Tuesday, October 6, 2015

Pope Francis, Vladimir Putin, Xi, Jinping, Hassan Rouhani, and Jeremy Corbyn Helping to Confront Imperialism

Five World Leaders Challenge Western Imperialism through Diplomacy, Persuasion and Public Pressure

Pope Francis, Vladimir Putin, Xi, Jinping, Hassan Rouhani, and Jeremy Corbyn

  25  0 

us imperialism
Western imperialism, in all of its manifestation, is being challenged by five political leaders, through diplomacy, moral persuasion and public pressure. In recent time, Pope Francis, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Chinese President Xi Jinping, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and Labor Party leader Jeremy Corbyn have raised fundamental questions concerning (1) war and peace in the Middle East and the Caucuses; (2) climate change and the destruction of the environment; (3) economic sanctions, military threats and confrontation; and (4) growing inequalities of class, gender and race.
The New Global Agenda
These five protagonists of a new global agenda differ from past critics from the left both in the styleandsubstance of their politics.
The politics of change, reform and peace in the near immediate period has a particular complex, heterodoxcomplexion, which contains traditional conservative and popular components.
These leaders have a global audience and major impact on world public opinion – and indirectly and directly on Western politics.
Defying Past Left-Right Divisions
These five leaders defy the traditional left-right division. Pope Francis demands immigrant rights, equal pay for women, diplomacy and peace negotiations instead of war, and greater class equality. He excoriates neoliberal, capitalism (“the dung of the devil”).
But he also defends traditional Catholic doctrine on abortion, divorce, contraception and homosexuality. He opposes class struggle and social revolution in favor of class collaboration, dialogue, and negotiations.
President Putin favors negotiations and peaceful resolution of conflicts in Syria and the Ukraine. He is an ardent advocate of a global coalition to fight Islamic terrorism. He has sharply reduced western pillage of the Russian economy and restored salaries, pensions and employment. He has restored Russian military capacity and national security and reduced terrorist assaults from the Caucuses.
At the same time Putin supports some of the biggest Yeltsin era billionaires; is closely aligned with the conservative Russian Orthodox Church; and is excavating the remains of the last tyrannical Russian Tsar to honor him and his family.
President Xi Jinping has played a leading role in promoting increases in consumer spending, wages, pensions and social welfare. He has deepened links with US high tech industries and signed off on a major reduction of carbon fuels and pollution, offering $3 billion dollars to fund alternatives for less developed countries. He has fired, prosecuted and jailed over 250,000 corrupt government and party officials who exploited and abused the public, while limiting operations of speculative Western hedge funds.
At the same time, Xi retains the authoritarian one party system; defends China’s one hundred-plus billionaires; and restricts all forms of independent class political and trade union organizations.
Hassan Rouhani is both devout practicing Muslim and a staunch advocate of peace. He supports a ‘nuclear-free Middle East’. He is a consequential opponent of terrorism by Salafist Islamists, Zionists, Christians and Hindus. He is the leading critic of Saudi Arabia’s military intervention in Yemen and a principled defender of national self-determination. Internally he has reduced authoritarian state controls and censorship of free expression and promoted scientific and technological research – in a country where half of research scientists are women.
President Rohani has signed a high risk peace agreement with the US and its partners (5 + 1) dismantling Iran’s nuclear facilities and opening its military installations to international inspection by an international atomic agency of dubious neutrality.
At the same time, Rohani opposes a secular state, supports liberalizing the economy, invites foreign multi-nationals to exploit lucrative oil and gas fields, and supports the corrupt and regressive US backed Shia regime in Iraq.
Jeremy Corbyn, the newly elected head of the British Labor Party, has been a consequential critic of neo-liberal capitalism and a strong advocate of public ownership of strategic economic sectors. He backs a highly graduated progressive income tax to finance a comprehensive welfare program. e a
He advocates a democratic foreign policy that opposes Anglo-American and Israeli imperialism in the Middle East and elsewhere.
However, upon taking office as head of the neo-liberal, pro-imperialist Labor Party, he confronts a parliamentary party dominated by his adversaries. His appointments to the “shadow cabinet” are overwhelmingly pro-NATO and pro-European Union; some even oppose his Keynesian budgetary agenda. Moreover, Corbyn endorses ‘working in the EU’ and promises to support a ‘yes vote’ in any referendum, even as the world witnessed how the EU imposed harsh austerity budgets on Latvia, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland and other countries in financial straits.
The Collective Impact of the Five
There is no question that these five leaders have made a major impact on world public opinion on issues of peace, climate change, equality and the need to reach international agreements. In most cases one or more of the leaders have exercised greater influence on a specific public or region and have had a greater impact on some issues over others.
The Pope, for example, has greater influence on Christians; Rohani on the Muslim public; Putin, Corbyn and Xi on secular opinion. Xi and the Pope have a greater impact on proposals for climate change. Putin, the Pope, Rohani and Xi are prominent in advocating peaceful resolution of conflicts; Corbyn and the Pope on reducing inequalities and securing social justice.
With the exception of Corbyn and Xi, all support traditional religious beliefs and observances. Most are ‘ecumenical’ in the sense of supporting religious tolerance.
Most important, all pursue these goals through persuasion, diplomacy and winning over public opinion. None of these world leaders have invaded or overthrown incumbent adversarial regimes or occupied countries. All are leading opponents of terror – especially ISIS.
President Putin is playing a leading role in challenging President Obama to join a broad coalition, including Bashar Assad and Iran, in fighting ISIS terrorism.
Washington, despite its rhetorical hostility, was pressured to respond – ‘partially favorable’.
President Putin has also taken the initiative in the Middle East. He leads a coalition, including Iraq, Iran and Syria to co-ordinate the war against terrorism.
China’s President Xi has committed military forces in support of the Russia’s anti-terrorist proposal for Syria. The Pope has offered tacit support via his pronouncements against terrorism and for international coalitions.
As a consequence of the massive flood of refugeesresulting from the US-EU-Saudi-Turkey support of Islamist mercenaries invading Syria and Iraq, several European allies of Washington are reconsidering their anti-Assad policies. They are moving toward the broad front proposals of Putin-Rohani-Xi and the Pope.
The social-economic impact of the Pope’s call for social justice is less apparent, apart from the routine lip-service from Western leaders. Among the quintet, Rohani is looking toward ‘market solutions’: inviting Western and Asian investors to revitalize the oil industry. Xi is cracking down on big time fraudsters in China and abroad, but has yet to embrace a comprehensive welfare and incomes policy. Putin presides over a petrol-economy in recession and has relied on private corporate oligarchs and overseas investors to regain growth. Corbyn’s egalitarian pronouncements have little impact among Labor Party politicians and his shadow cabinet. Moreover, he appears reluctant to mobilize the rank and file Labor activists for a fight for his program within the Party.
The climate change and environmental struggle received robust backing from the Pope –in his speeches to the US Congress, the United Nations and in his mass gatherings.
President Xi reinforced the message by proposing to fund a massive clean air program for the less developed countries, while setting rigorous targets to reduce pollution in China. There is no doubt that their message is well received by all environmental groups and the general public. Some political leaders, including Obama, appear to be, in part, receptive.
Rohani, Putin and Corbyn have played only a minor role in the defense of the environment.
Response of the Western Powers
The US, EU, Japan, Israel and Australia, referred to as the ‘Western Powers’ paid lip service to the cause of peace, while continuing to pursue military objectives via air wars, cross border terrorist activities and military build ups.
In general terms, they manipulate a double discourse – of talking peace and bombing adversaries.
However, the Western Powers feel the pressure of ‘the quintet,’ which is winning the political ideological contest. The ‘Russian threat’ is no longer viewed as credible by most of the international public. China’s international financial initiatives have gained major support from across the globe.
Japanese militarization has provoked mass domestic unrest and regional concerns – especially in Southeast Asia.
Israel is a pariah, not just in the Middle East but is increasingly viewed with hostility by the rest of international public opinion.
Germany, Europe’s leading economic power, has been discredited because of the massive fraud scandal by Volkswagen, its leading automobile maker and major exporter.
In other words, while the Western Powers retain military superiority and important markets, their overseas policies have suffered severe setbacks and their leaders have lost credibility. Their domestic and overseas supporters are turning against them. Moreover, the moral authority of Western leaders has been severely questioned by the Pope’s harsh critique of the ‘exclusionary’ policies toward immigrants and refugees, the excessive greed of capitalism, the reliance on force instead of diplomacy and the massive human suffering due to capitalism’s unrelenting destruction of the environment.
The Pope’s generalities would not have had such a powerful political impact, if they were not accompanied by (1) the selective use of arms and diplomacy emanating from President Putin; (2) the diplomatic successes of President Rohani; and (3) the economic muscle of President Xi, in support of economic development and international co-operation on the environment and climate change.
From widely divergent origins and diverse ideological backgrounds, five political leaders have set a new agenda for dealing with war and peace, equality and inequality, security and terrorism and environmental protection. Except for Jeremy Corbyn, who in any case will probably be rendered impotent by his own party’s elite, none of these progressive leaders’ ideologies is derived from the secular left.
They challenge the status quo, and raise the central issues of our time, at a time when the secular left is marginal or self-destructs (as Greece’s Syriza, Spain’s Podemos or Italy’s Five Stars in Southern Europe).
Faced with this heterodox reality, the Left has the choice of (1) remaining in sterile isolation; (2) embracing one, some, or all of ‘the quintet’; (3) or aligning with them on specific pronouncements and proposals.
The five have sufficient drawbacks, ‘contradictions’ and limitations to warrant criticism and distance. But in the big picture, on the major issues of our time, these leaders have adopted progressive policies, which warrant whole-hearted active support. They are the only ‘show’ in the real world – if we are serious about joining the struggle against imperial wars, terrorism, environmental destruction and injustice.

Eightfold European Union Crisis By Leonid SAVIN

 07.10.2015 | 00:00

The influx of refugees from the Middle East and North Africa, as well as the chronic financial instability of a number of EU member states, is just the tip of the iceberg that looms ominously in Europe’s path. In fact, the foundations of the edifice of the European Union are being simultaneously undermined by several interrelated crisis.
The crisis of a common foreign policy
To a large extent the enthusiasm generated by the creation of a single European realm evaporated once it became clear that the primary beneficiaries of this «united Europe» were Germany and France. The system for decision-making within the European Union (European Commission members are not elected via direct vote) makes it very unlikely that small countries can resist the pressure of the EU bureaucracy. This deepens the mistrust toward supranational institutions even if they lack authoritative functions.
The interests of individual countries within the EU often conflict with and contradict each other. Thus, Germany for example stubbornly blocks the formation of the Mediterranean Union, although it has long been sought by France. In recent months, a new tangle of contradictions has emerged, caused by the different approaches taken by European countries to protect their borders from the influx of illegal migrants. In many ways, although the EU’s common foreign policy is constantly being proclaimed, it is at the same time chimerical. The crisis of the «transatlantic» economy
The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), for which Washington is lobbying hard, represents a special kind of threat to the EU. The report, «The Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership: European Disintegration, Unemployment and Instability», published in October 2014 by the Global Development and Environment Institute, analyzes the biggest repercussions of the TTIP agreement: - The agreement would lead to net losses in terms of European net exports after the first decade. Northern European economies would suffer the most (2.07% of GDP) followed by France (1.9%), Germany (1.14%), and the United Kingdom (0.95%).
- The agreement would lead to net losses in terms of GDP. Consistent with figures for net exports, Northern European economies would suffer the largest decline in GDP (-0.50%), followed by France (-0.48%) and Germany (-0.29%).
- The agreement would lead to a reduction in labor income. France would be the worst hit with a loss of 5,500 Euros per worker, followed by Northern European countries (-4,800 Euros per worker), the United Kingdom (-4,200 Euros per worker), and Germany (-3,400 Euros per worker).
- The agreement would lead to job cuts. Approximately 600,000 jobs would be lost in the EU. Northern European countries would be the most affected (-223,000 jobs), followed by Germany (-134,000 jobs), France (- 130,000 jobs), and Southern European countries (-90,000).
- The agreement would lead to a loss of government revenue. France would suffer the most (0.64% of GDP). Government deficits would also increase as a percentage of GDP in every EU country, pushing public finances closer to or beyond the Maastricht limits (3%).
- The agreement would lead to higher financial instability and the accumulation of imbalances, resulting in a decrease in export revenues, wage shares, and government revenues.
The crisis of European culture
One common manifestation of the crisis of European culture has been the refusal of supranational organizations to acknowledge the Christian underpinnings of European civilization and also the failure of the globalist venture to build a «multicultural» society on European soil. Arabs, Turks, and other groups of migrants from the East not only remain unintegrated into European society, but also threaten to radically undermine the foundations of Europeans’ lives by creating alien enclaves within that society. Razor wire walls erected on the borders of individual states cannot fence off this threat. Although it is not yet readily apparent, the cultural-historical and anthropological character of the European peoples is now being called into question.
The crisis of family and marriage
Attempts to sow «transhumanist» utopias, plus the legalization of prostitution and unnatural forms of cohabitation under the guise of same-sex partnerships and «marriages», has become a mechanism for the historical and cultural destruction of the European family institution.
The crisis of the military and political mechanism of the EU
In addition to the debates about the role of NATO, the prospect of member states increasing their military spending to as much as 2% of their GDP, and the creation of European military response forces, disagreement has also emerged within the EU over its very strategy for the future.
On Feb. 11, 2015 the European Union’s Politico-Military Group sent a letter to the Council of Europe recommending that all member states politically support the operations and civil-military missions of the European Union, but advising that only a limited number of those were able to directly participate in these operations and missions.
It should be noted that the EU’s various civil and military missions are for the most part taking place far from the borders of the European Union: in Afghanistan, Djibouti, Somalia, the Seychelles, Tanzania, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Mali, Niger, Central African Republic, Palestine, Kosovo, Bosnia, Georgia, and Ukraine.
On March 27th, 2015, Council Decision 2015/528 was approved, which contained 49 articles and two appendices detailing the financing, compensating, and reporting procedures in place during the preparation and implementation of such missions. This cumbersome bureaucratic document (code named Athena) has been criticized by the European public for being out of touch with reality. Critics claim the imbalance between the desires and capabilities of the EU illustrates the crisis of the military-political mechanism of the European Union. The crisis of good neighborly relations.
The EU’s neighborhood policy has a long history. Officially, it aims to create friendly buffer zones in Eastern Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, and the South Caucasus. But in fact, some of those projects have become a tool for political expansion (such as the Eastern Partnership and Southern Partnership). Usually, the EU enters into an association agreement in exchange for a pledge to implement reforms. As a result, the associated state may receive duty-free access to certain EU markets or to financial or technical assistance. However, the official datafound in the European Neighbourhood Policy Countries report published by The European Commission shows that it is the EU that always reaps the benefits of these agreements, rather than its partners in the East. Deeper analysis of EU actions toward the states that are part of both of these «partnerships» (the «Eastern» and «Southern») shows that in fact these projects are actually more of a neocolonialism in disguise. And in some countries (Moldova and Ukraine), European subsidies under the Eastern Partnership program were simply dissolved in the ocean of corruption.
The migration crisis as a crisis of EU solidarity
The foundations for the critical stage of this crisis were laid during the spring and summer of 2014. The European Commission has not found a satisfactory, effective solution to the problems created by the influx of refugees from the East. And they will not find one, given that at the heart of this crisis lies the widespread regional destabilization of the Middle East and North Africa set in motion by the United States and its NATO allies. In this context, the «united» show of discipline within «unified Europe» is weakening, and some countries – dissatisfied with the refugee quotas imposed upon them – have begun to act independently and without regard for Brussels, based on their own understanding of their national and state interests.
The crisis of energy strategy
The European Union’s Third Energy Package, which sets limits on the ways in which Russian gas can be imported into Europe, is increasingly coming into conflict with the interests of individual EU member states, especially those that are experiencing a shortage of their own domestic energy resources. A report on energy policy from the German Institute for International and Security Affairs states that «[t]he energy union discourse [the European Energy Union is yet another supranational structure being created by Brussels - LS] should thus be interpreted mainly as a symptom of an EU integration crisis». This is very true, because the idea behind the creation of the European Energy Union is to impose strict conditions on cooperation between energy suppliers and to completely deprive the national governments of EU member states of the opportunity to pursue an independent energy policy. There can be no doubt that such attempts will only undermine unanimity within the EU. As demonstrated by the September 4, 2015 signing of the shareholder agreement between Gazprom and five European energy companies (Germany’s E.ON and BASF / Wintershall, Royal Dutch Shell, Austria’s OMV, and ENGIE of France) regarding the construction of the Nord Stream-2 pipeline under the Baltic Sea that will deliver gas to Germany and beyond, a noticeable crack has already developed in the relations between the European Union’s supranational structures of governance and major European businesses.

Leonid SAVIN

all articles
Tags: European Union Germany Middle East Russia Source:http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2015/10/07/eight-european-union-crisis.html

Anti-Russischer Propaganda* entgegentreten ist Friedensarbeit!

 Friedensarbeit muss  sich im Anti-Terrorkampf mit Fakten und Argumenten gegen die anti-russischen Diffamierungen wehren.  Sie muss sich solidarisch auf die Seite der bedrohten Völker und ihrer legitimen Regierungen stellen. Die Kriegsindustrie lebt von niederträchtiger, die Fakten verzerrender Demagogie. Letztere ist das Lebens-Elexier des militärisch-industriellen Komplexes. Sie ist das Garn, mit Hilfe dessen Kriege gestrickt werden. Jene Kräfte, die sich zur Wehr setzen und  in aller  letzter  Instanz auch ihr Waffenarsenal einsetzen, werden von "Leitmedien"  als Aggressor ausgemacht oder  von scheinbaren "Alternativmedien"  als gleichrangig eingestuft. Damit wird Verwirrung gestiftet und der Sache des Friedens und der Menschlichkeit  schwerer Schaden zugefügt.
 Wer Aggressor und Opfer nicht zu benennen vermag, wer Freund und Feind nicht zu unterscheiden weiß, kann nicht erfolgreich für den Frieden und die  dafür notwendige Gerechtigkeit eintreten.
Friedensarbeit erfordert  faktenreiche "hardcore"Aufklärung, die sich aus zuverlässigen Quellen speist. Sie muss an Rechtsstaatlichkeit und an verbrieftem Völkerrecht gemessen werden. Der  kriegshetzerischen Feindbild-Propaganda von  nachgewiesen US-gesteuerten Medien*** im Lande muss mit Entschiedenheit entgegengetreten. werden.
Sagen wir es also jedem und fordern wir  damit zum kritischen Hinterfragen auf:
Nicht die Russen haben das Krankenhaus  im afghanischen  Kundus zerstört. Nein, die einzige Unfallchirurgie im weiten Umfeld wurde von den US-Bombern vernichtet. Nicht die Russen haben erneut ein wertvolles Antiken-Denkmal im historischen Palmyra  in Syrien komplett zerstört und den 82jährigen Direktor und Hüter  der Schatzkammern des UNESCO-Erbes brutal enthauptet. Täter sind die von den USA, den Türken, den Saudis und Israel gesponsert und trainierten  Anti-Assad Terrorgruppen.  Die Russen haben bis dato auch keine zivilen Kollateral-Schäden bei ihren  mit modernsten Waffen geführten chirurgischen Angriffen** auf Waffendepots und Kommando-Zentralen sowie Ausbildungszentren der Terrorbanden in Syrien verursacht. Sie legen im Unterschied zu den Amerikanern  genaueste  Rechenschaft  ab über ihre Vorgehensweise, die sie  mit dem Iran und dem Nachbarland Irak abstimmen. Ihre Koalition im Anti-Terrorkampf ist  angekündigter Maßen für alle offen, die es ernst meinen. Die russische Regierung handelt damit nicht nur - anders als die US-Hörigen-Willigen - juristisch korrekt in Übereinstimmung mit ihrer eigenen Landesverfassung und mit dem Völkerrecht  auf Bitte der legitimen Regierung Syriens. Sie handelt auch  im Interesse der  unmittelbar vom Terror  heimgesuchten Völker und jener durch Flüchtlingsströme vorerst nur  indirekt  betroffenen Nationen. Dem jüngsten . nun auch militärisch direkten -  Engagement der Russen gingen umfangreiche, teils jahrelange diplomatische Demarchen voraus. Präsident Putin  nutzte die UN-Generalversammlung in New York um gemeinsam mit dem US-Präsidenten und den Regierungschefs der Welt ein  den Terror  ernsthaft und effektiv zähmendes Vorgehen abzustimmen und zu koordinieren. Doch zumindest im Westen scheinen die Entscheidungsträger noch immer nicht begriffen zu haben, was sie angerichtet haben.
"Unsere" Medien informieren uns nicht korrekt. Sie können es nicht, denn sie sind schon lange nicht mehr "unsere" Sprachrohre. Sie lassen Volkes Stimme gar nicht  erst zu Wort kommen, nicht einmal die Interessen unserer Wirtschaft bilden sie korrekt ab, vielleicht mit Ausnahme der Wirtschaftsnachrichten und des Handelsblattes. Das Imperium hat einen eisernen Griff auch um sogenannte NGOS oder Interessenverbände und Parteisprecher  gelegt. Sich diesem Griff zu entziehen, ist Schwerstarbeit. Wer sich widersetzt, hat erhebliche Nachteile zu erwarten. Dennoch ist es notwendig, dass wir den Griff lockern und uns allmählich entziehen, wollen wir nicht mit dem eisernen Halsband untergehen. Alle müssen mithelfen von unten und von außen her zupacken. Nur so können wir einen Beitrag zum Anti-Terrorismus, zum Antifaschismus, zur Wiedergewinnung unserer Würde als Volk und schließlich zum  Überleben der Gattung Mensch leisten. Das Imperium kennt von sich aus keine Gnade. Es fühlt sich exklusiv und zu allem berechtigt, allen überlegen  und gegenüber niemandem verpflichtet. Auch ehemalige  oder noch Verbündete werden in seinen Augen zu Gegnern, wenn sie ihm als  potentielle Rivalen  erscheinen.
 In diesem Kontext muss etwa auch der neuerlich publik gemachte VW-Abgas-Manipulationsskandal gelesen werden. Bei allem Respekt  vor dem dringend einzufordernden Umweltschutz ist Zweifel an der Redlichkeit der Motive  angebracht, wenn sie vom größten Umweltsünder der Erde vorgetragen werden und der Schädigung einer mächtigen Konkurrenz dienen. Der Skandal um die Korruption auf Seiten  der Fifa  dient ähnlich durchsichtigen Zwecken.  Wir müssen auf der Hut sein.  Es gibt Korruption und Korruptionsvorwürfe, die seltsamer Weise immer in einer Richtung vorgebracht werden.
Patriotisch  im Sinne von anti-hegemonial zu denken  ist kein Verbrechen, sondern eine  Notwendigkeit. Abwehr- und Verteidigungskämpfe  können nur auf nationaler Ebene beginnend erfolgreich geführt werden. Das hat nichts mit Abschottung zu tun, sondern macht echte internationale Solidarität erst möglich. Rechte Rattenfänger werden dagegen  eingeschleust, um uns das Fürchten zu lehren und uns vom Engagement, vom Miteinander abzuhalten. Das Muster ist altbekannt und wird doch wo es  konkret eingesetzt wird, wenig durchschaut. Nicht jeder Patriot, der Angst von den faschistischen Islamisten-Banden hat, ist ein NAZI. Der "Islamo-Faschismus"  ist so so real und so bedrohlich  wie der "National-Sozialismus" es war.  Der authentische  Islam aber hat so wenig  mit dieser neuesten Variante des Faschismus zu tun, wie der Sozialismus mit den NAZIS je gemeine Sache gemacht hat. Letztere Propagandalüge endlich zu entlarven,  bleibt eine der wichtigsten Aufgaben für  die Friedensarbeit.**** Die Gleichsetzung der  verbrecherischen, von einschlägiger Seite gesponserten  NAZIS mit dem Sozialismus ist eine Jahrhundertlüge aus den Laboren der Waffenindustrie. Man könnte sagen es ist eine chemische Keule, mit Hilfe derer die Massen kampfunfähig gehalten werden. Die Resultate  dieses Nerven-Giftes finden sich überall auf der Welt. Mithilfe dieses Kampfstoffes wurden die Reste der fortschrittlichen sozialen Bewegungen entschärft.
Die SA-Schlägerbanden wurden aus den selben Kreisen gesponsert wie heute die unter dem Zeichen des Islam segelnden Terrorbanden. ****** Sie dienen letztlich denselben Zwecken: Einschüchterung und Unterdrückung jeglicher Opposition gegenüber einem Allmacht  beanspruchenden Imperium. Die Islamo-Faschisten aber sind noch skrupelloser und widerwärtiger  in ihren Methoden als die NAZI-Schergen.Ihr völlig enthemmtes Vorgehen unter Drogeneinfluss deutet aber auf das Todes-Röcheln der sie hervorbringenden Kreise hin. Deren Sterbeglöckchen hat geschlagen und sie wissen darum. Eine Weltordnung, die alle Werte beseitigt, die sie  auswärts angeblich zu verteidigen vorgibt,  muss ihren eigenen Totengräber zwangsläufig hervorbringen. Je eher wir das  auch im Westen begreifen und uns dagegen  zusammentun, je besser und aussichtsreicher können wir handeln.
Hindern wir die todessüchtigen Imperial-Mächte daran,  mit ihrer Gier und im Auftrag des Profitgesetzes die ganze Erde zu zerstören. Wehren wir uns an jedem denkbaren Ort. Wehren wir uns gegen die künstlich aufgezwungene Zerstörung aller Werte unter dem Vorwand von Freiheit und Demokratie. Wehren wir uns gegen aufgezwungene Freund- und Feindbilder.
Ex Oriente Lux. Der  Ostwind trägt Hoffnung ins Land. Seine Zeichen heißen AIIB, BRICS, CELAC, SOC. Beteiligt an diesen hoffnungsstiftenden Lüften sind Länder wie  China, Russland. Lateinamerika und Afrika. Die gesamte südliche Hemisphäre orientiert sich nach und nach am chinesischen Beispiel und wird von dort tatkräftig unterstützt.****** Die Zukunft der Menschheit liegt im Südosten. Wir können gemeinsam in Richtung Humanisierung der Erdbevölkerung im Zeichen friedlicher Kooperation aufbrechen oder gemeinsam untergehen. Es ist unsere Wahl, wir bestimmen das Schicksal und kein höheres, außer der Welt hockendes  Wesen.
* siehe zum Beispiel:http://www.rtdeutsch.com/33478/headline/westmedien-kein-is-wo-der-russe-bombt-nur-vorletzte-woche-massakrierten-sie-dort-10-homosexuelle/
***siehe  dazu vor allem: Uwe Krüger,  Meinungsmacht. Der Einfluss von Eliten auf Leitmedien und Alpha-Journalisten - eine kritische Netzwerkanalyse, 2013
**** Der US amerikanische Sprachwissenschaflter und Mädiavist Grover Furr - Chruschtschows Lügen, 2014 hat wichtige Vorarbeit dazu geleistet.

Irene Eckert AKF-Vorstand

Syrien: Präzisionsschläge gegen IS-Panzer – RT stellt eingesetzte russische Kampfjets und Raketen vor 

Ein Hauptquartier des „Islamischen Staates“ und mindestens 30 Militärfahrzeuge, darunter mehrere Panzer, wurden in den letzten 24 Stunden zerstört, erklärte das russische Verteidigungsministerium. Dafür setzt Moskau seine modernste Ausrüstung ein, ...
MEHR: http://www.rtdeutsch.com/33601/international/syrien-praezisionsschlaege-gegen-is-panzer-rt-stellt-eingesetzte-russische-kampfjets-vor/

Hospital Slaughter, Accountability and Propaganda

Brian CLOUGHLEY+ | 06.10.2015 | 22:03

On October 5 Turkey’s Hürriyet Daily News reported that «Turkish military sources said a Russian SU-30 breached Turkish airspace for hundreds of meters in the southern district of Yayladağı in Hatay province for two minutes at 12:10 pm [on 3 October], but returned to Syrian airspace after one warning».
Two minutes. Hundreds of metres. There was not the slightest danger to any Turkish citizen, aircraft or any other national interest and nobody was in the slightest bit perturbed. But the US-NATO propaganda machine kicked into top gear and fed meaty titbits to the western media whose front page headlines then varied from the shrill «Russian warplane violates Turkish airspace», «Turkish jets intercept Russian fighter plane», «Turkey warns Russia» to the thundering «NATO denounces ‘unacceptable’ Russian incursion into Turkey».
The two minutes’ infringement was a navigational mistake – for which an apology was made – but there was no possibility of any clash. The incident was so inconsequential that it did not merit news cover, but the preposterous NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg announced that he had raised «the unacceptable violations of Turkish airspace by Russian combat aircraft» which «are not contributing to the security and stability of the region». Then Britain's ambassador to Turkey, Richard Moore, described the incident as «reckless and worrying,» which assertion is so absurd as to have the merit of risibility. The usual anonymous «US military official» was reported by Hürriyet as having «suggested that the incident had come close to sparking an armed confrontation,» and the propaganda monsoon continued its deluge of disinformation.
Stoltenberg managed to lift the trivial affair into the stratosphere of international security and was assisted by the British defence secretary, Michael Fallon, who declared that «our evidence indicates they [Russian aircraft] are dropping unguided munitions in civilian areas, killing civilians». After the BBC reported that «NATO has urged Russia to end air strikes on the Syrian opposition and civilians» the New York Times recorded another «senior administration official» as saying «I don’t believe this was an accident» which «raises questions about basic safe conduct in the skies».
The deep irony in Fallon’s allegation about Russia «killing civilians» and the «senior administration official» talking about «basic safe conduct in the skies,» along with Stoltenberg’s absurd and contrived over-reaction to a tiny incident, is that the entire campaign of anti-Russian propaganda took place precisely at the time when there were reports of the slaughter of civilians by a United States air attack on a hospital in Afghanistan.
Médecins sans Frontières (MSF; in English, Doctors without Boundaries), is a saintly organisation that provides medical care in many dangerous and disgusting places around the world, in which at the moment there are few more dangerous and disgusting than Afghanistan. It is difficult to have other than deep admiration for its local and international staff. But this doesn’t stop them being killed. Or being called liars by those who kill them.
In the early hours of Saturday 3 October the MSF hospital in Kunduz in northern Afghanistan was smashed by airstrikes that killed 22 people including 12 hospital staff and three children, and the Washington Post reported that «a US military official said US special forces were on the ground advising Afghan special forces and authorized an AC-130 gunship to fire at an area that was apparently near the hospital».
Following devastation and death came deceit and deception, led by the commander of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan, General John Campbell. This man was reported on 5 October as declaring that US forces had not ordered the airstrikes. He said «We have now learned that on 3 October, Afghan forces advised that they were taking fire from enemy positions and asked for air support from US forces. An airstrike was then called to eliminate the Taliban threat and several civilians were accidentally struck. This is different from the initial reports, which indicated that US forces were threatened and that the airstrike was called on their behalf».
There is no possibility that in any circumstances a US military pilot would take orders from a foreigner – any foreigner at all – to carry out an airstrike. The order for the series of strikes on the MSF hospital came directly from a person wearing United States military uniform. It is impossible that this person did not know exactly where the target was located and what it was because no forward air controller can order an airstrike on a target of which he does not know the exact coordinates – and «MSF wishes to clarify that all parties to the conflict, including in Kabul and Washington, were clearly informed of the precise location (GPS Coordinates) of the MSF facilities... these were communicated to all parties on multiple occasions... most recently on 29 September».
The attacks and the slaughter were the responsibility of the United States. For Campbell to try to disguise this fact and place the blame on Afghan forces is despicable and dishonourable. His line that «several civilians were accidentally struck» is below contempt.
Hungarian MSF nurse Lajos Zoltan Jecs described the savagery. «At around 2 a.m. I was woken up by the sound of a big explosion nearby. At first I didn't know what was going on. Over the past week we'd heard bombings and explosions before, but always further away. This one was different – close and loud... As we were trying to work out what was happening, there was more bombing,» which went on for over an hour.
As stated by MSF, «the hospital was hit by a series of aerial bombing raids every 15 minutes. The main central hospital building, housing the intensive care unit, emergency rooms, and physiotherapy ward, was repeatedly hit very precisely during each aerial raid... Not a single member of our staff reported any fighting inside the hospital compound prior to the US airstrike... the hospital was repeatedly and precisely hit during each aerial raid».
There is going to be an inquiry, but it will exonerate every US person concerned, just as the inquiry into the night-long US airstrikes that killed 24 Pakistan army soldiers – inside Pakistan – on 26 November 2011 failed to identify the guilty. Not one Pakistani was permitted to give evidence or even attend the inquiry.
US-NATO will continue to make claims such as that Russia is «dropping unguided munitions in civilian areas, killing civilians,» while Chief Stoltenberg and all the US-NATO propaganda operatives will concentrate on deflecting attention from the gunship slaughter in Kunduz. They will probably succeed, and the tragedy will disappear from public view. Propaganda usually beats accountability. But it will not bring three dead Afghan children back to life.

Brian Cloughley served in the British and Australian armies and saw active service in Borneo and Vietnam. He spent a total of eight years as deputy head of the UN military mission in Kashmir and as Australian defence attache in Pakistan. He writes military history and comments on international affairs 

Tags: NATO Taliban Afghanistan Middle East US