Monday, November 9, 2015

New Front of Syrian War: White House vs State Department

Dmitry MININ | 10.11.2015 | 08:03

US State Secretary John Kerry admitted at the Vienna press-conference that he had not been informed about the decision of President Obama to deploy Special Operations Forces (SOF) in Syria. This fact confirms the rumors that have been circulating in Washington for a long time.
There are serious contradictions turning into a struggle between the US National Security Council and the Pentagon on one side and the State Department on the other. There is a wide gap between “hawks”, mainly coming from the military ranks, and “moderate” diplomats. The Middle East policy is the best example to illustrate this fact. 
Obama is balancing between the two camps. He is often rebuked for lack of will power while facing rough times. He is inclined to side more often with those who call for a tougher stand. The President seems to be unaware of the fact that by taking the decision to send SOF to Syria without consulting the State Department he puts the State Secretary into an awkward position and undermines the US international standing. The decision to deploy 50 special operations troops to Syria provides one more reason to doubt the US readiness to really change the situation. 
The precedent is important. The decision to deploy SOF is not based on the request of Syria’s legal government, or a corresponding resolution of the United Nations Security Council. Actually, it’s an act of aggression. The presence of US ground forces may provoke further escalation, no matter what initial intention was. Obama deviates from his own statements. The President has sworn there will be no boots on the ground in Syria. 
Many experts are inclined to explain this behavior by the pressure exerted by the military, in particular Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford Jr., the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The General has already called on the President to take a tougher stance on Moscow regarding its activities in Syria. During the nomination hearings in Congress this summer he defined his attitude towards Russia saying it posed the greatest threat to US security. “If you want to talk about a nation that could pose an existential threat to the United States, I'd have to point to Russia," Dunford said at his Senate confirmation hearing to succeed Army Gen. Martin Dempsey as the next Joint Chiefs Chairman and top military advisor to President Obama.
The dubious decision to send SOF to Syria has already proven to be fraught with negative implications. For instance, Turkey slammed this step because the Special Operations Forces are to be deployed on the territory under Syrian Kurds’ control.
Those who surmised that the decision was an attempt to influence the Vienna conference, or even undermine the negotiation process, had reason. They asked Kerry about it. There have been signs recently that the Obama’s advisors continue to insist that the Bashar Assad’s resignation is a prerequisite for stabilization in Syria. They still go on saying that some viable democratic opposition exists in the country while the threat of ISIS is overblown, etc. It should be noted that Kerry actually agreed with Russia’s arguments about the right of Syrian people to choose their leaders. It was mirrored in the final declarationof Vienna meeting. Looks like the State Department knows better what the real situation in the region is like. It realizes that stubborn insistence on Assad’s resignation may lead to deplorable results like it was in the cases of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Muammar Gaddafi in Libya.
The partition on the Middle East policy within the ranks of US top officials are fraught with new surprises. The military is not the only force to influence President Obama. The National Security Council also competes with the State Department for the President’s ear. Normally, those who are responsible for foreign policy in the National Security Council come from the ranks of State Department officials who distinguish themselves as “tough fighters for national interests”. There are some exceptions to the rule, for instance, Michael McFaul, former US ambassador to the Russian Federation, a rare case when somebody with academic background comes to work for the State Department. They believe to belong to the “presidential team’. It makes them look down on former colleagues trying to put them into subordinate position. The State Department pays back with endless bickering, even in halcyon days. In turbulent times, like the ones we face today, the differences come to the surface. Off and on, the divisions produce fierce controversies.
It’s not just about some isolated steps taken by the United States but also about implementation of its Middle East policy. In 2011 the US adopted Political and Economic Reform in the Middle East and North Africa (presidential policy directive – PPD 13) that gave rise to the Arab Spring. This policy is questioned now. Somebody must be held responsible for its failure. Somehow the authors of the document keep away from limelight. Its provisions are being implemented by inertiaSome of those who worked on the directive try to shift the blame on “failed doers” and “bad patriots”.
Take Elliott Abrams, a founding father of neo-conservative movement that influenced many decisions leading to tragic adventures of recent years. In 1985 he gained notoriety for his involvement in controversial Iran-Contra affair. In 1991 he was sentenced for unlawfully withholding information from Congress during the Iran-Contra affair investigation. However, he was pardoned by President George H. W. Bush in 1992. In 2002—2005 Elliott Abrams served as National Security Council Director for Democracy, Human Rights and International Operations. The Council was headed by Condoleezza Rice those days. He was one of ardent advocates of US intervention in Iraq (2003). The Observer claimed that Abrams had advance knowledge of, and "gave a nod to," the Venezuelan coup attempt of 2002 against Hugo Chavez.
Abrams served as Deputy National Security Advisor for Global Democracy Strategy (February 2005—January 2009) responsible for the Middle East policy. He was the one to work out the draft of a total Middle East “democratization” program inherited by the Democratic administration. Today he continues to be involved in the process of defining the US Middle East policy in the capacity of a senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. Elliott Abrams advocates large-scale air strikes against Syria along with the deployment of Army units. 

Being the one to make Obama adopt the program on the Middle East policy, he slams the President for poor performance while implementing his provisions. His criticism is based on the assumption that the President is too weak to carry out the good policy. In 2014, Politico Magazine published his article The Man Who Broke the Middle East where blamed Obama for instability in the region. According to him, “the Middle East that Obama inherited in 2009 was largely at peace.” The President’s policy has gradually led to tragic result. The Democratic team led by Obama should have thought twice before continuing the policy inherited from Abrams, a Republican neocon.
Dennis B. Ross, another neo conservative, brought what Abrams started to completion summing up his ideas in the PPD-13 in the capacity of a Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for the Central Region, with overall responsibility for the region. The Central Region includes the Middle East, the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, Pakistan and South Asia. In November 2011, Ross left the National Security Council just in time. Back then it became clear that the policy had hit snags on the way. 
Before that (in July 2011) Daniel B. "Dan" Shapiro, another co-author of the Middle East policy, left his job at the National Security Council to become the US ambassador to Israel. Perhaps the three understood what they had done and rushed to leave the scene.
The baton was picked up by Susan Rice, the National Security Advisor since July 1, 2013. It shows how blur is the difference between the Democrats, the advocates of liberal interventions, and republican neocons. According to the Washington Post, three ladies – Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice and Samantha Power – share the main responsibility for persuading President Obama to bomb Libya, despite the fact that Defense Secretary Robert Gates opposed the operation. 
Susan Rice supported the program of the Middle East “democratization”. She has been its chief advocate in the capacity of the US ambassador to the United Nations and National Security Advisor (the position she currently holds). 

Probably, John Kerry realizes that the policy is doomed. He seems tobe ready to rectify itIt can be explainedHe took office on February 1, 2013. Unlike Hillary Clinton, his predecessor, he is not responsible for launching the Arab Spring that has brought about so much trouble. Hecan mitigate some of the implicationsAt that, it’s worth to note that the State Department has just started looking for a way out of the quagmire the United States got mired in thanks to the Obama’s Middle East policy, no matter he has diligently taken part in its implementation, even if not eager to do it.
Actually, Kerry is trying to save the image, or, to put it more precisely, whatever is left of it, of the administration, including Obama himself while many of those he is trying to rescue are fiercely impeding the process. Perhaps, they have become prisoners of their own dogmas and are afraid to become involved in investigations similar to those of Iran-Contra affair. Looks like the Middle East policy will stay prominently on the agenda of public discourse as the 2016 presidential campaign kicks into full gear, especially if Donald Trump will get the Republican nomination to face off against Hillary Clinton as the candidate of the Democrats. He can fend off all the rebukes regarding his inexperience in foreign policy by pointing out the “deeds” his rival has committed being responsible for foreign policy, including the democratization of the Middle East.

US 'occupying' Eastern Europe using 'Russian aggression' as pretext: Analyst

News | 10.11.2015 | 05:41
PressTV - A US military plan to send more forces into Europe on a rotating basis to purportedly counter a potential Russian attack is equal to a “military occupation” of eastern European states, a geopolitical analyst in Europe says.
“What is happening is that the US is militarily occupying Latvia, Lithuania and Poland under the pretext of Russian aggression,” said Joaquin Flores, director of the Center for Syncretic Studies in Belgrade, Serbia.
“When we really look at Russian policy, we can see that there is no policy of absorbing or attacking or controlling these Baltic states and Poland at all,” Flores told Press TV on Monday.
“It’s a US military occupation of these states which it feels it’s losing control over and it’s using Russia, the phantom menace of Russian aggression, as a pretext to continued military occupation of other sovereign states,” he added. 
During a forum in Simi Valley, California, over the weekend, senior US military officials proposed plans to expand the American presence in Europe in a bid to counter Russia in the event of a crisis, the Wall Street Journal reported Sunday.
The new measures would allow for the presence of multiple US Army brigades in Europe at any given time, increasing that number above current limits.
Addressing the Reagan National Defense Forum, General Philip Breedlove, the supreme allied commander of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), said he wants more forces committed to Europe in a rotational manner.
General Mark Milley, the chief of staff of the US Army, said the Army is adapting its training to make sure that the US military is able to face threats posed by Russian forces.
The US has vowed to develop military training bases in six countries on or near Russian borders, including Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, as well as Poland, Bulgaria and Romania.
Flores said that Washington is pursuing its own geological agenda in Europe with the planned military deployment but there is tremendous political pressure in some European countries to avoid such military buildups.
“This is primarily a psychological war being committed against the populations of Latvia, Lithuania and Poland,” he argued.
Tags: Eastern Europe US

The “War On Terror” Is The Hoax Foundation Of The Police/Spy State - Paul Craig Roberts

EDITOR'S CHOICE | 08.11.2015 | 16:00
The “war on terror” was a hoax. Americans were deceived by policymakers, who are pursuing a hegemonic agenda. The American people were too trusting and too gullible and, consequently, Americans were easily betrayed by Washington and by the presstitute media.
The consequences of the deceit, gullibility, and betrayal are horrendous for Americans, for millions of peoples in the Middle East, Africa, Ukraine, and for Washington’s European vassals.
The consequences for Americans are an aborted Constitution, a police/spy state and rising resentment and hatred of America around the world.
The consequences for peoples in Somolia, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Pakistan, Syria, Palestine, and Ukraine have been massive deaths and dislocations, infrastructure destruction, internal conflicts, birth defects, invasions, bombings, drones. Millions of peoples have been murdered by Washington’s pursuit of hegemony, and millions have been turned into refugees.
The consequences for Washington’s European vassals is that the millions of refugees from Washington’s wars are now overrunning Europe, causing social and political discord and threatening the European political parties that enabled, and participated in, Washington’s massive war crimes in eight countries.
The populations of the eight countries and Washington’s vassals are stuck with the consequences of Washington’s evil, vicious, and illegal actions. And Americans are stuck with the police/spy state and militarized police who murder three Americans each day and brutalize countless others.
The countries we have destroyed have no recourse to restitution.
Our European vassals will have to provide from their own pockets for the refugees that Washington’s wars are sending to them.
As for Americans, they seem to have settled into acquiescence to the brutal police/spy state that has crowded out freedom and democracy.
But Americans could do something about it.
It is a proven fact that the police/spy state rests on a foundation of lies and deceptions, and these lies and deceptions are now known. Even George W. Bush has admitted that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction. Thousands of independent experts consisting of physicists, nanochemists, structural engineers, highrise architects, fire fighters and first responders, and military and civilian pilots have provided the detailed explanations of September 11, 2001, that Washington failed to provide. Today not even an idiot believes the official explanation. The corrupt neoconservative Bush regime created a false reality and sold it to a trusting population that was anxious to prove its patriotism.
The American electorate knew that the Bush/Cheney regime had deceived them about many things, and the people, believing Obama’s promises of change, put him in office to rectify the situation. Instead, Obama protected the criminal Bush/Cheney regime and continued with the neoconservatives agenda.
We don’t have to stand for this. We can turn off Fox “News,” CNN, NPR and all the rest of the presstitutes who lie for a living. We can cease purchasing the useless newspapers. We can demand that the police/spy state that was created entirely on the basis of lies and deceptions be rolled back.
Who can possibly believe that the massive PATRIOT Act was written so quickly in the aftermath of 9/11? It is not possible that every member of Congress and the staff does not know that such a massive document was sitting on the shelf waiting its opportunity.
Who can possibly believe that a handful of Saudi Arabians acting without the support of any state and any intelligence service could outwit the entire apparatus of the American National Security State and inflict a humiliating defeat on the world’s only superpower?
9/11 is the worst national security failure in world history. Who can possibly believe that not a single one of the national security officials who so totally failed in their responsibilities was held accountable for their failures that brought total humiliation to the proud United States?
Who can possibly believe that the Bush regime’s invasion and destruction of Iraq was a response to 9/11 when Bush’s Treasury Secretary publicly stated that the invasion of Iraq was the topic of the Bush regime’s first cabinet meeting long prior to 9/11?
Are the American people really such washed-up sheeple, such cowards, that they acquiesce to a police/spy state, the foundation of which consists of nothing but lies told by criminals and repeated endlessly by whores pretending to be journalists?
If so, the American people are not a people who any longer matter, and they will continue to be treated by Washington and by their local police as people who do not matter.

 Licht am Ende des Tunnels, beglückend  und wahrhaftig:

Evo Morales bringt südliche Sonne nach Berlin 

Gedanken zum ersten Besuch des bolivianischen Staatspräsidenten in Berlin von  Irene Eckert

Die Finsternis überwinden

Mögen wir augenblicklich  auch  noch dunkleren Zeiten entgegen, die  Wintersonnenwende  ist so gewiss wie das nächste Frühjahr. Helles, aufklärendes Licht scheint jetzt  schon aus Lateinamerika zu uns herüber. Der begeisternde Vortrag von Evo Morales  (Bolivien) an der TU in Berlin am Mittwochabend, dem 4. November, überzeugte 2000  meist junge Zuhörer vom sozial-politischen Wandel im Andenland. Für eine gutes Leben, unabhängig vom nord-amerikanischen Joch engagieren sich  dort die Völker gern.

Evo Morales und Lateinamerika 

Und das geschieht nicht nur im ärmsten der Armen Andenland, nein, in ganz  Lateinamerika wurden die Weichen schon in Richtung Anti-Imperialismus umgestellt. Das kleine Cuba gab einst den Ton dafür vor. Die anderen Nationen folgten langsam  Schritt für Schritt. Che Guevara starb nicht umsonst in der Nähe von Sucre, der nominellen Hauptstadt des Landes. Er ist unvergessen.  Die indigenen Völker Boliviens spielen heute eine führende, zukunftsweisende Rolle bei der Verteidigung von Pacha Mama, dem Mutterboden ihrer Heimat. Der Prozess der Selbstbefreiung aus dem US-Diktat,  aus IWF- und Weltbankfängen  schreitet dort dank des organisierten Zusammenhalts der Ethnien, der Gewerkvereine, von Nationen, die sich gegenseitig stützen, unaufhaltsam vorwärts. Ganz Lateinamerika will heute im Zeichen des CELAC-Bündnisses eine Zone des Friedens sein. Organisierte Menschenmassen bewegen sich im Südlichen Amerika erfolgreich für ein besseres Leben  weg von dem Oberbefehl der Gringos.

Deutscher Geist in Vergangenheit groß 

Bolivien sucht heute selbstbewusst die Kooperation mit Deutschland, technisches Know How im Austausch für wertvolle Rohstoffe. Deutschland, das industrielle Herz Europas hat etwas zu bieten auf dem Gebiet der Spitzentechnologie, aber den aufrechten Gang könnten wir den Bolivianern, den Latinos insgesamt, abschauen.
Sozialpolitisch-freiheitlich  bewegt sich derzeit  sehr wenig im einstigen Land der Denker und Dichter. Wir scheinen dem Geist der US-Hörigkeit ganz und gar verfallen. Seit der Zeit der großen von Europa ausgegangenen Kriege, seit der NAZI-Barbarei, die unser Land im vorigen Jahrhundert  zerstörte, haben wir uns als Nation nicht mehr vom kriegerischen transatlantischen Ungeist losmachen können. Ein nach Freiheit und mehr Menschlichkeit sich sehnender  Geist möchte verzweifeln, wenn er sich nur in Deutschland umschaut. Niederdrückend ist vor allem die scheinlinke 'Heiligkeit', die die sozial benachteiligten Massen auf allen Ebenen im Stich lässt. Der niederträchtige Opportunismus der Macht überlässt die Bürger orientierungslos rechten Rattenfängern.
Verzweiflung möchte einen manchmal beschleichen, ob des Niedergangs der deutschen Parteien und seiner einst blühenden  Kulturlandschaft.  Wäre da nicht das Licht des Südens, das hoffnungsspendende.  Natürlich  bläst auch der kräftige, erfrischende Ostwind Hoffnungszeichen zu uns herüber.
Soll das heißen, Herder, Kant, Lessing, Goethe, Schiller, Wieland, Heinrich Heine und Fontane sind nur noch Schatten einer verspielten  Vergangenheit? Karl Marx und Friedrich Engels leere Namen?  Nein,  das ganz gewiss nicht. Diese Deutschen wird die Welt niemals vergessen. Vergessen werden auch jene nicht, die während des Hitler-Faschismus und dessen völkermörderischem Krieg noch  Zeugnis ablegten von deutscher Geistesgröße. Es waren dies Schriftkundige wie Thomas Mann, Bert Brecht, Lion Feuchtwanger,  Anna Seghers, die im Ausland weiter schrieben  und die  deutsche Zunge pflegten. Sie taten es  für das deutschen Volk und für die Welt. Großartig gestaltetes,  künstlerisch wegweisendes philosophisch-soziales Gedankengut  entwickelten an deutschem Geist geschulte Autoren  noch im Exil. Von jenseits des Atlantik drang es erst nach dem Großen Morden zu uns herüber. Es wurde dann vor allem in der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik  gepflegt und bewahrt. Nach Amerika und später in die DDR hatte  der Geist sich vor dem Ungeist der Barbarei und vor der Ausrottung geflüchtet. Aufklärende Aufrüttelung war im  Rooseveltschen-Amerika durchaus noch erwünscht. Die Mann-Kinder, Erika und Klaus, dienten freiwillig in der US-Armee. Als  antifaschistische  Propagandisten,  als Soldaten  kamen Erika und Klaus Mann in ihr  'bleiches Mutterland' zurück.  Ihre Bücher und die anderer  von den NAZIS ins Exil vertriebenen deutschen Autoren sind bis  heute von bleibender Aktualität.  Erwähnt seien stellvertretend nur der vierbändige  "Josef-Roman" Thomas Manns über das Verhältnis von Religion und Politik,   sein  "Doktor Faustus"  über den Beitrag des Geistes zum deutschen Verhängnis, das Wissenschaftlerdrama  "Gallileo Gallilei"  von Bert Brecht über den Mut zur Wahrheit und Feuchtwangers  Künstler-Roman "Goya oder der arge Weg zur Erkenntnis" und nicht zuletzt das Widerstandsepos "Das Siebte Kreuz" von Anna Seghers und ihr  Flüchtlingsroman "Transit". Welch ein Niedergang spiegelt sich  demgegenüber schon in der Vergabe der Literaturpreise seit Jahren im wieder geeinten Großdeutschland unter neoliberaler US-amerikanischer Fuchtel. Keine Stimme aus dem Exil schreibt mehr gegen das Entsetzen an. Vielmehr sind Ödnis und  Finsternis auf dem  heutigen Literaturmarkt ein eigenes Entsetzen wert. Gleiches gilt für die Zeugnisse einer zahnlosen, weil  zum Lohnschreibertum verurteilten Kritik.

Geschichtsbewusstsein befreit

 Erinnern wir uns aber, dass dies nicht immer so war. Es waren immerhin deutsche Köpfe, die den Sozialismus  theoretisch reflektierten, für möglich erklärten und realisieren halfen. Es ist das Bewusstsein von dieser unserer Geschichte, das uns am Ende zu befreien vermag. Vergegenwärtigen wir uns, dass es geschichtsbewussten Dissens auch im satten Deutschland des 21. Jahrhunderts, wenn auch  in Nischen noch gibt. Die widerständigen Stimmen kommen jetzt aber nicht mehr  aus der traditionellen Linken oder deren Umfeld. Dort werden sie vielmehr  als Belzebub angeprangert. Alles erscheint heute verdreht. Die Spindoktoren  haben im Auftrag der Macht  ganze Arbeit geleistet. Dennoch  gibt es allen Unkenrufen zum Trotz die  Stimmen  furchtloser Journalisten. Der Geist lässt sich  niemals völlig zum Verstummen bringen. Bedeutende Beiträge medialer  Aufklärer finden heute zwar   keinen Widerhall bei der LINKEN. Dessen ungeachtet  haben aufklärende Stimmen dennoch einiges  Gewicht. Ob sie mit  lauten oder  leisen Zungen sprechen.  Ob sie  Ken Jebsen oder heißen oder Bettina Marx. Ob sie  über Israels Medien und den Krieg  im aufklären oder über die Geheimarmeen der NATO Bücher verfassen, wie der Schweizer  Wissenschaftler Daniele Ganser. Solche  Stimmen sind unser Gewissen. Zu  diesem Gewissen zählen auch  ehemalige SPD-Politiker  des Albrecht Müller Kreises und seine NachDenkSeiten. Auch Wortmeldungen aus den Reihen der Rechtsparteien wie die eines  Willi Wimmer oder Jürgen Todenhöfer gehören dazu. Diese  Stimmen fordern Recht und Gerechtigkeit und eine völkerrechtskonforme Außenpolitik.

Es gibt also mutige Aufklärer in deutschen Landen. Es ist durchaus Widerspruch vorhanden auch heute, auch in unserem Volk. Der Widerspruch richtet  sich vor allem und zurecht gegen  die massenmediale Dauer-Gehirn-Waschanlage.  Aber die Massen bewegen sich derzeit kaum und wenn dann oft  in die falsche Richtung. Sie  können sich derzeit nicht im fortschrittlichen Sinne vorwärts bewegen, weil sie in Anbetracht einer verlogenen LINKEN führungslos sind.  Es  gebricht ihnen an der nötigen Organisation. Unter solchen gewollten Voraussetzungen gehen sie schlimmstenfalls  den marktschreierischen und einschlägig gesteuerten Pseudo-Protestbewegungen  vom Zuschnitt der  PEGIDAs und HOSEGAs und ähnlichen Etikettenschwindlern  auf den Leim. Dafür müssen sie sich  dann von genau jenen beschimpfen lassen, die solche Fehlorientierung zu verantworten haben. Das ist zynisch, das ist bitter. Ein Ausweg aus verzweifelnder Verblendung hilft nur ein Blick in die große weite Welt. In der noch unterentwickelt erscheinenden Welt des globalen Südens zeichnen sich rapide Veränderungen von ungeahnten Ausmaßen ab. Die Buchstabenfolgen AIIB, BRICS und CELAC sind Vorboten einer sich neudefinierenden multipolaren Welt.  Je früher wir Nordlichter das zu erkennen vermögen, je mehr Kraft und Willen zu gesellschafts-politischem Handeln werden wir daraus in unserem Interesse gewinnen. Was die Latinos vermögen, warum sollte das uns nicht gelingen?

Neuverteilung geopolitischer Gewichte

Im großen geopolitischen Gefüge verändern sich derzeit deutlich die Gewichte.  Das wird sich am Ende auch auf uns erfrischend und belebend auswirken. Mit Russlands militärischem Eingreifen in Syrien und seiner groß angelegten diplomatischen Offensive, mit der Rede des lateinamerikanischen Papstes vor den Vereinten Nationen, mit Bündnissen wie BRICS und CELAC geht die Initiative für den globalen Fortschritt, ja für den Erhalt von Mutter Erde allerdings definitiv weg vom Alten  Europa. Der längst verbrauchte Kontinent wird - von unmündigen Politikern verraten - abgehängt   werden. Die Zukunft gehört dem geopolitischen Süden. Ex Oriente Lux, meinte der alte Goethe.  Erweitern wir den Orientbegriff hin zum Süden. Suchen wir dort Orientierung und unterstützen wir die Kräfte des sozialen Fortschritt und der Verteidiger des Völkerrechts. Auf die richtungsweisenden  Parolen kommt es. Mit ihrer Hilfe können wir  Fackelträger sein. Wir können als  aufgeklärte und mit Verstandeskraft handelnde Individuen die gute Mutter Erde und   den guten Geist der Menschlichkeit bewahren helfen:
  • Wider den Terror des US-Imperialismus!
  • Schluss mit der selbstschädigenden Politik der Sanktionen!
  • Schluss mit der Unterstützung der kriegerischen  NATO!
  • Wider souveränitätseinschränkende  Geheimabkommen!
  • Nein zum demokrativerneinenden TTIP!
  • Respekt vor der Verfassung! Respekt vor dem Völkerrecht!