Archive | April 21st, 2018

The Globalization Phenomenon: Different Perspectives of Analysis


An overview of the literature on globalization shows the presence of four great waves of theoretical approaches to the analysis of this social phenomena (Martell 2010, Berry 2011).

The first wave is represented by the hyperglobalist approach, which is focused on the idea of globalization as economic transformation, from both a neoclassical (Ohmae 1993, 2001; Wolf 2005; Levitt 1986) and marxist perspective (Callinicos 2001, 2002; Bieler et. al. 2006; Gill 1995; Robinson 2001). This approach conceives globalization as a matter of fact: the inevitable emergence of a single global capitalist market economy.

The second wave is represented by the skeptical thesis, which disputes the reality of globalization as a structural change (the emergence of a single global economy and the impact of global market forces on state capacity). For this approach globalization doesn’t exists: the world is not globalized or globalizing; nation states still have the power to influence the effects of globalization and regional alliances – on the basis of common interests – can contrast the structure of global power (Hall 1986; Helliwell 2000; Ruigrok & van Tulder 1995; Zysman 1996; Weiss 1998, 2006; Hirst & Thompson 1996; Cerny 1995, 2000, 2006; Hobson & Ramesh 2002).

The third wave is represented by transformationalism or geographical approach. This wave, which has been strongly influenced by Giddens (1990, 2002) and Castells (1996, 1997, 1998), consider globalization essentially in terms of geographical transformation (the inevitabile emergence of a supraterritorial social space) and uphold the role of cosmopolitan democracy in dealing with its economic, political and social effects (Held, McGrew, Scholte 2005; Rosenau 1997; Phillips 2005a, 2005b).

All these waves treat globalization from a materialist perspective, in terms of structural change. The role of ideas and subjective reflexivity in shaping social reality and influencing agents action is not taken into consideration. People act in function of their location in the structural context and material interests are the main drivers of human behaviour (Berry 2008).

The fourth wave represents a variegated approach to the ideational and discoursive dimensions of globalization. Within it Berry (2008, 2011) includes four main perspectives: Hay’s third wave of globalization theory, the post-structuralist, the neo-gramscian and the ideological ones.

The Hay’s perspective conceives globalisation as a set of ideas produced by certain economic and political actors to justify or legitimate change. These ideas provide cognitive frames through which interpret social reality and defining what is economically and politically acceptable in terms of public policies. This perspective, which draws upon the skeptical thesis, is focused on the empirical investigations of these ideas, especially in British political discourse, with the purpose of demistifying globalization as a false idea (Hay 1997, 1998, 1999, 2002; Hay & Marsch 2000; Hay & Rosamond 2002; Hay & Smith 2005; Hay & Watson 1998, 1999; Rosamond 1999, 2003; Smith 2005; Watson 1999, 2005).

Post-structuralist perspective conceives globalization as a set of narratives which provide meaning to reality and exercise of power by reframing the collective economic imagery of society on the basis of a space-time compression. The core concept of these narratives is the arrival of a post-national economy represented by three different domains: the offshore and global economy; the national economy, subservient of the first as states become competitive in serving the global economy; the peripheral economy of socially excluded, which must be retrieved in order to take part to the competition. In this sense, globalization prescribes a new role for the state as an exclusive economic actor subject to economic logic, rather than being capable of shaping economy from an independent point and relating with its citizens only in economistic terms. Hence it would be more related to the subjectivities of the powerful than with objective fact. (Cameron & Palan 2004).

Neo-gramscian perspective focuses its analysis on both the structural and the ideational dimensions of globalization: the former conceived as the emergence of a single global capitalism system and the latter as the dialectis between hegemonic (the liberal globalization based on the ricardian free trade theory and the anti-statist individualism), and counter hegemonic ideology (the global democratization of the global movements). Drawing upon foucauldian thought (Foucault 1969, 1971), this perspective considers globalization as a form of intellectual power expressing through the knowledge system of neoliberal ideology and propagated by institutional authority (Rupert 2000; Mittelman 2004; Antoniades 2007).

The ideological perspective is represented by the work of Manfred Steger (2002, 2005, 2008), which is focused on the emerging of the new ideology of market globalism: a hegemonic ideology fostered by elite to legitimate their power and which represents the dominant perspective on what globalization. It is conceived as the product of globalization discourse made by neoliberalist by associating globalization with market, in order to legitimate the notion of free trade.

The fourth wave challenges the materialist approach of previous three waves, focusing on the role of ideas and beliefs about the structural change in shaping its meaning and influencing action upon it. This approach proposes a radical change of perspective on the analysis of globalization, moving the focus from the dispute about the fact that the world is or not globalized or globalizing to the beliefs about globalization. It conceives as more important understanding how people interpret globalization, than globalization itself, because the belief that the world is globalized, will make act as it is. Globalization is considered thus an ideational force which influence human action and policy making (Martell 2010; Berry 2008).


Mario D’Andreta is a psychologist. He works as clinical and organizational psychologist and conducts independent research on the psychosocial dimensions of globalization and power. On his own blog,, he writes about psychosocial and socio-political issues concerned with social coexistence, local development, power elites, biopsychosocial wellbeing and acoustic ecology, aiming at promoting the development of a culture of pacific and creatively productive social coexistence. He can be contacted at


Antoniades, A. (2007). Examining Facets of the Hegemonic: The Globalization Discourse in Greece and Ireland in Review of International Political Economy 14(2), 306-32

Berry, C. (2008). International political economy, the globalisation debate and the analysis of globalisation discourse.Working papers, University of Warwick. Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation, 247

Berry, C. (2011). Globalisation and ideology in Britain: neoliberalism, Free Trade and the Global EconomyManchester: Manchester University Press

Bieler, A., Bonefeld, W., Burnham, P. & Morton, A. (2006). Global Restructuring, State, Capital and Labour: Contesting Neo-Gramscian Perspectives.Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan

Callinicos, A. (2001). Against the Third Way, Cambridge: Polity press

Callinicos, A. (2002). Marxism and Global Governance in D. Held & A. McGrew (eds.) Governing Globalization: Power, Authority and Global Governance, Cambridge: Polity, 249-266

Cameron, A. & Palan, R. (2004). The Imagined Economies of Globalization, London: Sage

Castells, M. (1996). The Rise of the Network Society, Oxford: Blackwell

Castells, M. (1998). End of Millennium, Oxford: Blackwell

Cerny, P. (1995). Globalization and the Changing Logic of Collective Action in International Organization 49(4), pp.595-625

Cerny, P. (2000). Political Agency in a Globalizing World: Toward a Structurational Approach in European Journal of International Relations 6 (4), 435-463

Cerny, P. (2006). Multi-Nodal Politics: Transnational Neopluralism in a Globalizing World, plenary lecture presented at British International Studies Association Annual Conference, University of Cork, 18 December 2006

Foucault, M. (1969). L’archéologie du savoir. Paris: Gallimard

Foucault, M. (1971). L’ordre du discours. Paris: Gallimard

Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of Modernity, Cambridge: Polity Press

Giddens, A. (2002). Runaway World: How Globalisation is Reshaping Our Lives, London: Profile

Gill, S. (1995). Globalization, Market Civilization and Disciplinary Neoliberalism in Millenium. Journal of International Studies, 24, 399-423

Hall, P.A. (1986). Governing the Economy: the Politics of State Intervention in Britain and France, Cambridge: Polity Press

Hay, C. (1997). Anticipating Accommodations, Accommodating Anticipations: the Appeasement of Capital in the Modernization of the British Labour Party in Politics and Society 25(2), pp234-256

Hay, C. (1998). Globalisation, Welfare Retrenchment and “the Logic of No Alternative”: Why Second-Best Won’t Do in Journal of Social Policy 27(4), 525-32

Hay, C. (1999). The Political Economy of New Labour: Labouring Under False Pretences, Manchester: Manchester University Press

Hay, C. (2002). Globalisation as Problem of Political Analysis: Restoring Agents to a “Process Without a Subject” and Politics to a Logic of Economic Compulsion in Cambridge Review of International Affaire 15(3), 379-392

Hay, C. & Marsh, D. (2000). Introduction: Demystifying Globalization in C. Hay & D. Marsh (eds.) Demystifying Globalization, Basingstoke: MacMillan

Hay, C. & Rosamond, B. (2002). Globalization, European Integration and the Discursive Construction of Economic Imperatives in Journal of European Public Policy 9(2), 147-167

Hay, C. & Smith, N. J. (2005). Horses for Courses? The Political Discourse of Globalisation and European Integration in the UK and Ireland in West European Politics 28(1), 124-158

Hay, C. & Watson, M (1998). The Discourse of Globalisation and the Logic of NoAlternative: Rendering the Contingent Necessary in the Downsizing of New Labour’s Aspirations for Government in A. Dobson & J. Stanyer (eds.) Contemporary Political Studies, Vol. 2 (Nottingham: PSA), 812-822

Hay, C. & Watson, M. (1999). Globalization: Sceptical Notes on the 1999 Reith Lectures in Political Quarterly, 418-425

Held, D., McGrew, A., Goldblatt, D. & Perraton, J. (1999). Global Transformations:Politics, Economics and Culture, Cambridge: Polity Press

Helliwell, J.F. (2000). Globalization: Myths, Facts and Consequences. Toronto: C.D. Howe Institute

Hirst, P. & Thompson, G. (1996). Globalization in Question: The International Economy and the Possibilities of Governance, Cambridge: Polity Press

Hobson, J.M. & Ramesh, M. (2002). Globalisation Makes of States What States Make of It: Between Agency and Structure in the State/Globalisation Debate in New Political Economy 7 (1), 5-22

Levitt, T. (1986). The Marketing Imagination, London: Free Press

Martell, L. (2010). The sociology of globalization. Cambridge: Polity Press

Mittelman, J. H. (2004). Whither Globalisation? The Vortex of Knowledge and Ideology, London: Routledge

Ohmae, K (1993). The Borderless World: Power and Strategy in the Global Marketplace, London: HarperCollins

Ohmae, K. (2001). The Invisible Continent: Four Strategic Imperatives of the New Economy, London: HarperCollins

Phillips, N. (2005a). Globalization Studies in International Political Economy, in Phillips, N. (ed.), Globalizing International Political Economy, pp20-54. Basingstoke: Palgrave

Phillips, N. (2005b) (ed.). Globalizing International Political Economy, Basingstoke: Palgrave

Robinson, W.I. (2001). Transnational Processes, Development Studies and Changing Social Hierarchies in the World System in Third World Quarterly 22(4), 529-563

Rosamond, B. (1999). Globalisation and the Social Construction of European Identities in Journal of European Public Policy 6 (4), 652-668

Rosamond, B. (2003). Babylon and On: Globalisation and International Political Economy in Review ofInternational Political Economy, 10 (4), 661-667

Rosenau, J.N. (1997). Along the Domestic-Foreign Frontier: Exploring Governance in a Turbulent World, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Ruigrok, W. & van Tulder, R. (1995). The Logic of International Restructuring, London: Routledge

Rupert, M (2000). Ideologies of Globalisation: Contending Visions of a New World Order, London: Routledge

Scholte, J.A. (2005). Globalization: A Critical Introduction, Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan

Smith, N. J. (2005). Showcasing Globalisation: The Political Economy of the Irish Republic, Manchester: Manchester University Press

Steger, M. B. (2002). Globalism: The New Market Ideology, Oxford: Bowman and Littlefield

Steger, M. B. (2005). Ideologies of Globalization in Journal of Political Ideologies, 10 (1), 11-30

Steger, M. B. (2008). The Rise of the Global Imaginary: Political Ideologies form the French Revolution to the Global War on Terror, New York: Oxford University Press

Wolf, M. (2005). Why Globalization Works, New Haven: Yale

Watson, M. (1999). Rethinking Capital Mobility: Re-Regulating Financial Markets in New Political Economy 4 (1), 55-75

Weiss, L. (1998). The Myth of the Powerless State. Cambridge: Polity Press

Weiss, L. (2006). Michael Mann, State Power and the Two Logics of Globalisation in Millennium: Journal of International Studies 34(4), 529-539

Zysman, J. (1996). Myth of a Global Economy: Enduring National Foundations and Emerging Regional Relaities’ in New Political Economy 1 (2), 157-184

Posted in WorldComments Off on The Globalization Phenomenon: Different Perspectives of Analysis

North Korea Extends a Good Faith “Olive Branch”. Kim-Trump Summit in June?



Days ahead of an April 27 inter-Korean summit, seen as prelude to DPRK leader Kim Jong-un and Trump meeting in May or June at a location to be decided, a statement by North Korea’s official KCNA news agency said the following:

“Starting from April 21, North Korea stops nuclear tests and launches of intercontinental ballistic missiles. The North will also close the nuclear test site in the north of the country to confirm its obligation to stop nuclear tests.”

KCNA quoted Kim saying

“(f)reezing nuclear tests is an important process of the global nuclear disarmament, and North Korea joins the international effort intended to fully stop nuclear tests.”

“We will never use nuclear weapons if there is no nuclear threats or provocations against our country. In any case, we will not transfer nuclear weapons or technology” to other nations.

“We will focus our efforts on creating a strong socialist economy and on mobilizing people and material resources for a sharp increase in the people’s living standards.”

“In order to build a socialist economy, we will create favorable international conditions and activate a close dialogue with the neighboring states and the international community with an aim to protect peace on the Korean Peninsula and on the entire planet.”

Trump called the announcement “good news…Progress being made…Look forward to our summit.”

Pyongyang’s decision and Kim’s announcement came on Friday. South Korea called it “meaningful” progress toward denuclearization on the Korean peninsula.

US war secretary Mattis vowed to maintain “maximum pressure.” China’s Global Times called Kim’s announcement “very good news and a major step toward peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula.”

“Pyongyang’s strategic decision could bring a turning point to the long-term” peninsula turbulence.

China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang welcomed the move, adding:

“We hope that the DPRK will continue to achieve results in its economic development and improvement of people’s living standards.”

“China will continue to play an active role” in helping to resolve differences between Pyongyang and Washington through diplomatic outreach and dialogue – what it’s been advocating all along.

North Korea appears committed to suspending its nuclear and ICBM tests, not abandoning the programs.

They’re vital self-defense deterrents if Washington reneges on whatever may come out of a Kim/Trump summit – history showing taking US administrations at their word is hazardous business.

North Korea was burned before, Bush/Cheney reneging on what the Clintons agreed to.

For nearly 70 years, an uneasy armistice prevailed, following Washington’s June 1950 aggression against the country.

What happened before can surely happen again, especially with hawkish bipartisan neocon extremists running both wings of America’s one-party state.

North Korea’s move showed good faith, knowing it’s dealing with an untrustworthy hegemon hostile to its government from inception.

Washington has a lot of proving to do to suggest a policy change after all this time.

Given its rage for endless wars, wanting all sovereign independent governments replaced with US vassal ones, there’s little reason to be encouraged about what’s ahead.

Posted in USA, North KoreaComments Off on North Korea Extends a Good Faith “Olive Branch”. Kim-Trump Summit in June?

The Struggle for Liberation in Southern Africa. Cuba and the Future of Pan-Africanism


The Cassinga to CuitoCuanavale Commemorations. Landmark anniversaries highlight the historic role of the alliance between the people of Cuba and Africa

Two important commemorations related to the struggle for the liberation of Southern Africa and the culmination of the political phase of the independence movement on the continent, have been marked recently through acknowledgements of the 40th year since the massacre of Namibian refugees at Cassinga in 1978 and a decade later when the combined military forces of Angola and Cuba decisively defeated the racist apartheid South African Defense Forces (SADF) in April 1988 at CuitoCuanavale.

Although the independence of the Republic of Angola had been secured in late 1975 and early 1976 after a monumental battle to consolidate the authority of the Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA), the SADF had continued to make incursions into the southern region of the former Portuguese colony through its direct intervention as well as the United States and the apartheid racist regime’s support for the Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA). The appeal by MPLA leader and first president of Angola, Dr. Agostino Neto, to the government of Cuban President Fidel Castro for military assistance, resulted in the defeat of both National Front for the Liberation of Angola (FNLA), UNITA and the SADF by early 1976.

On April 19, 2018, the National Assembly of the Republic of Cuba voted overwhelmingly for a new leader of government President Miguel Diaz-Canal Bermudez. General Raul Castro, the former president, will remain on as Secretary General of the Cuban Communist Party (PCC) for several more years to come. These events in Cuba represent the passing of the torch of Socialist construction and internationalism which was a key motivating element in the answering of the call by Dr. Neto for assistance leading to the formal recognition within the Organization of African Unity (OAU) and the United Nations of the MPLA administration.

Fidel pointed out in 1975 that Cubans are a “Latin African people committed to the eradication of the colonialism, racism and imperialism.” Consequently, there was historical and political justification for their intervention in Angola which resulted by 1988-89 in a framework which led to the liberation of Namibia and the eventual defeat of the apartheid system in the Republic of South Africa.

Cuba has maintained its solidarity with the African Revolution over the course of the last three decades. Thousands of Cuban healthcare workers, technicians and military advisors have provided support to OAU and now African Union (AU) member-states.

One of the last diplomatic initiatives carried out by President Raul Castro as head-of-state was a meeting with the Angolan Minister of Defense on April 13. According to Gramma International, the official newspaper of the PCC, its says of the engagement that:

“President of the Councils of State and Ministers, Army General Raúl Castro Ruz, yesterday afternoon, received Angola’s Minister of National Defense, Salviano de JesúsSequeira, who is making an official visit to Cuba, on the invitation of the Ministry of the Revolutionary Armed Forces. During the fraternal meeting, the two leaders emphasized the excellent relations shared by their countries; the historic, collaborative ties that unite the two peoples, governments, and armed forces; as well as their desire to further strengthen the relationship.”

During the Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) pandemic of 2013-2014, the Cuban government deployed hundreds of healthcare personnel to assist in the elimination of the disease which had killed over ten thousand people mainly in Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia. Cuba’s role in addressing the EVD crisis was so profound that it had to be commended by the U.S. imperialists themselves who mainly responded with military personnel of the Africa Command (AFRICOM).

Cassinga Massacre Exposed the Genocidal Nature of Apartheid Colonialism

May 4, 1978 has gone down in the annals of history as a tragic day for the people of Angola and Namibia. The SADF utilizing its Airforce (SAF) bombed the Namibian refugee camp at Cassinga in Angola killing over 600 women, men and children.

The apartheid regime has said that Cassinga was a military base for the SWAPO armed combatants, the People’s Liberation Army of Namibia (PLAN). Yet photographs published of the event showed mass graves of hundreds of civilians slaughtered by the SADF.

Cassinga massacre on May 4, 1978 in Angola

Once the area had been bombed by the SAA, a commando unit of SADF troops landed in order to ensure the killing of even more inhabitants of the camps. Although the landing of troops by the apartheid military forces was said to be aimed at the capture or killing of leading PLAN officers, there was never any documented proof that this actually occurred.

After the Cassinga massacre, the movement for the liberation of Namibia accelerated. Sam Nujoma, the former leader of SWAPO and the first president of the independent state formerly known as South West Africa, was invited to address the United Nations. Material aid to SWAPO increased measurably while the apartheid government of the-then President John Vorster was roundly condemned throughout Africa and the world.

Later that year in September 1978, United Nations Security Council Resolution 435 was adopted creating the legal basis for the withdrawal of SADF troops from Namibia and the independence of the apartheid colony. This same resolution also created a United Nations Transition Assistance Group designed to be empowered for a period of one year to ensure the realization of independence for Namibia through free elections under the supervision and control of the United Nations.

Every year the anniversary is commemorated as Cassinga Day. This year on the 40th anniversary a ceremony was planned in Namibia involving the current President of Angola João Manuel GonçalvesLourenço.

CuitoCunavale: The Decisive Battle for Liberation

Ten years after the Cassinga massacre the SADF experienced its most stunning defeat in a series of clashes centered-around the Angolan municipality of CuitoCuanavale. The combined units of the Angolan Armed Forces (FAPLA), PLAN and Um Khonto we Sizwe (MK), the military wing of the African National Congress (ANC), fought battles with the SADF.

The retreat of the SADF units and their strategic shift resulted in compromises within the apartheid state under then President P.W. Botha. Negotiations intensified during the course of 1988 leading to a tentative agreement by the end of the year.

All parties to the negotiations including the apartheid regime, the U.S. as mediator, the Soviet Union as observers, Angola and Cuba agreed upon the establishment of a Joint Monitoring Commission known as the Brazzaville Protocol. The agreement was to allow SWAPO cadres to enter Namibia beginning on April 1, 1989.

This agreement was betrayed by the apartheid forces which attacked members of PLAN leading to clashes resulting in the deaths of several hundred Namibians. Additional discussions were able to salvage the independence process leading to preparation for elections later in the year.

South Africa’s apartheid government agreed to withdraw from Angola and Namibia in order for internationally-supervised elections to be held in Namibia in November 1989. Cuban internationalist units also withdrew from Angola as part of the agreement. Over the period of 1975 to 1989, over three hundred thousand Cubans served in a voluntary capacity in Angola playing an indispensable role in the process of national liberation in the sub-continent.

Namibia declared its independence on March 21, 1990. Meanwhile, the racist regime under anotherPresident F.W. DeKlerk, unbanned the ANC, the South African Communist Party (SACP) and other organizations on February 2. Nelson Mandela was released from prison on February 11 opening the way for negotiations on the transferal of power which occurred four years later in May 1994.

Southern Africa,

Of course the independence of the colonized states throughout Southern Africa was an enormous accomplishment stemming from a series of political, labor, popular and military struggles which extended from the mid-1970s to 1994. The degree of cooperation between Socialist Cuba, the Angolan government, SWAPO and the ANC qualifies as a milestone in contemporary world affairs.

Cuba Presidents Fidel and Raul Castro with Angolan President Dr. Agostino Neto

Today even though the political liberation of Southern Africa is a reality, the threat of imperialist recolonization is still present. The neo-colonialist phase of African history is manifested in the ongoing economic dependency on the transnational corporations principally international finance capital.

Namibia, Angola and South Africa are extremely rich in mineral, energy and agricultural resources. Nonetheless, with specific regard to Angola and South Africa, these states have been undergoing economic difficulties due to the decline in commodity prices utilized to generate western foreign currencies which have created a renewed debt crisis.

Angola is one of two leading producers and exporters of oil from the African continent. Several years ago foreign investment was pouring into the country resulting in phenomenal annual growth rates of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

However, a recent report on the situation inside the country noted:

“Angola is trying to renegotiate its foreign debt, which at the end of last year reached 62.8% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the Secretary of State for Economy and Planning, Neto Costa said in Washington, according to the Voice of America. Neto Costa told a conference of potential investors organized by the World Bank and the United States Angola Chamber of Commerce that the ratio of debt service to tax revenues was 89.4% at the end of last year, and Jornal de Angola reported that more recent figures showed that Angola’s debt may have already reached 67% of GDP.” (Macauhub, April 20)

Of course between the 1960s and the 1990s, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank was instrumental in the consolidation of neo-colonialism in Africa through a process which became known as structural adjustment. These financial institutions which were a by-product of the Bretton Woods monetary system imposed by the U.S. during the post-World War II period for Europe became a mechanism for controlling and containing development projections for independent states in Africa and other regions within the so-called Global South.

The same above-mentioned article goes on to emphasize:

“The Angolan government announced this week it had requested the support of the IMF, but limited to the coordination of economic policies to assist in ‘implementing the government’s program of macro-economic stabilization.’ The newspaper also quoted Neto Costa as saying that Angola’s foreign exchange reserves have been falling since 2013, when they were valued at about US$31 billion, to just over US$13 billion last year. The governor of the National Bank of Angola told the conference that Angola needs to diversify its economy, as 95% of its resources come from oil sales and the country spends US$250 million per month to import food, for example.”

These same issues are not confined to Angola and the Southern Africa region. During late March there was the formation of an African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) in Kigali, Rwanda. The concept for AfCFTA has its genesis within the ideas of the Republic of Ghana’s First Prime Minister and President Dr. Kwame Nkrumah dating back to the 1950s and 1960s.

In a general sense the program is pointing in the direction of economic integration through a single African-centered monetary system, continental trade regulations and joint agro-industrial projects. Despite these noble intentions some states are forced to consider their relationships with imperialists who are the main sources of investment, loans, imports and exports.

Taking these factors into consideration the crises of modern African development imperatives become more of a political question. Are the independent state prepared to break with the imperialist mode of production and exchange? If not then which economic model will be conducive to genuine growth and progress on the continent?

Centralized planning is of utmost importance along with the integration of state entities. The popular forces represented by the workers, farmers and youth must be brought to the leadership of the productive and decision-making process to unleash the capacity of the masses, which is a prerequisite to turning the corner towards sovereignty, Socialist planning and Revolutionary Pan-Africanism in the form of an All-African Union Government.

The sustainability of Socialism in Cuba and the People’s Republic of China could serve as a model for the AU member-states. Both of these non-capitalist states have proven their willingness to work in solidarity with the African Revolution.

Posted in AfricaComments Off on The Struggle for Liberation in Southern Africa. Cuba and the Future of Pan-Africanism

Trump to “Counter” DNC Lawsuit Alleging “A Far-reaching Conspiracy to …Tilt the 2016 Election to Donald Trump”


Seeks Servers, Clinton Emails and “Pakistani Mystery Man”

President Trump is eager to go head-to-head with the DNC which filed a multimillion-dollar lawsuit on Friday against several parties, including the Russian government, the Trump campaign and the WikiLeaks organization – alleging a “far-reaching conspiracy to disrupt the 2016 campaign and tilt the election to Donald Trump.” 


Hours after the Washington Post broke the news of the lawsuit, Trump tweeted

“Just heard the Campaign was sued by the Obstructionist Democrats. This can be good news in that we will now counter for the DNC server that they refused to give to the FBI,” referring to the DNC email breach.

Trump also mentioned “the Debbie Wasserman Schultz Servers and Documents held by the Pakistani mystery man and Clinton Emails.”

Donald J. Trump


Just heard the Campaign was sued by the Obstructionist Democrats. This can be good news in that we will now counter for the DNC Server that they refused to give to the FBI, the Debbie Wasserman Schultz Servers and Documents held by the Pakistani mystery man and Clinton Emails.

The “Pakistani mystery man” is a clear reference to former DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz‘s longtime IT employee and personal friend, Imran Awan – whose father, claims a Daily Caller source, transferred a USB drive to the former head of a Pakistani intelligence agency – Rehman Malik. Malik denies the charge.

Of note, the DNC would not allow the FBI to inspect their servers which were supposedly hacked by the Russians – instead relying on private security firm Crowdstrike. 

Meanwhile, the “Wasserman Schultz Servers” Trump mentions is likely in reference to the stolen House Democratic Caucus server – which Imran Awan had been funneling information onto when it disappeared shortly after the House Inspector General concluded that the server may have been “used for nefarious purposes.” 

The server may have been “used for nefarious purposes and elevated the risk that individuals could be reading and/or removing information,” an IG presentation said. The Awans logged into it 27 times a day, far more than any other computer they administered.

Imran’s most forceful advocate and longtime employer is Florida Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who led the DNC until she resigned following a hack that exposed committee emails. Wikileaks published those emails, and they show that DNC staff summoned Imran when they needed her password. –DCNF

Imran Awan, his wife Hina Alvi and several other associates ran IT operations for at least 60 Congressional Democrats over the past decade, along with the House Democratic Caucus – giving them access to emails and computer data from around 800 lawmakers and staffers – including the highly classified materials reviewed by the House Intelligence Committee

Napolitano: He was arrested for some financial crime – that’s the tip of the iceberg. The real allegation against him is that he had access to the emails of every member of congress and he sold what he found in there. What did he sell, and to whom did he sell it? That’s what the FBI wants to know. This may be a very, very serious national security situation.

Last July, Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer claimed to Laura Ingraham that the Awan IT staffers were sending sensitive information with the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Awans notably worked for rep Andre Carson (D-IN) – the first Muslim on the House Intel Committee, who has several ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Among those with whom Rep. Carson has been involved as a guest speaker, panelist, fundraiser, recipient of funds, etc., are: the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and a number of its chapters across the country; the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA); the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA); the Muslim American Society (MAS); and the Brotherhood’s new proto-political party, the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO). –Center for Security Policy

The DNC lawsuit, filed on Friday, asserts that the Russian hacking campaign – combined with Trump associates’ contacts with Russia and the campaign’s public cheerleading of the hacks – amounted to an illegal conspiracy to interfere in the election that caused serious damage to the Democratic Party.

DNC Chairman Tom Perez said in a statement…

“During the 2016 presidential campaign, Russia launched an all-out assault on our democracy, and it found a willing and active partner in Donald Trump’s campaign,”

“This constituted an act of unprecedented treachery: the campaign of a nominee for President of the United States in league with a hostile foreign power to bolster its own chance to win the presidency,”

Unfortunately for the DNC, which has now exposed itself to an aggressive discovery phase, their case holds no water according to Law And Crime;

Here’s the problem:  several pages of quotes and factual allegations in the beginning of the document are wholly uncited, at least in that section of the document.

Another section of the document, “general allegations,” does cite information through footnotes — some 107 of them. However, the records cited are almost exclusively news reports from sources such as the New Republic, the New York Times, ABC, CNN, Politico, the Washington Post, Fox News, Business Insider, Slate, and other media outlets. Ferretting out exactly what was reported by those outlets is not difficult.

The DNC’s lawsuit shoves what ultimately is fourth-hand information to a federal judge to be taken as fact in support of this conclusion:

Through these communications, the Trump Campaign, Trump’s closest advisors, and Russian agents formed an agreement to promote Donald Trump’s candidacy through illegal means.

Has the DNC just created all the rope it needs to hang itself?

Posted in USAComments Off on Trump to “Counter” DNC Lawsuit Alleging “A Far-reaching Conspiracy to …Tilt the 2016 Election to Donald Trump”

A New African Country: Everything You Need to Know About “eSwatini”


Featured image: King Mswati III (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

The tiny African monarchy formerly known as Swaziland officially changed its name to “eSwatini” earlier this week in order to indigenize its identity and – in the words of King Mswati III – prevent any confusion with Switzerland, and the unexpected attention that this event engendered from the global media has made many people curious about this country and its geostrategic significance.

Swaziland’s King Mswati III declared on Thursday that his country will henceforth be known as “eSwatini”, its name in the indigenous Swati language, which he said would prevent people from confusing it with Switzerland whenever he or his state representatives travel abroad. It’s unclear whether he was just joking about the Switzerland part of his rationale, but the indigenization one used to be a trend in Africa ever since most of the continent gained independence after 1960. In recent years, the African archipelago of Cape Verde officially renamed itself “Cabo Verde”, which means the exact same thing but is just the Portuguese version of its name, while the country popularly known as East Timor has been emphasizing its official name of Timor-Leste lately. What most of the world considers to be the Czech Republic also rechristened itself as the indigenous “Czechia” in early 2016, showing that it’s not just “Global South” countries that have done this .

It’s therefore not unprecedented for something like this to happen, but for reasons speculatively related to the “e” prefix in the new Swati name speciously suggesting “electronic” or something related to the digital age (and thus serving as clickbait), the global media picked up on the story and it made rounds all across the world. This in turn generated a lot of curiosity about a country that most people had never heard of before, and which appears at first glance to be a very unique place given what’s been reported about it in the accompanying news blurbs. Absolute monarchies like the one in eSwatini are very rare nowadays, and the global public’s interest is also somewhat piqued whenever discussing small states such as this one which is on par with Qatar or the US state of Connecticut in size and located right between its much more geographically larger and well-known neighbors of South Africa and Mozambique.

Demystifying The Myth Behind The Monarchy

HIV And Poverty:

eSwatini might seem like a “quaint” and “traditional” place to the casual information consumer, but those who do a bit of digging to learn more about it might be surprised at what they discover. Late last month the country’s Border Determination Special Committee announced that it has the right to claim some of its neighbors’ territory due to the unfair colonial-era delineation that took place under heavy British pressure, dramatically threatening that this could even include South Africa’s administrative capital of Pretoria. eSwatini, however, is a mostly powerless country with no serious military capabilities to speak of, so the news was largely met with amusement by regional commentators and attributed to the tiny country “overcompensating” for its small size with loud rhetoric designed for domestic consumption. eSwatini’s 1,3 million people are mostly impoverished and have the world’s highest rate of HIV infections, so the government obviously has an interest in distracting them from their misery with fantasies of regional grandeur.

Luxury For The Elite:


There are even more cynical reasons behind its territorial claims and national renaming as well, since King Mswati III lives a life of luxury that reportedly includes fleets of BMWs (which his government expectedly denies) and opulent palaces for each of his 15 wives. The King receives a quarter of all the country’s mineral revenue and is suspected of using some of these funds to pay for his two private jets. It’s little wonder then that eSwatini is regarded as being the most unequal country in the world, an academic observation that’s actually a fact of life for most of its inhabitants. Adding fuel to the fire of what must surely be the already existing discontent of the over 70% of the population that must rely on subsistence farming to survive, it was reported that eSwatini was subsidizing the King’s 50th birthday party (which occurs on the year of the country’s 50th independence anniversary from the UK) with money from the Swaziland National Provident Fund (SNPF) that’s supposed to be used to help sick, disabled, and retired citizens.

Expensive Ceremonies:

On top of all of this, the state’s coffers are annually drained in order to pay for the “Umhlanga” or “reed dance” ceremony where roughly 40,000 virgins gather to dance for the King and offer themselves up to be his next wife. The country has made use of World Bank funds to pay teenage girls $18 a month to remain chaste, which while marketed as a response to the AIDS epidemic, might become a way to keep track of who’s “officially” a virgin and therefore eligible to participate in the Umhlanga. Every year the King and his countrymen also partake in the week-long “Incwala” ceremony that the government promotes as its most important cultural event but which has been alleged to have a more monstrous aspect to it involving the monarch’s unconfirmed ‘physical’ acts with snakes and bulls. Whatever the truth behind these stories may or may not be, the Umhlanga and Incwala are sizeable budgetary obligations in one of the world’s poorest states.

“The Scramble For eSwatini”


The deplorable socio-economic conditions in eSwatini suggest that the state would have a powerful opposition movement clamoring for change, but the government banned the most popular parties on anti-terrorist pretexts related to the 2008 “Suppression of Terrorism Act” that it promulgated the same year after three individuals linked to the PUDEMO opposition group died in an explosion while supposedly trying to blow up a bridge near the King’s palace. A spate of bombings in the two years afterwards sowed fear in society that continues to be relied on to this day by the government in asserting the necessity of this controversial legislation, especially after the country’s Supreme Court ruled in 2016 that parts of it were unconstitutional in a landmark decision that the state is still appealing. Regardless of the eventual outcome of this legal dispute, Russia took note of Swaziland’s publicly proclaimed anti-terrorist challenges and entered into military cooperation with it on this basis in February 2017 for what is planned to be an “indefinite duration’.


Russia isn’t the only country that has an interest in deepening its presence in this strategic region of Southeastern Africa between rising Great Power South Africa and potential energy giant Mozambique, as the US restored its “Africa Growth and Opportunity Act” (AGOA) trade privileges with eSwatini at the beginning of this year after they were suspended in 2015 because of “concerns over restrictions on the freedoms of peaceful assembly, association, and expression.” The American decision was preceded by a May 2017 pronouncement that there is “no terror threat in Swaziland”, which might have been an oblique reference to the grounds on which the country agreed to enter into an indefinite period of military cooperation with the US’ Russian rival. This statement is actually hypocritical because it implies that the government has no reason to challenge the Supreme Court’s ruling against parts of the “Suppression of Terrorism Act”, thus suggesting that it continues to “restrict (its people’s) freedoms of assembly, association, and expression” and should therefore be ineligible for the AGOA.


The Neo-Realist “19th-Century Great Power Chessboard” paradigm that’s guiding the international behavior of the US, Russia, and other similarly sized countries during this pivotal moment of the New Cold War isn’t influenced by “moral, ethical, and principled factors” except when relying on them to “justify” certain policy decisions, meaning that none of these states care all that much about the actual domestic situation in eSwatini so long as the sitting government satisfies their geopolitical interests, as it presently does for both the US and Russia. India, too, is making inroads in this landlocked state after its President visited the country earlier this month, giving it $1 million and promising to set up a “Centre of Agricultural Excellence” there, as well as finance the construction of a new parliament. India also wants to share its “developmental model” with eSwatini in order to reduce the costs of doing business there and accordingly connect it to the joint Indo-Japanese “Asia-Africa Growth Corridor” (AAGC).


eSwatini is a predictable partner for India and “easy pickings” for it because the kingdom doesn’t have any relations with the People’s Republic of China, instead “recognizing” Taiwan and even hosting its “president” earlier this week too. The island territory sees the kingdom as a diplomatic ally in the UN, and eSwatini’s willingness to remain loyal to Taipei in spite of the billions of dollars that Beijing could presumably pour into the country if it reverses its recognition is indeed a very rare occurrence in today’s world, albeit one that’s working against its development by denying it a place on the New Silk Road. The US and its allies  have feted the King and endeavored to keep him on their side, but they might have to deliver something of tangible value to his people in exchange for their leader’s loyalty if they want to forestall a Color Revolution in their symbolically anti-Chinese client state, and it’s in stopping that scenario where Russia is set to play a rather peculiar role.

Unexpected Outcomes

In and of itself, Moscow has no interest in interfering in the domestic affairs of its partners – for better or for worse – so it isn’t swayed by international criticism of eSwatini’s visibly authoritarian system. Instead, Russia’s relations with the kingdom are driven by the geopolitical desire to herald its return to Africa as a Great Power on the basis of anti-terrorist cooperation with the continent’s militaries, which in this instance could be taken advantage of by the host state to suppress legitimate opposition forces. Russia wouldn’t feel “responsible” if that happens since its leadership probably “rationalized” the aforementioned anti-terrorist military deal by focusing on the fact that it was made with an internationally recognized government and forecasting that the US or one of its allies would have satisfied the state’s “security needs” anyhow had Moscow not stepped in first with what must have presumably been better (and probably “no-strings-attached”) terms. The result is that Russian-supported forces might be used against what could one day become a pro-Chinese opposition.

Swaziland map

Swaziland, or eSwatini, is located in southeastern Africa, between South Africa and Mozambique

This indirectly protects the interests of the US, India, and Taiwan and might at first seem to be glaringly at odds with Russia’s own global ones, but the fact is that Moscow is masterfully trying to maintain a geopolitical “balance” all across the world per the vision of its foreign policy “progressives” and the tiny state of eSwatini has an outsized role to play in Southeastern Africa. Russia wants to proactively avoid a strategic overreliance on China in the future, and to this end it has a grand strategic interest in cooperating with the Indo-Japanese AAGC in spite of these two Great Powers more or less behaving as the US’ “Lead From Behind” allies in “containing” China. The People’s Republic has a reputation – whether rightly deserved or not – of refusing to provide its partners with market access to countries that China has a strong economic presence in, and Russia is aware that it cannot depend on China to “open up” any doors for it in Africa, though India is a whole other story.

Russia craves a prestigious return to Africa that would mark its evolution from a Eurasian power to a hemispheric one and thenceforth eventually a global one, and it knows that India is seeking partners to assist with its AAGC, to which end it might be interested in cooperating with Russia. With the “win-win” mantra in mind, the provisioning of Russian security assistance to eSwatini could be interpreted as reinforcing a government that’s earned a reputation for being “anti-Chinese” and is rapidly entering into the Indian “sphere of influence”, thus proving the concept that Russia can provide something of value to India and is therefore a worthy AAGC partner for joint projects in much more geostrategically important states along the East African Rimland. To be fair, Russia’s military “balancing” role could also assist Chinese interests as well, but Moscow would have to be incentivized by receiving something of tangible economic benefit from Beijing along this part of the New Silk Road in return, which might eventually be forthcoming if China sees how “effective” this quid-pro-quo works for India.

Concluding Thoughts

The seemingly insignificant name change of a small African country surprisingly caught the attention of the global media, but few analysts have committed the time necessary to explain anything about this country’s geostrategic importance in counteracting the superficial description that most articles have provided about the state formerly known as Swaziland. While not much more than a tiny landlocked speck on the map bedeviled by poverty and AIDS, what is now officially referred to as eSwatini has a much more symbolic standing in regional affairs than one might initially think, since its interesting international partnerships with Russia, the US, India, and Taiwan give one pause to think about how and why Moscow was able to establish military influence in a state that’s so solidly in the Western orbit. One possible explanation is that Russia hopes to leverage its security assistance to this anti-Chinese country in a way that could demonstrate its strategic “balancing” value to India elsewhere in the continent and therefore earn Moscow a role along the Indo-Japanese “Asia-Africa Growth Corridor”.

For as deplorable as the socio-economic and political situation may be in eSwatini, Russia – just like all Great Powers – is less interested in advancing “morals, ethics, or principles” in its interactions with its internationally recognized and legitimate government than it is in furthering its own interests per the Neo-Realist “19th-Century Great Power Chessboard” paradigm that’s guiding its decisions. In this instance, it’s extremely unlikely that Russia will be “called out” by the US because America is doing the exact same thing in its engagement with the Southeast African kingdom, so Washington would basically be “cutting its nose to spite its face” if it were to do so. Furthermore, contrary to decades’ worth of sloganeering, the US doesn’t really care about “human rights” and “democracy” except when these two emotive arguments can be exploited to “justify” a preplanned policy decision. The importance of all the aforementioned is to show that the “eccentricities” of eSwatini’s ruler will be tolerated by all Great Powers except perhaps China so long as they have something to gain from doing so.

Posted in AfricaComments Off on A New African Country: Everything You Need to Know About “eSwatini”

Syria’s Children: “Condemned to Live”, Shackled by the Scars of US-NATO Terrorism


Mark Taliano reporting from Aleppo

During the Western-supported terrorists’ reign of Death and Terror over Aleppo, children felt “condemned to die”. They had no possibility of escape. They were ready to die. For years, terrorists were killing and crippling their friends and loved ones — a sentence of death or dismemberment for which no crime had been committed.

Now that Syria and its allies have all but defeated NATO’s terrorists, these same children feel “condemned to live”. Invisible scars haunt them still. Their future is colored by their past, and they feel shackled.

We in the West inflicted these scars, and we continue to do so.

Interview with Pierre Le Corf, Aleppo Syria, April, 2018


Mark Taliano is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and the author of Voices from Syria, Global Research Publishers, 2017.

Order Mark Taliano’s Book “Voices from Syria directly from Global Research.  

Taliano talks and listens to the people of Syria. He reveals the courage and resilience of a Nation and its people in their day to day lives, after more than six years of US-NATO sponsored terrorism and three years of US “peacemaking” airstrikes.

Posted in SyriaComments Off on Syria’s Children: “Condemned to Live”, Shackled by the Scars of US-NATO Terrorism

Antisemitism in British Politics Is Dependent on UK Foreign Policy


If the May Government will order an immediate embargo on UK arms sales that are used to oppress and kill Palestinians; and if those pro-Israel British citizens will stop sending millions of pounds of tax-exempt charitable funds in a national scandal that helps bolster the Right-wing Likud party and its military occupation force; and if the CFI lobbyists will stop infiltrating the elected Government at Westminster, then the level of antisemitism would, no doubt, fall dramatically.

The linkage is clear. Both the British public and the majority of MPs of all parties, do not take kindly to those who either support or practice racial prejudice and ethnic cleansing, or who exploit British tax laws to support a foreign, expansionist, neo-colonial, nuclear regime that treats the UN Security Council with obvious contempt.

The solution is simple. Stop the indefensible supply of arms and money to the only undeclared nuclear weapon state in the world. A state that, virtually  alone, refuses to be a party to the (OPCW) Organisation for Prohibition of Chemical Weapons to which virtually every other United Nations member is a party. There is a curious cognitive dissonance in supplying arms to a foreign and often brutal occupier of land and then subsequently expressing surprise at the resultant antipathy towards those who are perceived as supporting that destructive policy.

The UK has to choose between political and moral integrity, and increasing antisemitism. It’s a choice that, to date, Mrs May has made badly and the very serious consequences of that choice could determine not only the level of antisemitism but also whether the future will be one of peace, or war.  The British government must adopt an ethical foreign policy in order to avoid the backlash of outraged public opinion.

The propping-up of an illegitimate occupation force of illegal settlers in the Middle East – (which has already been condemned by the UN Security Council) –  with its 10 year old blockade of essential goods to a civilian population of nearly 2m people, is a very dangerous foreign policy that has consequences – some of which we see now in Britain, Europe, the US and around the world.

Posted in UKComments Off on Antisemitism in British Politics Is Dependent on UK Foreign Policy

Striking Syria: U.S. Shameless Violation of International Law. Fabricating Evidence and False Flag Operations


The Real Reasons. Defeat in Syria is more than defeat in one Arab state. It portends a significant shift in the power balance in the entire region.

The United States government has once again shamelessly violated international law. There was no legal or moral justification for launching more than a 100 missile strikes against so-called chemical weapons’ sites in Syria on the 14th of April 2018. Unlike the last strike targeting a single airfield in April 2017 which was also in retaliation for President Bashar Assad’s alleged use of sarin gas against civilians, the US was joined in its assault this time by its allies, Britain and France.The three Western powers claimed that they had strong evidence that the Assad government had again employed chemical weapons in Douma on the 7th of April, killing scores of civilians, including children.

If the evidence was so compelling, why didn’t the US President present it to the US Congress and seek its endorsement for military action, as required by law? Why didn’t the British Prime Minister seek approval from her Parliament, instead of getting a Cabinet cabal to endorse her war plan? The French President also erred in this respect. One could go further and ask why Washington did not share the evidence it had with Moscow, Syria’s staunchest protector?  Or, with other members of the UN Security Council, apart from Britain and France?

Is it because the so-called evidence was obtained from dubious sources — such as the terrorist group, Jaish al- Islam which was fighting the Assad government and in control of parts of Doumaon the 7th of April? Were the White Helmets, a fake civil defence outfit established by British intelligence and funded by both Britain and the US yet another supplier of ‘evidence’? Or as it has happened on numerous occasions in the past, was the ‘evidence’ generated by  Mossad, Israel’s intelligence network, in pursuit of its own nefarious agenda ?

The source or sources of evidence of Assad’s alleged use of chemical weapons is an issue that has to be explored thoroughly for an obvious reason. Since the beginning of the war in Syria in 2011, there have been at least half a dozen alleged episodes of Assad resorting to chemical weapons in order to eliminate his adversaries which after independent investigations have turned out to be false flag operations or gross distortions of what had really occurred. In fact, some analysts are of the view that a terrorist group had stage managed the 7th April Douma episode and then put the blame upon the Syrian government to justify foreign intervention. Ghouta in 2013 was also a false flag operation, according to the celebrated investigative journalist, Seymour Hersh. Let’s not forget that Syria’s neighbourhood has witnessed some major false flag operations including that monstrous lie about Saddam Hussein’s ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’ in 2002-3.

What lends credence to this view about fabricating evidence and false flag operations is the actual situation on the ground. Why should Assad employ chemical weapons when he is on the cusp of total victory over his terrorist opponents and other militants? How does it benefit him? Why should he deliberately elicit the wrath of people everywhere when he is already in a position of strength? Besides, he had surrendered his arsenal of chemical weapons to the UN affiliated Dutch based Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in 2013. This was verified by the OPCW. It was also the OPCW that established some time ago that one of the three facilities destroyed by Western missiles on the 14th of April was in fact a civilian pharmaceutical and chemical research centre manufacturing among other things drugs for cancer treatment necessitated by the embargo imposed upon Syria.

With all this as the backdrop, one is not surprised that the US and its allies chose to attack Syria on the eve of the visit of the OPCW to Douma to verify whether, and what type of, chemical weapons were used on the 7th of April. Were the aggressors afraid that the truth about the 7th April episode would expose them? Was the attack a move meant to render the OPCW investigation academic?

Given these and a multitude of other questions hanging over the allegation about Assad’s chemical weapons, why were the US and its allies in such a hurry to strike Syria? Before we attempt to answer that question, we must understand that the US and Israel have for decades regarded Syria, together with Iran and the Hezbollah, as the unyielding obstacle to their persistent drive to dominate and control the region. To put it in another language, Syria, Iran and Hezbollah constitute the triumvirate of resistance to the US-Israel Agenda of Hegemony over West Asia and North Africa (WANA). Israel in particular seeks to curtail and if possible crush each of the three for similar and dissimilar reasons. Since our concern is with Syria we shall examine why the leadership of that country is in Israel’s radar.

For Israel, control over Syria’s Golan Heights is vital for its security. Israel’s notion of security is defined by its ability to control and dominate its neighbours such as Syria and Lebanon. The Golan Heights which Israel captured in the 1967 War was formally annexed on 14 December 1981. It is important to note that it supplies water to Israel and contains oil, gas and minerals.  With annexation, Israel asserted its perpetual sovereignty over Golan which to this day international law recognises as part of Syria. To translate its illegal annexation into political reality, Israel has for a number of years sought to oust the independent minded government in Damascus and replace it with a puppet regime. It saw the uprising that broke out in March 2011 in a small township in Syria as an opportunity and backed the rebels. Very soon, the rebels were joined by militants, many of whom were linked to various terrorist outfits. These terrorist outfits such as Al-Qaeda were financed by countries in the region and trained and equipped by groups in WANA and from Europe and the US. It is not widely known for instance that Israel itself has provided arms to seven different terror groups in Syria.

By the middle of 2015, Israel and other supporters of these groups within WANA such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey and those outside the region such as the US, Britain and France, were confident that they would be able to oust Bashar Assad, based upon the vast swathes of land and resources that the anti-Assad forces had seized. Realising that its longstanding ally in WANA was in mortal danger, Russia decided to intervene militarily in September 2015. It fortified the Syrian Army, and with the assistance of Hezbollah and Iranian advisers and militias, Russia intensified the fight against terrorist groups in Syria. Within 20 months it was obvious that the tide had changed. The Bashar government, buttressed by Russia, had regained control of most of Syria by the last quarter of 2017. Douma was in a sense one of the last footholds of one of the terrorist groups. With defeat staring in the face of not only the terrorists but also Israel, some other regional players and of course the US and its allies, the latter decided hastily to strike against Syria on the 14th of April.

Defeat in Syria is more than defeat in one Arab state. It portends a significant shift in the power balance in the entire region. Russia may well emerge as the pivot of this change with crucial roles for Iran and Syria and other players. It is a scenario that is totally unacceptable to the US and its allies like Britain and France. Incidentally, all three at various points in the present and the past have been imperialist powers in the region.

It is not a coincidence that in all these three countries, Israel and Zionism exercise inordinate influence. Israel has always viewed the US and to a lesser extent Britain and France as the protectors of a power structure in WANA that guarantees its own regional hegemony. It is because Israel and its protectors are now uncertain about their dominance that they have chosen to flex their muscles.

Posted in USA, SyriaComments Off on Striking Syria: U.S. Shameless Violation of International Law. Fabricating Evidence and False Flag Operations

Syrian War Report: April 18, 2018


Syrian Army Advances In Rastan, Reaches Deal In Dumayr

…from SouthFront

After the victory in Eastern Ghouta, the Syrian military turned its eyes to other militant-held pockets across the country.

On April 15, the Syrian Army and the National Defense Forces launched a military operation against Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (formerly Jabhat al-Nusra) in the Rastan pocket in northern Homs. They have have liberated a large number of points including Jarjisah, Ard Jasiyah, Ard Qabr Shaykhah, Zahrat Jibab and Tal Na’ourah.

By April 18, the militants had re-grouped and launched a counter-attack on Jarjisah. Clashes are ongoing there.

A reconciliation agreement has been reached in the town of Al-Dumayr in Eastern Qalamoun. On April 17, militants there started surrendering their heavy and medium weapons. About 1,000 militants and their associates are set to withdraw from the area. The rest will settle their legal status.

In southern Damascus, the military is preparing for a military operation against ISIS in the Yarmouk camp area. Major reinforcements have already been deployed for this advance. However, the operation may be delayed if the situation in the Rastan pocket turns out to be complicated and the militants’ advance there gains momentum.

On April 17, OPCW inspectors entered the town of Douma to probe the alleged April 7 chemical attack. The US-led block accuses the Syrian government of being behind it. Russia and Syria say that the attack was staged.

Saudi Arabia is open to sending troops to Syria under the US-led coalition if such a decision is taken, Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir said on April 17 adding that his country has been in discussion with the US on the issue “since the beginning of the Syrian crisis”.

Earlier a Wall Street Journa report claimed that the Trump administration is seeking to establish some “Arab force” that would replace US troops in northern Syria. This “Arab force” reportedly could be established with the support of Saudi Arabia and some other Gulf states.

The problem is that Saudi Arabia is currently involved in a long and complicated military conflict in Yemen. The Saudi-led coalition intervened in the country in 2015 in order to defeat the Houthis and to establish a puppet government there. However, since then, the Saudi-led coalition has not been able to achieve its main military or political goals. Its forces have not been able to capture the Yemeni capital. At the same time, the Houthis have increased cross-border attacks against and missile launches at Saudi Arabia.

Moe details and versions have appeared about the alleged April 17 missile attack on Shayrat and Dumair military airfields. According to a new version originating from some military sources, surface-to-air missile launches by the Syrian Air Defense Forces (SADF) were triggered by a false alarm and no attack actually took place.

The Syrian military made no official statement on the issue, but the state-run media also circulated this version referring to a military source. The initial claims by the Syrian state-run media and other sources about a repelled attack could be viewed as an example of propaganda in this conflict.

The version most popular in the MSM is that the April 17 incident was triggered by combined US-Israeli electronic or cyber warfare attack.

Posted in SyriaComments Off on Syrian War Report: April 18, 2018

Washington Post: Trump is crazy


What should we do with psychopaths in the White House? Lock them up. Indefinitely.

…by Jonas E. Alexis

We all know that the Washington Post is a Zionist outlet. But the Post has recently published something which does make some sense. Trump, the Postargued, has bombed Syria, pretending to save lives and stop the use of chemical weapons.

But by bombing Syria, Trump has destabilized the lives of the average Syrian. If those Syrians happen to move to a different country—such as America—Trump would walk to the political podium and start talking nonsense. He would be saying crazy things like America needs to tighten up on immigration.[1]

Right after the alleged Paris terrorist attacks in Paris in 2015, Trump declared that America needed to ban all Muslims from entering the country “until we figured out what the hell is going on.”[2]

But do Muslims get to ask ‘what the hell is going on” as well? Do they have the right to ask why America is incessantly bombing their countries for Israel? And as columnist Peter Hitchens of the Daily Mail has recently argued, how is Trump really helping the situation in Syria by bombing the country?[3] Why didn’t he start presenting for evidence? Why didn’t he call for a peaceful resolution? Why was he in a hurry to bomb a sovereign country?

Political whore Nikki Haley has recently said that the United States is not living Syria “until we know we have accomplished those things.” One of those things, said Haley, is that the Islamic State, commonly known as ISIs or IS, must be defeated completely. Haley is obviously a complete retard.

Once again, Assad has been fighting the Islamic States since the beginning of the Syrian war, and now this woman is telling all the world that the United States is fighting the Islamic State by fighting Assad! Is she that dumb? Or does she really believe that much of the world is that dumb?

It seems that the Israeli ideology is so engrained in Haley, Trump and other White House puppets that they cannot think for themselves at all. It is really sad and pathetic because those people know better. It is even more interesting that right after the United States bombed Syria, hundreds of Syrians began to rally their support for the Assad government.[4]
So, what should we do with psychopaths in the White House? Lock them up. Indefinitely.

  • [1] “Trump’s Compassion for Syrians Stops at U.S. Shores,” Washington Post, April 15, 2018.
  • [2] “Donald Trump statement on banning Muslims from US disappears from his website,” Independent, December 7, 2015.
  • [3] Peter Hitchens, “How On Earth Would Killing MORE People Rescue Syria?,” Daily Mail, April 15, 2018.
  • [4] Sarah El Deeb, “Syrians rally in Damascus in support of Assad’s military,” Orlando Sentinel, April 16, 2018.

Posted in USAComments Off on Washington Post: Trump is crazy

Shoah’s pages


April 2018
« Mar   May »