn coalition, which seized the capital of Tripoli and its environs, announced the appointment of a «Government of National Salvation» (after which Prime Minister al-Thani and his government fled to the east of the country). After taking control of Tripoli, Libya Dawn began a large-scale military operation in the area inhabited by the Warshefana tribe to strengthen its control over the city’s surrounding areas. Several weeks of intensive shelling of areas of Aziziya and Swani led to the exodus of more than 120,000 inhabitants. A counter-offensive by Zintani forces launched to prevent the possible advance of Libya Dawn also led to a huge number of deaths and a massive displacement of the population.
Armed clashes in the oil-producing region resulted in the closure of oil loading ports in al-Sidra and Ra’s Lanuf and the destruction of seven of the country’s nineteen oil-storage facilities. There are ongoing armed conflicts in eastern Libya between Operation Dignity forces, mostly made up of Libyan army soldiers and other forces faithful to General Khalifa Haftar, and the Shura Revolutionary Council in Benghazi, a coalition of Islamist militias. The military clashes taking place in Libya are not just about sorting out the armed groups. The situation has long since grown into a civil war. Civilians are increasingly taking part in fighting on both sides and tensions are being stirred up between families.
A particular factor of the current situation in Libya is the creation of the Islamic State in part of its territory. The Shura Council of Islamic Youth in Derna has already sworn allegiance to IS (2). Although not all Islamic organisations in Libya have supported IS, its positions are gradually becoming stronger. So strong, in fact, that in February, Egypt carried out a massive strike on IS positions.
And what has been the UN’s reaction? After all, it was the UN Security Council that passed Resolutions 1970 and 1973, which served as a justification for NATO aggression. So far, the response to what has been taking place has been two new UN Security Council resolutions that will obviously not be able to solve the Libyan crisis. Resolution 2214 on the extension of sanctions against a number of terrorist organisation members, for example, was adopted at the same time as a report was published by a panel of exports from the UN Security Council on Libya, which openly said that the regime of sanctions was ineffectual and virtually did nothing to prevent the illegal trade of oil and the trade of weapons (3). The provisions of another resolution, Resolution 2215, simply come across as clueless: «The UN Security Council reminds the Libyan government that «arms and related materiel, including related ammunition and spare parts, that are supplied, sold or transferred as security or disarmament assistance to the Libyan Government should not be resold to, transferred to, or made available for use by parties other than the designated end user».
Of special note is the role of the International Criminal Court (ICC). During the preparation and carrying out of NATO operations against Libya in March 2011, this institution openly came out as an instrument of war. The arrest warrant issued by the ICC against Muammar Gaddafi was a legal justification for war. Several days ago, the UN Security Council held its regular review of ICC activities in Libya. It became known that the International Criminal Court had launched a new investigation into the Islamic State. However, the proceedings already underway are in limbo. Neither Muammar Gaddafi’s son, Saif Gaddafi, nor al-Senussi (former state security minister in Gaddafi’s government) have as yet been handed over to the ICC, while the ICC itself is acting as if nothing special is going on. While feigning attempts to call for Saif Gaddafi to be handed over to The Hague, the court has abandoned any further demands regarding al-Senussi. And this is with the complete annihilation of the state system, including the legal system!
Essentially, the Security Council is just pretending that something is required of the Libyan authorities, without actually taking any kind of action that would force the Libyan government to comply with its demand. As we saw earlier, the UN Security Council was perfectly capable of achieving its demands when it came to the previous Libyan government. Hence the unavoidable conclusion: neither the ICC nor the UN Security Council really wants Saif Gaddafi’s case to be transferred to the Hague. Why? The answer is perfectly obvious. The case against Saif Gaddafi does not have any kind of real evidence. Transferring the case to The Hague would just give Saif the opportunity to tell the whole world about the crimes the West has perpetrated against Libya. Thus it is perfectly clear that neither the ICC, nor the Western majority in the UN Security Council, want to hold real and, in fact, public hearings against Libya’s leaders. On the contrary, they have a vital interest in the courts either not being held at all or being carried out by Libya’s current authorities without providing any kind of guarantees of justice.
The only country that has criticised the activities of the ICC in Libya has been Russia. The Russian representative on the UN Security Council said: «Following the destruction of its State institutions in 2011, the situation in Libya continues to be a source of multifaceted threats. It is enough to mention the vivid spectre of terrorism, arms trafficking and the unprecedented growth of the criminal business of smuggling migrants across the Mediterranean Sea. The breakup of the State has reached the point at which the Libyan conflict has become a constant, roaring hotspot on the global map of political instability». (4) Only the Russian representative paid any attention to the fact that instead of real reports, the ICC’s prosecutor was providing artistic descriptions more akin «to the materials issued by monitoring missions» than the reports of a judicial authority. The Russian diplomat noted that «the experience of using the ICC to address the situation in Libya in terms of ensuring justice, encouraging prevention and contributing to national reconciliation cannot for the time being serve as an argument in support of proposals to refer other cases to the Court».
And this is where the International Criminal Court has started to show some real activity, hence the investigations into the crimes committed by IS militants. This is a completely new twist in the Libyan case at the ICC. It has absolutely nothing to do with achieving justice, however, it is just that the ICC (and its bosses) wants to use the situation in Libya to penetrate the whole of North Africa. After all, the Islamic State is not just occupying Libyan territory...
(1) «Special report of the Secretary-General on the strategic assessment of the United Nations presence in Libya». UN Document: S/2015/113.
(2) «Report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Support Mission in Libya», S/2015/144.
(3) Final report from the panel of experts established pursuant to Resolution 1973 (2011), S/2015/128. [The group believes that the requesting mechanism for the designation of vessels is ineffective and should be revised. The Panel further found that not only crude oil was subject to illicit export, but also its derivatives, which is likely to provide funding to the ongoing conflict.]
(4) See the transcript for the UN Security Council meeting on 12 may 2015. UN Document: S/PV.7441.

"Help Defending the Latin American Revolutionary Process - Latinos Are Struggling For Survival of The Planet" Andre Vltchek

The World is Turning, Don't Let it Turn Away

Latin American Revolutions Under Attack

Do not take the Latin American revolutions for granted.
They inspired the entire Planet. They brought hope to every corner of our scarred Earth. But now they are themselves in need of our support.
If left alone, they would thrive for decades and centuries. But the Empire is once again on the offensive. It is shaking with fury. It is ready to invade, to smash, burn to ashes all the hopes, all that which had been achieved.
Don’t believe in the “common wisdom” which proclaims that the rulers of the world simply “closed their eyes” more than a decade ago; that George W. Bush was “too busy” ravishing the Middle East, therefore “allowing” most of the Latin American countries to “sneak away” from the iron grip of the Empire.
Such “analyses” are as patronizing as they are false. The Empire never sleeps! What Latin America now has was built on its daring, its sweat, its genius and its blood – it fought against the Empire, courageously, for decades, losing its best sons and daughters. It fought for freedom, for justice and socialism.
The Empire was not “looking the other way”. It was looking straight south, in fury, but for some time it was too confused, too astounded, too shocked at what it was witnessing. Its “slaves” had risen and taken power back into their own hands. They showed to the entire world what freedom really is.
For some time, the Empire was paralyzed by rage and unable to act.
The Empire’s undeniable property, Latin America, inhabited by “un-people” born only in order to supply cheap labor and raw materials to the rich part of the world, was suddenly, proudly and publicly, breaking its shackles, declaring itself free, demanding respect. Its natural resources were now used to feed its own people, to build social housing, create public transportation systems, construct hospitals, schools and public parks.
But after the first wave of panic, the Empire began to do what it does the best – it began the killings.
It attempted to overthrow Venezuelan government in 2002, but it failed. The Venezuelan people rose, and so did the Venezuelan military, defending then President Hugo Chavez. The Empire tried again and again, and it is trying until now. Trying and failing!
“We are at war”, I was told by one of the editors of Caracas-based television network, TeleSUR, for which I made several documentary films. “We are literally working under the barrel of cannon”.
Ms. Tamara Pearson, an Australian revolutionary journalist and activist, who recently moved from Venezuela to Ecuador, explained the difficult situation in Venezuela, a country that is under constant attack from both the US, and the local comprador elites:
“People are suffering a lot. Basic food prices are high, much medicine is unavailable, and various services aren’t working. On one level, people are used to this – the business owners would cause shortages and blame the government before each of the many elections. But usually it’s less intense and lasts just a few months. But this has been going on and getting worse, since Chavez died – over two years now. There is no doubt that the US, and more so, Venezuelan and Colombian elites and business owners are a huge or even the main factor…”
All of revolutionary Latin America is “screaming”.
As I described in two of my recent books, “Exposing Lies Of The Empire” and “Fighting Against Western Imperialism”, the Empire is using similar destabilization strategy against all countries that are resisting its deadly embrace.
Its propaganda is mighty and omnipresent. CNN and FOX TV are beamed into almost all major hotels and airports of Latin America, even in some revolutionary countries like Ecuador. Almost all major newspapers of the continent, including those in Venezuela, Ecuador, Chile and Argentina, are controlled by the right wing business elites. Almost all of the foreign news coverage comes from European and North American sources, making the Latin American public totally confused about Islam, China, Russia, South Africa, Iran, even about their own neighbors.
The local elites continue to serve foreign interests, their loyalties firmly with North America and Europe.
Every left wing Latin American government has been facing bizarre protests and subversion actions conducted by the elites. Destabilization tactics have been clearly designed in far away capitals. They were mass-produced and therefore almost identical to those the West has been using against China, Russia, South Africa, and other “rebellious” nations.
Propaganda, disinformation and spreading of confusion have been some of the mightiest tools of the fascist right wing.
“Economic uncertainty” is an extremely powerful weapon. It was used first in Chile, in the 1973 coup against socialist President Salvador Allende. Pro-Western Chilean elites and businessmen created food shortages, and then blamed it on the socialist government, using El Mercurio and other daily newspapers as their propaganda tools.
Peter Koenig, former World Bank economist and now prominent dissident and critic of the world neoliberal regime, wrote for this essay:
“Today Madame Bachelet, the socialist President of Chile has a hard time fighting against the Mercurio inspired Chilean oligarchs. They will not let go. Recently they invited the World Bank to assess the school reform package proposed by Bachelet, basically to return universities to the public sector. Of course, the ‘upper class’ of Chileans knew that the World Bank would come up with nothing less than predicting an economic disaster if the reform is approved. As a result, Bachelet made concessions – which on the other hand are not accepted by professors and teachers. It’s the first step towards chaos – and chaos is what the empire attempts to implant in every country where they strive for ‘regime change’.”
But one of the “dirtiest” of their weapons is the accusation of corruption. Corrupt pro-Western politicians and individuals who misused tens, even hundreds of millions of dollars of the peoples money and destroyed the economies of their countries by taking unserviceable loans that kept disappearing into their deep pockets, are now pointing their soiled fingers at relatively clean governments, in countries like Chile and Argentina. Everything in “Southern Cone” and in Brazil is now under scrutiny.
Peter Koenig (who co-authored a book “The World Order and Revolution!: Essays from the Resistance” with leading Canadian international lawyer Christopher Black and me) shows how important is, for the Empire, destabilization of Brazil, one of the key members of BRICS:
“Brazil being a member of the BRICS is particularly in the crosshairs of the empire – as the BRICS have to be destabilized, divided – they are becoming an economic threat to Washington. Brazil is key for the non-Asian part of the BRICS. A fall of Brazil would be a major blow to the cohesion of the BRICS.”
There are totally different standards for pro-Western fascist politicians and for those from the Left. The Left can get away with nothing, while the Right has been getting away literally with mass murder and with the disappearance of tens of billions of dollars.
It is, of course, the common strategy in all the client states of the West. For instance, one of the most corrupt countries on earth, Indonesia, tolerates absolute sleaze and graft from former generals, but when progressive socialist Muslim leader, Abdurrahman Wahid, became the President, he was smeared and removed in a short time, on “corruption” charges.
After centuries of the Monroe Doctrine, after mass murder committed in “Latin” America first by Europeans and then by North Americans and their rich local butlers, it will take long decades to fully eradicate the corruption, because corruption comes with the moral collapse of the colonial powers and the local elites. Financial greed is only its byproduct.
The great pre-colonial cultures of what are now Peru, Ecuador and Bolivia did not have corruption. Corruption was injected by Western colonialism.
And now, corruption under left wing, revolutionary governments still exists, since it is difficult to root out all the rats at once, but it is incomparably smaller than under the previous fascist right wing cliques!
The rich in Latin America are heartless, servile (to the Empire) and greedy in the extreme. Latin America has still the most unequal distribution of wealth on earth. True, it is much richer (and even its poor are richer, with some exceptions of Central America, Peru or Paraguay) than Africa or even in Southeast Asia, but this cannot be used as an excuse.
Even the most progressive socialist governments now in power would ever dare to touch, to slap the private enterprises too hard. From this angle, China with its central planning and controlled economy is much more socialist than Ecuador or Bolivia.
A few days ago, as I was flying from Ecuador to Peru, I read that the number of multimillionaires in Latin America was actually increasing, and so is the social gap between the rich and the rest of the societies. The article was using some anecdotal evidence, saying that, for instance, in Chile alone, now, more Porsche sports cars are sold than in entirety of Latin America few years ago. As if confirming it, I noticed a Porsche auto dealership next to my hotel in Asuncion, the capital of the second poorest country in South America. I asked for numbers, but Porsche manager refused to supply them, still proudly claiming that his company was “doing very well”.
So what do they – the elites” – really want? They have money, plenty of money. They have luxury cars, estates in their own countries, and condominiums abroad. What more?
As in Thailand, Philippines, Indonesia or Kenya, and all over the West, they want power. They want to feel unique. They want to be admired.
The Socialist governments allow them to stay rich. But they force them to share their wealth and above all, they shame them. They are also trying to minimize the gap – through education, free medical care and countless social projects.
That is, of course, unacceptable to the elites. They want it all, as they always had it. And to have it all, they are ready to murder, to side with the darkest foreign interests, even to commit treason.
Increasingly, the interests of the local elites are very closely linked to foreign interests – those of the Empire and those of the private sector.
As I was told in Ecuador, by Ms. Paola Pabón, Assembly Member representing Pichincha area:
“Behind the involvement of the US, are some ex-bankers such as Isaiah brothers, who lost power here, escaped courts and went to live in the United States, but there are also huge economic powers such as Chevron. It means that there are not only political interests of the US, but also private, economic ones.”
Predominantly, the local elites are using their countries as milking cows, with very little or zero interest in the well being of their people.
That is why their protests against Latin American revolutions are thoroughly hypocritical. They are not fighting for improvements in their countries, but for their own, selfish personal interests. Those shouts and the pathetic hunger strikes of the “opposition” in Venezuela may appear patriotic, but only thanks to propaganda abilities to the Western mass media.
The elites would do anything to make all revolutions, all over Latin America, fail and collapse. They are even spending their own money to make it happen.
They know that if they manage to remove progressive forces from power, they could rule once again, totally unopposed, as their counterparts do in all other client states of the West – in the Middle East, Africa, South and Southeast Asia, and Oceania.
The temptation is tremendous. Most of the elites in Latin America still remember well, how it feels, how it tastes – to control their countries unopposed, and with full support from the West.
Eduardo Galeano, the great Uruguayan writer and revolutionary thinker, once told me: “I keep repeating to all those new leaders of Latin America: “Comrades, do not play with poor people’s hopes! Hope is all they have.”
It appears that hope has finally been takes seriously, in Bolivia, Uruguay, Venezuela, Ecuador, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Nicaragua and elsewhere.
It was also taken seriously in Honduras, but hope was crushed by the US-orchestrated coup. In Paraguay, under a semi-progressive priest who preached liberation theology, hope was taken semi-seriously, but even that was too much in the country that had been ruled, for decades, by fascist cliques. In 2002, a constitutional coup followed by an appalling massacre of predominantly indigenous people, and fascism returned.
After these two setbacks, Latin America shook, but kept moving forward. Hugo Chavez died, or was murdered by the North, depending which theory you subscribe to. His demise was a tremendous blow to the entire continent, but still, the continent kept moving. “Here, nobody surrenders!” Chavez shouted, dying, but proud.
“President Correa of Ecuador is one of very few leaders of the “original project””, said Paola Pabón. “Lula in Brazil will not be able to stand for reelection, anymore, mainly due to corruption scandals. Mujica is not in power, anymore, and Cristina Fernandez will be retiring. Evo Morales does not have regional influence, and even Maduro does not have… For this reason, Ecuador is so important, strategically. If ‘they’ hit us, if there is a successful coup, it would be tremendous victory for them, to destroy a President with regional importance; who speaks for the region… and also, because Ecuador is one country where the government actually functions well.”
Walter Bustos, who used to work for this government, is alarmed by developments in Ecuador and the entirety of Latin America. Both he and Paula Pabón realize how fragile the Latin American revolutions are. While driving with me to an indigenous area of Riobamba, Walter lamented:
“In case there is a military coup in Ecuador, the difference between here and Venezuela would be enormous: while in Venezuela, Chavez incorporated the military into his revolution, in case of citizens revolution in Ecuador, we have no security; we cannot count on support of the military in case there is some armed, political or economic attack against us.”
Hugo Chavez was not only a great revolutionary, but also a tremendous strategist. He knew that any great revolution has to be fought, won, and then defended. Winning the battle is never enough. One has to consolidate forces, and uphold the victory. Chavez was first thinker, and then soldier.
Correa, Morales, Fernandez go forward, brave, proud but unprotected. Under their governments, the lives of ordinary people improve tremendously. That is what matters to them. They are decent and honest beings, unwilling to dirty themselves with intrigues, speculations and conspiracy theories.
But their great success will not gain them any recognition from the Empire, or from their own elites. The success of socialism is the worst nightmare for rulers of the world and their local butlers.
This is how President Salvador Allende died in 1973. He dismissed all rumors, and then all warnings that the coup was coming. “I am not going to arrest people just because of some suspicion that they may do something”, he used to say. After the coup took place, he died proudly, a true hero, committing suicide by marching towards the helicopter gunships and fighter jets that were bombarding the Presidential Palace of La Moneda. But he was not the only victim. As a result of the coup, thousands of Chilean people died, and tens of thousands were savagely tortured and raped. Chile did not die, but went to horrific coma, from which it only recently manages to recover.
Henry Kissinger summarized the moral corruption/collapse of his country’s regime when he uttered his memorable phrase:
“I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves.”
Despite his great intentions, President Salvador Allende failed his people. He underestimated the bestiality of the Empire, and the result were millions of broken lives.
Since then, the Empire’s selfishness and brutality only evolved. The more successful leaders like Correa become, the more real is the danger of a coup – of a devastating, deadly attack from the North, and subversion from within.
The fragility of Latin American revolutions is obvious. The elites cannot be trusted. They showed on many occasions how far they are willing to go, committing treason, collaborating with the West against their own nations: in Chile, Peru, Colombia, Mexico, Honduras, Venezuela, Paraguay and Bolivia, to name just a few cases.
Appeasing both the elites and the Empire, while fighting for social justice and true independence, is impossible. The elites want to have full control of their countries, while the Empire demands full submission. No compromise could be reached. The history speaks clearly about that. And the Empire demonstrated on countless occasions that Latin American democracy would be respected only if the people vote the way that suits Washington.
Latin America has to learn how to defend itself, for the sake of its people.
Its closer and closer cooperation with China and Russia is essential. Coherent regional defense agreement should follow.
The next few years will be crucial. The revolutions have to be institutionalized; they cannot depend only on charisma of its leaders.
Constant sabotages and coup attempts, like those in Venezuela, should not be tolerated. They lead to chaos and to uncertainty. They break countries economically and socially.
It is clear what the Empire and its serves are doing: they are trying to push Latin American revolutionary countries against the wall, as they pushed, in the past, North Korea. They are trying to make them “react”, so they could say: “You see, this is true socialism, this defensive, hermitic and paranoid system.”
The path will not be easy. It will be dangerous and long.
Latin America can only survive through international cooperation and solidarity. It would also have to fight legally, at home and abroad. Those who are committing treason and those who are interrupting development of the country should face justice.
The left wing governments that are ruling South American countries won democratic elections: much more democratic than those in Europe and the United States. If the individuals and groups act against the expressed will of their own people, they should be taken to courts.
If a powerful country tortures other countries and shows total spite for their people, it should face an international legal system. The United States demonstrated, countless times, that it considers itself well above the law. It even forced several government in Latin America and elsewhere, to give its military personnel immunity. One of these countries is Paraguay, historically flooded with CIA, DEA and FBI agents.
In order to legally restrain the Empire, huge international pressure would have to be built. Like in the case of Managua, which legally sued the US for many acts of terror committed against Nicaragua. The Empire will most likely refuse to accept any guilty verdict. But the pressure has to be on!
All this would be meaningless without dedicated, constant coverage of the events by independent or opposition media, be they huge new state-funded networks like RT, TeleSur, CCTV or Press TV, of progressive independent media like Counterpunch, VNN, or ICH. It is essential that Latin Americans demand information from these sources, instead of consuming the toxic lies spread through CNN en Español, FOX, EFE and other right wing Western sources.
The battle for the Latin American people and for their freedom is on. Do not get fooled, it has been on for quite some time, and it is very tough fight.
Latin America is one of the fronts of the integrated fight for the survival of our Planet.
People who admire this part of the world, all those who have been inspired by Latin American revolutions, should participate in the struggle.
The best sons and daughters of this continent are now fighting in their own, quixotic way, as they always did: frontally, with exposed heart, totally unprotected. But their fight is just, and they are in this battle in order to defend the people.
Their opponents are rich, deceitful and brutal. But they are also selfish and they fight only for their own interests. They are not loved by their nations. If they lose, Latin America will win!
Those countries defending themselves against the Empire should unite, before it’s too late. Now as Latin America is rising from its knees, it becomes clear who are its foes and who are real friends, real brothers and sisters!
This scarred but stunning continent of courageous poets, of dreamers and revolutionaries should not be allowed to fall. In Caracas, Quito and La Paz, they are fighting for entire humanity.
public free medical posts all over Ecuador
all that gold stolen by Christians to decorate their churches
Bolivar and Chavez
I am with the revolution!
in 2012, murder of indigenous farmers in Paraguay
In Riobamba, Ecuador, great political art accusing
In the National Theatre in Quito, the greatest indigenous celebration free for all
Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. His latest books are: “Exposing Lies Of The Empire” and Fighting Against Western Imperialism.Discussion with Noam Chomsky: On Western TerrorismPoint of No Return is his critically acclaimed political novel. Oceania – a book on Western imperialism in the South Pacific. His provocative book about Indonesia: “Indonesia – The Archipelago of Fear”. Andre is making films for teleSUR and Press TV. After living for many years in Latin America and Oceania, Vltchek presently resides and works in East Asia and the Middle East. He can be reached through his website or his Twitter.

Beginn der US-Aggression gegen Korea vor 65 Jahren - das Muster ist bekannt

Die Geschichte vergisst nichts - es kommt alles an den Tag. Das Ende des Imperiums, das Ende der unipolaren Weltordnung naht.

Es war an einem Sonntag – Beginn des Korea-Krieges

by Hyoksin
Am 25. Juni 1950 brach in Korea ein Krieg aus. Wer hat ihn verursacht und wie? Mag auch Zeit ins Land gehen und die Generation wechseln, klagt die Geschichte das aggressive Verbrechen der US-Imperialisten und der südkoreanischen Marionetten klar und eindeutig an.
Nach dem Untergang Japans (August 1945) hielten die US-Imperialisten unter dem Vorwand der Entwaffnung der ehemaligen japanischen Armee Südkorea besetzt und beschleunigten im Wesentlichen die Kriegsvorbereitungen auf die Aggression in den nördlichen Landesteil.
Sie bildeten in der „Militärschule für Englisch“ die antikommunistisch eingefleischten böswilligen Elemente heran, die aus der japanischen Armee, der Mandschurei-Marionettenarmee und der Armee von Jiang Jieshi stammten. Sie fabrizierten aus ihnen die „Landesverteidigungsarmee“ und gaben Ansporn zur Erweiterung der Streitkräfte.
Unter aktiver Aufhetzung der US-Imperialisten entwickelte sich im Jahr 1948 die Marionettenarmee sogar zu mehr als 107 000 Mann starken Streitkräften und entstand die halbmilitärische Organisation namens „Jugend-Verteidigungstruppen“ mit über 200 000 Jugendlichen und Männern im besten Alter. Auch danach leisteten die USA der Marionettenclique um Syngman Rhee die Militärhilfe von 110 Mio. USD und übergaben ihr umfassende Kriegsausrüstungen wie verschiedenartige Feuerwaffen, Kriegsschiffe, Flugzeuge, Fahrzeuge und Minen.
Im Juli 1949 verschwor sich der US-Außenminister mit dem „Sonderabgesandten“ der Clique um Syngman Rhee, über die Streitkräfte von 400 000 starken Marionettenarmee einschließlich der „ständigen 100 000 starken Soldaten und 100 000 starken Polizei“ zu verfügen. (Aus dem Bericht der „UNO-Kommission für Korea“ am 5. Sep. 1950)
Die US-Imperialisten ließen die damals weltweit größte Militärberatergruppe aus 500 Personen in Südkorea stationieren, das Führungssystem und Truppenzusammensetzung der Marionettenarmee in Form der US-Armee herstellen und dementsprechende Militärübungen machen.
Bezüglich der Verfügung über Kriegsführungsfähigkeit der Marionettenarmee gegen den Norden prahlte der Leiter der US-Militärberatergruppe bei einer Pressekonferenz, dass „seines Erachtens die „südkoreanische Armee dazu fähig ist, 2- oder 3-fache Streitkräfte der ausländischen gleichen Streitmacht zurückzuschlagen ... “ Im Mai 1951 zeugte der US-Außenminister davon, dass „bis zur Zeit des Angriffsbeginns diese Sicherheitsarmee (Marionettenarmee) dank unserer Hilfe auf 150 000 Mann verstärkt wurde“.
In die Erarbeitung des Koreakriegsplans („A, B, C-Plan“) bezogen die US-Imperialisten die Geheimdienstorgane und Operationsinstitutionen wie „G-2“ und „G-3“ des MacArthur-Kommandos und die „Geschichtsgruppe“ und das „Kato“-Organ aus hochrangigen Offizieren der ehemaligen japanischen Armee.
Die US-Imperialisten gliederten den Kriegsplan in 3 Phasen ein, in der ersten Etappe mit dem Aggressionskrieg gegen Korea zu beginnen (A), in der zweiten Etappe die Kriegsflamme nach China zu erweitern (B) und in der letzten Etappe auf Sibirien zu überfallen (C). Sie setzten den Operationsbeginn als 1949 voraus. Dann trieben sie die Marionettenarmee zu bewaffneten Provokationen, um die Wirksamkeit des Plans nachzuprüfen. Im Jahr 1949 belief die Zahl der feindlichen bewaffneten Provokation auf 2 617, ca. mehr als 2.8fache gegenüber dem Vorjahr.
Als die Marionettenarmee bei ihren Provokationen wiederholt Niederlage erlitt, hatten die US-Imperialisten vor, sofort nach der Koreakriegentfesselung unter dem UN-Aushängeschild die in Japan stationierten US-Truppen einzusetzen. Demnach wurde der Koreakriegsplan korrigiert, dass die Marionettenarmee die Grenzlinie am 38. Breitengrad durchbricht und sofort die US-Truppen eingesetzt werden. Auch die Zeit wurde auf den 25. Juni 1950 verschoben.
Nachdem ihr Kriegsplan korrigiert wurde, offenbarten die US-Imperialisten bei der Vervollkommnung der Vorbereitungen für dessen Ausführung in der letzten Etappe noch unverhohlener ihre aggressive Natur.
Vorangetrieben wurden die Vorbereitungen dafür, für den künftigen Koreakrieg die US-Luftwaffe und -Marine schnell einzusetzen und die Streitkräfte ihrer Satellitenstaaten umfassend einzuführen.
In vielen Ortschaften, darunter Suwon, Kwangju, Taegu, Insel Jeju und Kimpho, wurden die US-Luftstützpunkte gebaut und erweitert und der pazifischen US-Flotte die Befugnis zur Benutzung der Häfen in Inchon, Pusan, Ryosu und Jinhae gegeben. Beim Besuch von Syngman Rhee in Tokio gab Mac Arthur ihm die „11-Punkte-Anordnungen“, die zum Inhalt hatten, dass Südkorea zuerst den Krieg gegen den Norden entfesselt, die Marionettenarmee und die japanische Armee einen gemeinsamen Kampf führen und von Mac Arthur befehligt werden.
Um den wahren Sachverhalt der Entfesselung des Koreakriegs zu verbergen und aus Schwarz Weiß zu machen, fabrizierten die US-Imperialisten die 3. „UNO-Kommission für Korea“. Gleichzeitig wurden schon die „Grunddokumente“ und „Resolutionen“ angefertigt, die nach dem Kriegsausbruch dem UN-Sicherheitsrat und den UN-Versammlungen unterbreitet werden sollten.
In Bezug darauf, dass die USA den 25. Juni als Datum für den Kriegsbeginn festgelegt hatten, gestand Robert, Leiter der damaligen Militärberatergruppe, wie folgt, dieser Tag sei Sonntag. In den USA oder Südkorea, wo der Sonntag als Ruhetag betrachtet wird, wird wahrscheinlich niemand daran glauben, dass die USA am Sonntag zuerst den Krieg begonnen haben. Nämlich ziele es darauf ab, dass die Menschen daran glauben, wir hätten ihn nicht als Erster begonnen.
Um ihre aggressive Natur zu verbergen, wurden die Theaterspiele inszeniert: am 24. Juni verließ der US-Präsident Truman mit seiner Frau für den „Wochenendurlaub“ Washington, der US-Außenminister reist nach seinem Heimatland, Dulles nach Kyoto (Japan) und Leiter der in Südkorea stationierten US-Militärberatergruppe nach dem US-Festland. In Südkorea wurde eine falsche Anzeige veröffentlicht, dass der vom Junianfang an gültige Notstandszustand aufgehoben und die An- und Abreise, Übernachtung der südkoreanischen Armee im Freien und ihr Urlaub erlaubt worden seien.
So wurde der bewaffnete Angriff der südkoreanischen Marionettenarmee gegen den Norden am 25. Juni 1950, morgens eines friedlichen Sonntags, in allen Gegenden am 38. Breitengrad begonnen.
Die Geschichte wird die aggressiven Verbrechen der US-Imperialisten und der südkoreanischen Marionetten, die den Frieden Koreas zerstörten, ausführlich anklagen und niemals vergessen.

Hillary Clinton: Profile of Rogue Leadership

EDITOR'S CHOICE | 17.06.2015 | 09:13

The possibility of another Clinton or Bush becoming president in 2017 should make everyone’s blood run cold.
Both represent everything wrong with America – a gangster state run by monied interests for their benefit alone, waging endless wars for power, profit and unchallenged global dominance along with governing under a homeland police state apparatus.
Hillary was Washington’s 67th Secretary of State. She served from January 21, 2009 – February 1, 2013. She was arguably America’s worst – at least until John Kerry succeeded her.
From 2001 – 2009, she was US Senator from New York. In 2008, she unsuccessfully challenged Obama for the Democrat party’s presidential nomination. She’s back again for another try.
She’s unabashedly pro-war. In January 2014, Time magazine said “(a)s Secretary of State, Clinton backed a bold escalation of the Afghanistan war.”
“She pressed Obama to arm the Syrian rebels, and later endorsed air strikes against the Assad regime. She backed intervention in Libya, and her State Department helped enable Obama’s expansion of lethal drone strikes.”
“In fact, Clinton may have been the administration’s most reliable advocate for military action. On at least three crucial issues – Afghanistan, Libya, and the (staged) bin Laden raid – Clinton took a more aggressive line than Gates, a Bush-appointed Republican.”
As first lady, she partnered with husband Bill’s high crimes. She urged bombing Yugoslavia. Straightaway post-9/11, she supported waging (phony) war on terror.
She endorses nuclear weapons use. She calls them peacekeeping deterrents. As a 2008 presidential aspirant, she told AIPAC she “stands with Israel now and forever.” She deplores peace and stability. “What do we have NATO for if not to defend our way of life,” she blustered earlier.
She’s fundamentally against peace, equity and justice. As head of state, perhaps she’ll launch WW III.
She’s a serial liar. Believe nothing she says campaigning. On Saturday, she officially launched it with a large New York City rally after previous smaller events in early primary states.
Her remarks were a litany of Big Lies – polar opposite of her agenda, claiming she supports:
“equality of opportunity:” she’s fundamentally anti-populist;
“jobs for those who can work:” as president she’ll be a jobs destroyer, not creator, continuing the policy of offshoring US jobs to low-wage countries;
“security for those who need it:” she endorses eroding social justice en route to eliminating it altogether;
“the ending of special privilege for the few:” she supports wealth, power and privilege at the expense of popular interests;
“the preservation of civil liberties for all:” she favors the same homeland police state apparatus GW Bush established and Obama hardened;
“a wider and constantly rising standard of living:” she’s for transforming America into a ruler/serf society.
Her claim about wanting to follow in the footsteps of Obama bringing America “back from the brink of Depression” ignored deepening hard times for millions, growing poverty, unemployment and underemployment, a potemkin economy, an unprecedented wealth disparity, and policymakers systematically thirdworldizing America to enrich privileged elites more than already.
She and husband Bill are two of America’s super-rich, profiting from influence-peddling. The Clinton Foundation got millions of dollars from foreign donors in return for $165 billion in arms sales when Hillary was Secretary of State.
American Jobs Alliance communications director Curtis Ellis explained “(i)f you want a favor from one of the Clintons, whether it be Bill or Hillary, in one of her positions as senator or secretary of state, what you do is you donate money to the Clinton Foundation.”
“I would describe this as a classic corrupt deal. This is conflict of interest at the highest levels.”
Poll numbers show her unfavorable ratings at a seven-year high. Perhaps most telling is trustworthiness.
A new CNN/ORC poll shows growing numbers don’t trust her – 57% up from 49% in March. Around half those polled say she doesn’t care about people or inspire confidence.
“In head-to-head match-ups against top Republicans, her margin is tighter than it has been at any point in CNN/ORC’s polling on the contest,” the news outlet said.
At the same time, no Republican aspirant so far emerged dominant. At least seven candidates are closely bunched in polls, including Jeb Bush.
Clinton’s support among Democrats and independents dropped nine points since April. Lots of issues dog her – including conducting official business as secretary of state through her personal email account on an unsecured server in her home.
False! Revelations of secretly using her personal email server for official state business alone exposed her. So did her claims about being instrumental in the Northern Ireland peace process.
Negotiators involved said she was nowhere to be seen. Her claim about leaving the White House in January 2001 dead broke, “struggl(ing)” to make ends meet, belies reality.
She and Bill began making millions straightaway. She was directly involved in the official coverup of the September 2012 US Benghazi, Libya diplomatic compound attack killing American ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, foreign service information management officer Sean Smith and two CIA operatives.
An Accountability Review Board concluded:
“Systemic failures and leadership management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department resulted in a Special Mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place.”
As a 2008 presidential aspirant, Hillary lied about landing in Tuzla, Bosnia with daughter Chelsea under hostile sniper fire.
“I remember landing under sniper fire,” she claimed. We “were told to run to our cars with our heads down.”
False! Western news outlets accompanying her had video footage showing no signs of danger when she arrived. She lied claiming otherwise.
As Secretary of State, one of her jobs was resetting relations with Russia. Last year, she outlandishly compared Putin to Hitler and Russia to Nazi Germany.
It bears repeating. She represents the worst of America’s dark side – imperial ruthlessness at home and abroad perhaps worse than ever if she’s elected president in November 2016.
Stephen Lendman,

Pentagon paying ISIS-linked ‘rebels’ $400 per month to ‘eventually’ fight Assad

EDITOR'S CHOICE | 26.06.2015 | 09:36
The Pentagon announced Monday that it has begun paying “moderate” Syrian rebels up to $400 per month to fight ISIS and eventually the Syrian government.
The program, deemed “critical” by Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter, aims to equip as many as 5,400 fighters within the next 12 months, reports USA Today.
According to Pentagon spokeswoman Elissa Smith, roughly 6,000 Syrians have already expressed interest in the program, with more than half preparing to be vetted.
The program has reportedly taken months to move forward due to a lack of fighters willing to “adhere to laws of war and pledge to conduct themselves properly.”
The announcement raises several red flags given recently declassified Pentagon documents confirming Western governments’ regional support of al-Qaeda, a terrorist organization now deceptively labeled “moderate.”
In reality, as stated by USA Today, the alleged fight against ISIS, another group with documented ties to the West, is merely about creating an opposing force to bring down the Assad government.
“Their primary mission will be to protect their towns and villages from ISIL fighters,” USA Today states. “Eventually, they are also envisioned to become a viable opposition to the regime of President Bashar Assad.”
As admitted by retired four-star General Wesley Clark in 2007, the overthrow of Syria has been a goal of the Pentagon since at least 2001.
Clark’s comments dismantle the “civil war” talking point pushed by Western media, which alleges that so-called “rebels” spontaneously rose up against Assad without US influence.
Knowledge of this fact has even become a detriment to ISIS recruitment, as jihadists refuse to join the terror group due to its ties to the Obama administration and Western intelligence.
Desperate to keep radicals in the fight, the US recently accused Assad of supporting ISIS in the toppling of his own country, a major narrative shift which aims to shape public opinion.
Tags: Pentagon Iraq Syria US

The Failure of Obama Policy: A State of Middle East Anarchy 

There was much speculation and angst in Western capitals at the time that the Arab-Israeli conflict in 1973 could trigger a direct US-USSR Super-Power confrontation in the desert of Sinai, leading to a Third World War, unimaginable in the nuclear age. For a moment, it looked as if that just might happen with America intervening to protect Israel and Russia intervening to strengthen its ally, Egypt. The Middle East today finds itself engulfed in a moment even more precarious and dangerous than those autumnal days forty two years ago... 

Matthew JAMISON | 24.06.2015

The Failure of Obama Policy: A State of Middle East Anarchy 

Matthew JAMISON | 24.06.2015 | 00:00
There was much speculation and angst in Western capitals at the time that the Arab-Israeli conflict in 1973 could trigger a direct US-USSR Super-Power confrontation in the desert of Sinai, leading to a Third World War, unimaginable in the nuclear age. For a moment, it looked as if that just might happen with America intervening to protect Israel and Russia intervening to strengthen its ally, Egypt. The Middle East today finds itself engulfed in a moment even more precarious and dangerous than those autumnal days forty two years ago. 
The region resembles Europe circa 1914, a tinder keg waiting to explode. Who will history cast as the Middle East Archduke Ferdinand? The Obama administration bears a lot of the responsibility for the chaos we are witnessing in the Middle East today. President Obama's Middle East policy and geo-politico-security strategy is in tatters, a mess at best and an abject failure at worst. With the clock ticking in Washington DC on a Presidential transfer of power scheduled for January 2017, Mr. Obama has little time to arrest the decline in American authority, prestige and influence in the region's capitals. 
The spectacular shattering of American policy and leadership in the region has not been fully comprehended by European and North American commentators and analysts. This American unravelling in the sands of Arabia has created a sinister vacuum which radical, extremist forces such as ISIS have rushed in to fill. From the halcyon days in June 2009 of a newly elected, fresh, young and idealistic liberal Democrat President - and the United States first Government led by an African-American - President Barack Obama sought to chart a new course in relations with the Muslim and Arab world with his reformist and thoughtful 'Cairo' speech. No longer would the Bush neo-conservative doctrine of American exceptionalism, aggressive unilateralism and militarist agitation - pioneered by the likes of Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld - hold sway in the Obama White House. 
The Obama administration sought to work with local, organic actors in Middle East countries, actors viewed with suspicion by the previous Bush administration, such as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. The Obama Middle East plan was to attempt to moderate and co-opt the parties of political Islam into a democratic process, establish cooperative relations with such forces, expose them to American and internationalist pressures and leverage and see once marginalised but popular entities such as the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood encouraged into Government with democratic legitimacy, ultimately, hopefully to be integrated and tamed within the democratic and international system thus reformed and encouraged to be responsible, sensible, moderate regional power actors. That was the theory. 
Meanwhile, a central plank of then Senator Obama's 2008 Presidential campaign was his Democratic Party foreign policy platform built on his immediate 2002 opposition to the Iraq War and a pledge to end the war in Iraq and pull out the remaining US troops. He campaigned heavily on this issue as his symbol of a decisive, new foreign policy from the neoconservative and nationalist Bush years. His early opposition to the Iraq War was a major element which contributed to Senator Obama's surprise victory over former First Lady and New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, since he had been against the Iraq intervention of 2003 from the beginning he seemed more authentic on taking an anti-war stand. It also acted like a magnet attracting the support of young, idealistic college students disillusioned with the debacle in Iraq and a state of quasi never-ending war under George W. Bush. When it came to the Middle East and US foreign policy in general Mr. Obama used every speech and interview to lambast the Bush doctrine and neo-conservatism. 
Yet, assessing the state of the Middle East nearly seven years on from the start of the Obama Presidency, it is hard to say the security and political situation regionally has improved much since January 20th 2009. The US administration, White House foreign policy apparatus and National Security Council seem completely out of their depth when it comes to the Middle East. A frequent retort from Arab and Israeli alike is that the Obama national security team do not have great expertise or nuanced understanding of Middle Eastern affairs, contributing to an unstable and incoherent 'phantom zone' of serious and powerful security challenges; from the emergence of the barbaric and unconscionable ISIS beholden to a medieval ideology of hatred and the spread of an even more vicious, fanatical Islamist fundamentalist terrorism equipped with a sophisticated army and array of weaponry and money; to the gestating ISIS hybrid fundamentalist Islamic terrorist state of eastern Syria and northern Iraq, dissolving the sovereign border between the two nation-states; to the collapse of Iraq itself and the growth of Iranian influence in Baghdad and beyond; and Yemen with the proxy Sunni versus Shia battle led by the Sunni House of Saud against the Shia Mullahs in Tehran; the humiliating reversal and constant flip flop of US policy in Egypt and the continuing humanitarian nightmare in Assad's Syria alongside the impression of weakness, fecklessness and hesitation President Obama created for himself when he refused to enforce his own red lines against Damascus's chemical WMD usage. Indeed, it became clear how naïve and limited President Obama was over Syria policy in needing a life line from Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov to save him from his own policy mistakes. 
The National Security Advisor Susan Rice is an Africa specialist with little Middle East credentials while Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power is an academic with a background on genocide and humanitarian intervention. The Defence Secretary Ashton Carter likewise is not a Mid East specialist. There are no Cabinet level classically trained Arabists in the Obama administration.  
The Secretary of State John F. Kerry has been undermined and humiliated with his huge investment of time, energy, politico-diplomatic capital and commitment to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, with little results to show for it. President Obama and his Secretary of State have managed to offend and irritate both the Israelis and Saudis at the same time over the same issue: an Iranian nuclear agreement. The power of the pro-Israel Likud lobby on Capitol Hill has been played skilfully by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Never before has it been so clear in the US-Israeli relationship that Israel is the tail that wags the American dog. 
The reversal over the Obama Syrian Chemical WMD 'red line' in September 2013 destroyed what little credibility President Obama had in the region. By not following through on his own self declared red lines, Obama signalled he was not a serious and iron willed leader, but rather a dither whose word the world could not take seriously. Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher famously said to George Bush snr after Saddam Hussein's August 1990 invasion of Kuwait, 'This is no time to go wobbly George.' Unfortunately, no such British Prime Minister had the backbone to say this to President Obama and help stiffen his spine. The tangled web which is American Syrian policy was illuminated by the summer of 2014 as a disaster and nothing more than wishful, naïve thinking on the part of a very inexperienced President. 
ISIS forced President Obama to take action in Syria and once again in Iraq, doing what he baulked at doing back in September 2013. The arrival and explosion of ISIS in Iraq and Syria and the headlines of the world, caught Obama off guard and made him look like another Democratic President blind sided by Middle Eastern geopolitics, such as when President Jimmy Carter was shocked to learn Iraq had launched an invasion of Iran in 1980. Again, Carter was caught by surprise when Afghanistan was penetrated in 1979. The United States military, by far still the overwhelming dominant and strongest armed forces super power on Earth; has since August 2014 being leading an international and Arab air campaign against ISIS forces in Iraq and Syria, with little success. 
The gains that ISIS have made in recent weeks in Iraq demonstrates American military policy is not working, and air strikes alone will not stop and halt the advance of Islamic State fighters. Only a large, professional, fierce Arab army could do that, such as the Egyptians. Meanwhile, the avowed US objective of regime change in Syria, with the hoped for expulsion of the Assad regime has still not come to fruition almost 4 years on from it's adoption by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The US lacks an overarching, grand strategy for dealing with Syria. 
So, we have a Middle East torn apart in two key, historic states in the heart of the Levant - Syria & Iraq; we have a simmering cauldron of tensions in Egypt with an upsurge of worrying Islamist inspired attacks in the Sinai peninsula; an open air prison in Gaza and humanitarian disaster occurring there; Shiite insurrection in Yemen played out as a proxy war between the allies of Sunni Islam led by Riyadh and the representatives of Shia Islam, embodied in the Shiite theocracy in Iran; a United States desperate to strike a nuclear bargain and grand deal with Iran while traditional US allies and friends like Israel and the Saudis are incandescent with anger at what they perceive to be an American attempt to re-balance the dynamics of regional relationships with a rebooted and reinvigorated new strategic partnership with a more moderate, restrained and globalised Iran.The Middle East has never been more unpredictable and threatening since the days of the Arab-Israeli wars in 1948, 1967 and 1973. In the age of globalisation this instability and danger could easily spread to all our shores. President Obama has presided over the growth of a security terrorist threat in the Middle East which will make al-Qaida and it's blowback look like a walk in the park compared to the discipline and ruthless, savage fighting talents of ISIS. 
Barack Obama will almost certainly leave office in January 2017 with no Palestinian state; no long term and durable Grand Bargain with Iran; no peace and stability in Syria with a continuing blood bath there and attendant carnage next-door in Iraq. An inter-regional war could be on the horizon but not one between Israel and the Arab states, one between Sunni Islam and Shia Islam. He will leave to his predecessor an emboldened, confident Iran intervening regularly in Iraqi affairs vying ever more violently with Saudi Arabia for primacy in the Middle East. 
In many ways, President Obama's positions vis a vis the Middle East is redolent of President Lyndon Johnson's stewardship of the Vietnam War. LBJ left to his successor Richard Nixon a huge albatross in the form of US military involvement on the side of the South Vietnamese government. It took President Nixon and his erstwhile Secretary of State Henry Kissinger to extract American forces, blood and treasure from drainage in the swamps of Vietnam.This time however, Mr.Obama could very well hand over a basket case of a Middle East to a Presidential successor from his own party: his onetime rival and fiercest critic turned loyal foreign policy chief and Secretary of State following on from Dr. Kissinger; Mrs Hillary Rodham Clinton. Or his failures in the Middle East could become to his party, what Vietnam became for the Democrats. Imagine if ISIS fighters successful breach American homeland defences and cause another 9/11 style terror attack? As Harold Macmillan used to quip, 'Events, dear boy, events'.

Is this the author of article above????

Matthew Jamison

Position: Consultant Fellow, Business Development
Matthew Jamison is a Consultant Fellow at RUSI.  Prior to that he was a RUSI Associate Fellow specialising in the Middle East.  He was a Founding Director of the foreign policy and human rights think tank, The Henry Jackson Society (HJS). He was educated at Peterhouse, the oldest college of the University of Cambridge, obtaining his BA Hons in History and M.Phil in International Relations specialising in Anglo-American foreign policy and diplomatic history, the British Empire and Middle Eastern geopolitics.
Whilst at Cambridge he was one of the original founding members of HJS serving on the Organising Committee which launched the society and serving as a Founding Director overseeing the creation of the 'Britain in the World' department at HJS. He is part of the Brookings Institution/European Council on Foreign Relations research team which produces the European Foreign Policy Scorecard. His research has been cited in written evidence presented to the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee on US-UK relations and in academic journals such as the British Journal of Politics and International Relations. He has written extensively on Anglo-American foreign, defence and security policy and has been a contributing author for Humanitarian Intervention: A History published by Cambridge University Press and The British Moment: The Case for Democratic Geo-Politics in the 21st Century published by the Social Affairs Unit.

RUSI articles and analysis by this author

Clinton in AsiaHead of State: Hillary Rodham Clinton's Foreign Policy Legacy 29 Jan 2013
ving dominated American and international politics over the last twenty years and become one of the most famous and powerful women in the world, what is Hillary Rodham Clinton's legacy as Secretary of State as she departs the world stage, for now?
Mitt RomneyHow will Mitt Romney Challenge President Obama on Foreign Policy? 23 Aug 2012
Having secured the Republican Presidential nomination and selected Congressman Paul Ryan as his Vice-Presidential running mate, Mitt Romney has been sharpening his foreign policy argument against President Barack Obama, setting out a hawkish national security agenda. Yet apart from a difference of style, there seems to be no major difference between the two contenders.