Archive | February 10th, 2020

Arab media accuse US, ‘Israel’ of coronavirus conspiracy against China

One report claimed that it was no coincidence that the coronavirus was largely absent from the US and ‘Israel’.

A staff member checks the temperature of a passenger entering a subway station, as the country is hit by an outbreak of the new coronavirus, in Beijing, China January 28, 2020. (photo credit: CARLOS GARCIA RAWLINS/ REUTERS)

A staff member checks the temperature of a passenger entering a subway station, as the country is hit by an outbreak of the new coronavirus, in Beijing, China January 28, 2020.(photo credit: CARLOS GARCIA RAWLINS/ REUTERS)

Numerous reports in the Arab press have accused the US and Israel of being behind the creation and spread of the deadly coronavirus as part of an economic and psychological war against China, the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) reported.One report in the Saudi daily newspaper Al-Watan claimed that it was no coincidence that the coronavirus was absent from the US and Israel, though this is despite America having 12 confirmed cases at the time of writing.

“A ‘wonder’ virus was discovered yesterday in China; tomorrow it will be discovered in Egypt, but it will not be discovered either today, tomorrow or the day after tomorrow in the US or Israel, nor in poor countries such as Burundi or the Comoro Islands,” the report said.It also went on to accuse the US and Israel of being behind other outbreaks over the past several years in China and in the Arab world.”As soon as Egypt announced, a few years ago, that it would rely on poultry [raised in the country], and that it would even export [poultry] abroad – that is, that it no longer needed poultry from the US, France, and so on – [suddenly] there appeared, from underneath the ground, the avian flu virus… with the aim of nipping [Egypt’s economic] awakening in the bud,” the report said.”Even before this, the same thing was done in China… when in 2003 [the country] announced that it had the [world’s] largest dollar reserves [and] they [the Americans] introduced coronavirus’ cousin, SARS, into [the country].”At the beginning of February, Syrian daily newspaper Al-Thawra also claimed the coronavirus and other outbreaks were part of a US-China war.

“From Ebola, Zika, SARS, avian flu and swine flu, through anthrax and mad cow disease to the corona[virus] – [all these] deadly viruses were manufactured by the US and threaten to annihilate the peoples of the world,” the report alleged. “[The US] has turned biological warfare into a new type of war, by means of which it intends to change the rules of play and shift the conflict with the peoples [of the world] away from the conventional path.”A report on the Egyptian news site Vetogate.com built on this theory even more, specifying why Wuhan was supposedly chosen as the epicenter of the current outbreak.”American factories are the first to manufacture every kind of virus and bacteria, from the virulent smallpox virus and the bubonic plague virus to all the viruses we saw in the recent years, such as mad cow disease and swine flu,” the site claimed. “Wuhan, the city that has now been struck by the corona[virus], is an industrial town, but it is nevertheless the eighth-richest city in China after Shanghai.”Guangzhou, Beijing, Tianjin and Hong Kong, are the country’s major cities. [Wuhan’s] place at the bottom of the list [of China’s major cities] is what makes it a suitable [place] for an American crime… for it is not a focus of attention, and the level of healthcare there is surely lower than in the larger and more important cities.”

The news site adds that there is a theorized economic motivation for the outbreak, as the supposed masterminds behind it will reap the billions of dollars spent by China on emergency treatments and medicines, “which, by the way, will be manufactured by an Israeli company.”Over 37,000 people around the world have been infected with the coronavirus as the outbreak continues to spread. The current death toll is over 800 people.

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZI, ChinaComments Off on Arab media accuse US, ‘Israel’ of coronavirus conspiracy against China

Politics and Corruption at the World Health Organization (WHO)

By Pascal Sacré

Global Research,

This article, translated from French, was written prior to Wuhan Coronavirus epidemic outbreak

***

The WHO [OMS in French] is the World Health Organisation. ‘WHO’ in English – and that’s much more appropriate. WHO: who is it really?

Would the world be getting along any better without this outfit, which is in theory such a good idea? Would we be in better health?

The question is as serious as it is relevant.

Though even one death is one too many, compared with the alarmist forecasts from this professional organisation that were foisted on all the ministries of health the world over, one could say that the H1N1 viral pandemic, version 2009, has so far produced not much more than a mouse.

But what a fabulous show for the media!

What a brilliantly organized panic!

How many millions of euros spent, and best of all, what worrying rumours, about the health risks linked this time to the vaccination, which might not even work!

Thus arose a psychosis that might have stolen the headlines even from a much more palpable threat, much more deadly and with effects that have already been felt to the bone by a large part of the world’s population: the climatic effects of pollution and of the way of life engendered by the currently prevailing ideology, that of extreme and unfair capitalism, “deregulated” as it is called in the sober phraseology of its well-heeled master thieves.

Meanwhile the media, ignoring for a moment its celebrities and football matches, chose to focus the limelight – and thus the gaze of the spectator sheep – on the representatives, experts and spokespersons of this organization, the WHO. Until this year its existence may have been news to some people, but now its importance is plain to see.

We have been shown people with serious faces and a professional air, the sort to whom ordinary mortals tend to ascribe genuine competence and evident integrity.

Their herald, elevated by some to hero, is called Margaret Chan. If her manner does not excite much sympathy, her curriculum vitae speaks for itself.

WHO: the Facts

Like other world organisations born from the ashes of the war of 1940-45 (the WTO, successor to GATT, the IMF, the UN, successor to the League of Nations), the WHO is a sort of transnational superministry, in this case for health.

Its power overrides that of its national equivalents. It is not subjected to genuinely democratic electoral procedures, in the sense of representing the choice expressed by the populations of its member countries. This is true of all these organisations that in fact control our daily lives in their respective fields. Its constitution came into force on 7 April 1948.

All these organisations are in a way like the arms, the tentacles of an enormous octopus whose purpose is to coordinate, improve and reinforce significant action on a planetary scale.

To clarify a crucial point: it would be misleading to think that these organisations undertake anything at all independently of each other. One could as well imagine that the liver can go on doing its own thing without being at all involved with the heart or the kidneys.

All of them work towards the same goals, each in their own specialist sphere, and all of them answer to the UN and to those who provide their funding.

The WHO has nothing to blame itself for

If you go to the official WHO site, you will of course get the impression that this organisation has a spotless record, and deserves to be praised for its humanitarian deeds.

It’s a bit like Monsanto, this multinational that dominates the market in agribusiness and wants to impose on the whole world its GM seeds complete with the Terminator gene (1), yet which tries to make you believe that the well-being and development of poor countries is its main concern.

Anyway, as in any court of law, it’s democratic, enlightened, modern, to give the “accused” party the chance to put its case.

As for the accusations of corruption and collusion with the pharmaceutical companies in the context of the worldwide vaccination campaign of 2009, it is Margaret Chan in person who has stepped up to the plate to defend the reputation of the WHO.

It’s important to realise that the accusations are weighty, well argued, and made by institutions that are well established, and pronounced by scientists and investigative journalists who are credible and trustworthy. It is difficult to dismiss all of them as a handful of conspiracy theorists, as regularly happens nowadays as soon as an interesting and well-argued debate is launched on a sensitive issue (the official version of the 9/11 attacks, the GIEC’s theory of global warming, Iran’s nuclear intentions, and so on).

It’s true that there is a certain logic in having a measure of collaboration between the WHO and the pharmaceutical companies that produce the medications.

However it is legitimate to ask questions about the exact part played by these firms in the decisions finally taken by the WHO, and on their real influence.

According to the WHO, there are many guarantees in place for managing potential conflicts of interest, as well as how they are perceived by public opinion.

The external experts who advise the WHO are […] obliged to provide a declaration of absence of conflict of interest as well as full professional and financial details that might compromise the impartiality of their opinions. Procedures are in place to identify, research and evaluate any potential conflicts of interest, to divulge them and take appropriate measures, such as excluding an expert from a consultative body, an expert study group or a meeting.

Still according to the WHO, the members of the Emergency Committee have to swear to the absence of any conflict of interest. The members of the Committee are chosen from a list of about 160 experts covering a range of areas of public health. The international health regulations (IHR) that came into force in 2007 envisage also a ruling that aims to coordinate the response to public health emergencies on an international scale, such as the H1N1virus pandemic. But the IHR also includes provisions for setting up, if a pandemic arises, an Emergency Committee that advises the Director General on such questions as the need to raise the level of alert, to recommend temporary measures, and so on. All the members of the Emergency Committee will have signed a confidentiality agreement, provided a declaration of no conflict of interest, and agreed to devote time as a consultant to fulfil their duty, without compensation.

Admirable principles, but without any basis in fact!

More details regarding France:

Who are the French experts? On behalf of France, we find among the consultants for the WHO and the Group SAGE, several members of the Agence de Médecine Préventive (AMP), an agency that lists its industrial partner as Sanofi Pasteur, Sanofi Aventis. We also find Prof. Daniel Floret, President of the Comité Technique de Vaccination, who lists numerous collaborations with the pharmaceutical industry; several members of the Sanofi Pasteurlaboratory, declared as such; a member of the Sanofi Pasteur MSD laboratory; and some other members from the pharmaceutical industry who are based in France.

Thanks to the site Santé log for providing the extracts (in italic, above) of a document from the WHO.

The WHO must give an account of itself

If, unlike most people who only stop to admire the window display, we actually go into the shop, we’ll discover two things:

While the fine words are there to soothe our feelings of distrust, it is still true that the close ties between the WHO experts and the pharmaceutical industry are very dangerous, very obscure and difficult to unravel.

Without being a conspiracy theorist for the fun of it, as if it was a sport or a pastime – as the crusaders backing the official versions and the window-dressing of the official sites seem to think – one thing is clear to my mind, that being obscure does not sit well with being truthful.

If the complexity that characterizes all modern institutions bewilders the outsider and puts major hurdles in the way of ordinary people like me pursuing their interests, it is an unintended consequence of modernity and of the ever-multiplying range of tasks and objectives.

Being deliberately obscure is something else. It is intended to hide something, to conceal intentionally.

The financing of the WHO

Have you ever heard anything about public-private partnerships?

In the beginning, the WHO was supposed to receive funds only from the governments of United Nations members, but a few years ago, in order to swell its coffers WHO set up what it calls a “private partnership” that allows it to receive financial support from private industries. But which industries?

Since that time its credibility, seriously tarnished, has not improved very much, and its independence is seriously questioned because of its total lack of transparency with regard to the scientific proof that supports its recommendations, and its collusion with the multinationals. It is obvious that on the world stage, business and politics have a powerful influence on health. (2)

The spotless reputation of the WHO was already besmirched by a book that came out in 1997, Le OMS : Bateau ivre de la santé publique [The WHO, the drunken sailor of public health], ed. L’Harmattan, by Bertrand Deveaud, a journalist, and Bertrand Lemennicier, professor of economics, who had spent two years making enquiries throughout the world and consulting numerous official and confidential reports. Two medical journals well-respected by the profession had already sown doubts as to the integrity and the infallibility of the WHO, The British Medical Journal (BMJ) in regard to the management of the bird flu in 2005, and The Lancet (3), which described the WHO as an institution that was corrupt and on its last legs.

I leave you to ponder awhile these phrases, reported by the journalist Sylvie Simon in one of her articles (4), particularly the passages in bold (my emphasis):

Doctors Andrew Oxman and Atle Fretheim, from the Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services and Dr John Lavis, from McMaster University in Canada, interviewed the management of the WHO and analysed its various recommendations. Andrew Oxman concluded that “it is difficult to evaluate the confidence thatone can have in the recommendations of the WHO without knowing how they were prepared.”* (*Obscurity).

“We know that our credibility is at stake,” admitted Dr Tikki Pang, director of research for the WHO. “The lack of time and the shortage of information and of money can sometimes compromise the work of the WHO.” Some senior officials of the organisation have also admitted that in many cases the proof that was supposed to be the basis of a recommendation did not exist.

Many testimonies have revealed that when the results don’t match those that the industries and companies are hoping for in order to validate their products, standards are altered and the results manipulated.

Contrary to any procedure that is genuinely scientific and independent, which should base its conclusions on the verified results of its experiments, it seems that the tendency is to do just the opposite, and that results are adapted to produce the desired conclusions; desired that is by the firms producing the medicines, vaccines, and other products concerned.

To cite one example:

Dr Oxman criticized the WHO for having its own quality control methods. In 1999 when its views on the treatment of hypertension were criticised, mainly because of the high price of the medicines recommended without any proof that they were more effective than cheaper ones, the Organisation published some “recommendations for preparing recommendations” which led to a revision of the advice on treating hypertension. (5)

Other murky issues have been brought to the surface by courageous researchers: cholesterol and statins (6), mobile telephony, with manipulation of the data on the harmfulness of electromagnetic radiation (7)…and of course, serious doubts are being expressed on the real danger of the 2009 viral H1N1 pandemic, which has enabled the pharmaceutical companies to rake in millions of dollars of profit.

The bank JP Morgan on Wall Street estimated that, thanks mainly to the pandemic alert issued by the WHO, the pharmaceutical giants, who also finance the work of the ESWI run by Albert Osterhaus, were set to make $7.5-$10 billion profit. (8)

The ESWI, European Scientific Working group on Influenza, describes itself as “a multidisciplinary group of leaders of opinion on the flu, whose purpose is to fight against the repercussions of a flu epidemic or pandemic”. As its members themselves explain, the ESWI, directed by Osterhaus, is the central pivot “between the WHO in Geneva, the Institut Robert Koch in Berlin and the University of Connecticut in the United States”.

The most significant thing about the ESWI is that its work is entirely financed by the same pharmaceutical laboratories that are making millions thanks to the pandemic emergency, while it is the pronouncements made by the WHO that compel the governments of the whole world to buy and to stock the vaccines. The ESWI receives funding from the manufacturers and distributors of the H1N1 vaccines, such as Baxter Vaccines, MedImmune, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Pasteur and others, including

Novartis, who produces the vaccine, and the distributor of Tamiflu, Hofmann-La Roche.(9)

Who is Albert Osterhaus?

Nicknamed “Dr Flu”, Albert Osterhaus, the best known virologist in the world, official consultant on the H1N1 virus to the British and Dutch governments and head of the Department of Virology in the Medical Centre of Erasmus University, has a seat among the élite of the WHO gathered together in the SAGE Group, and is president of the ESWI, which is supported by the pharmaceutical industry.

In its turn the ESWI recommended extraordinary measures to vaccinate the whole world, considering that there was a high risk of a new pandemic which, they insisted, could be comparable to the terrifying pandemic of “Spanish” flu in 1918. (10)

Albert Osterhaus is not the only senior consultant to the WHO whose name is implicated in the dossiers on corruption and possible collusion between the WHO and the pharmaceutical firms, and an industry that wants to sell its products whatever it costs: others are David Salisbury (3)(9), Frederick Hayden (9), Arnold Monto (9), Henry L. Niman, Klaus Stöhr (11).

Professor David Salisbury, who is attached to the British Ministry of Health, is the head of SAGE at the WHO. At the same time he directs the Consultative Group on H1N1 at the WHO. Salisbury is a fervent defender of the pharmaceutical industry. In Britain the health action group One Click (10) accused him of concealing the proven correlation between vaccine use and the steep increase in autism in children, as well as the correlation between the vaccine Gardasil and cases of paralysis and even death.

Dr Frederick Hayden is at the same time member of SAGE at the WHO and of the Wellcome Trust in London; in fact he is one of the close friends of Osterhaus. In exchange for “consultative” services, Hayden receives money from Roche and from GlaxoSmithKline as well as from other pharmaceutical giants engaged in producing goods connected with the H1N1 crisis. (12)

There is yet another member of the WHO enjoying close relations with the vaccine manufacturers who profit from SAGE’s recommendations, in the person of Dr Arnold Monto, a consultant paid by the vaccine manufacturers MedImmune, Glaxo and ViroPharma. (13)

[interview with Wolfgang Wodarg]…Without going so far as outright corruption, which I’m sure exists, there are a hundred and one ways in which the labs can bring their influence to bear on decisions. I noticed specifically, for example, how Klaus Stöhr, who was the head of the epidemiology department at the WHO during the time of the bird flu, and who had therefore prepared the plans for dealing with a pandemic that I referred to earlier, had meanwhile become part of the senior management at Novartis. And similar links exist between Glaxo, Baxter, etc. and influential WHO members. These big firms have “their people” in the system and somehow manage things so that good political decisions are taken – that’s to say, decisions that enable them to pump the maximum amount of money out of the taxpayers. (14)

As for “Dr Flu” Osterhaus, it’s so bad that the Dutch Parliament (15) has serious doubts about him and has opened an enquiry into conflict of interest and bribery.

Outside the Netherlands and the Dutch media, only a few lines in the well-respected British journal Science(16) have made mention of the sensational investigation into the affairs of Osterhaus, who still has the confidence of his Minister of Health.

What all these experts have in common is the concealment of their connections with the pharmaceutical companies while they hold a senior and influential position in the decision-making hierarchy at the WHO, and the fact that they are never challenged. The conflict of interest is obvious, yet systematically minimized.

It is not their expertise or their intrinsic competence that is being questioned, but their independence and their integrity.

The whole matter is sufficiently serious, given the topic in question – our health, to sow doubt and to justify pursuing every investigation, every question, with means that match the urgency of the issue, and by organizations of irreproachable reputation that are truly independent.

It is not the WHO that should investigate the WHO

It’s as if the accused was allowed to lead the enquiry into the crimes imputed to them. If I were an impartial prosecutor, not aiming for scandal or publicity but only for the truth, whatever it may be, even if it is worse than the worst of the lies, I would call to the bar:

Dr Wolfgang Wodarg, president of the Health Commission of the Council of Europe. This member of the German parliament, an epidemiologist, has just requested the Council for a commission of enquiry. In his interview with the paper Der Spiegel, Dr. Wodarg did not hesitate to talk about “one of the greatest medical scandals of the century”. (17)

Next, Alison Katz,

A researcher who spent 17 years at the WHO, and who on 22 January 2007 sent an open letter to the new director of the agency, the Chinese Margaret Chan, accusing the organisation of “corruption, nepotism, violation of its statutes and ineffectiveness in its internal control system”, and concluding that “the WHO has become a victim of neo-liberal globalisation”. She denounced “the commercialisation of science and the close ties between the industry and academic institutions” and “corporatist” private science, and considered that “the WHO ought to be the leader of a movement to transform the way in which scientific research is done, including its sources of funding, as well as the acquisition and use of knowledge” and that the officials of an international organization do not have the right “not to know”. (18)

Lastly, Tom Jefferson, a renowned epidemiologist, member of the Cochrane Collaboration, an organisation of independent scientists including a commission that evaluates all the studies carried out on influenza. In an interview given to the German magazine Der Spiegel, he revealed the consequences of the privatisation of the WHO and the way in which health has been turned into a money-making machine. (19)

Tom Jefferson: “[…] one of the most bizarre characteristics of this flu, and of all the saga that has played out, is that year after year people make more and more pessimistic forecasts. So far none of them has come true, but these people are still there repeating their predictions. For instance, what happened to the bird flu that was supposed to kill us all off? Nothing. But that doesn’t stop these people from making their predictions. Sometimes you get the feeling that the whole industry is starting to hope for a pandemic.”

Der Spiegel: “Who are you referring to? The WHO?”

  1. J: “The WHO and those in charge of public health, the virologists and the pharmaceutical laboratories. They’ve created a whole system around the imminence of a pandemic. There is a lot of money at stake, as well as networks of influence, careers and whole institutions! And the minute one of the flu viruses mutates we’d see the whole machine roll into action.” (20)

When he was asked if the WHO had deliberately declared a pandemic emergency in order to create a huge market for the H1N1 vaccines and medications, Jefferson replied:

“Don’t you find it remarkable that the WHO had changed its definition of a pandemic? The old one specified a new virus, one that spread rapidly, for which there was no immunity and that caused a high rate of illness and of death. Now these last two points on the levels of infection have been deleted, and that’s how the A flu became classed in the pandemic category.” (21)

Very conveniently, the WHO published the new definition of a pandemic in April 2009, just in time to enable them, on the advice coming from, among others, SAGE, “Dr Flu” (alias Albert Osterhaus), and David Salisbury, to declare that mild cases of the flu, renamed A H1N1, signalled a pandemic emergency. (22)

Yes, Tom Jefferson, Alison Katz, Wolfgang Wodarg, among others, and investigative journalists who are neither conspiracy fanatics nor yes-men, would be on my list of witnesses to call.

Conclusions

Strangely enough, while the media were so agitated at the peak of the virus panic during 2009, as soon as a few rumours started spreading about strange goings-on at the WHO involving some scarcely known names, they switched off the spotlights, preferring to redirect the docile spectators to more amusing topics such as the antics of Johnny Hallyday, the comeback in Belgian women’s tennis, the escapades of Michel Daerden or of Nicolas Sarkozy (politicians Belgian and French respectively), and the hopeful proclamations of Barack PeaceObama – at the same time hinting that, while that was all well and good, we should still, as our obedient ministers were saying, be sure to go and get vaccinated while the wicked flu was offering a brief respite.

The dirty conspiracy rumours of corruption, the names so well-known in the business but so unknown to the general public – let’s forget them! Above all, let’s not rock the boat!

The vaccines have been bought, the recommendations given and millions of doses of poison already injected.

Does the truth frighten us so much that we prefer lies, and more and more of them, in our controlled lives, even when it is our health that is at stake?

It may all look very complicated but actually it is very easy.

For each new item of information, a “lite” sweetened version is made up, relayed by the bought-and-paid-for media and sold to us, the viewers, who swallow it without question.

The main drivers of this globalisation are fear and ignorance, the result of this insipid simplification of everything, which takes away any depth, any questioning that is necessary, in fact indispensable, if one wants to understand what is really happening.

It’s the same again with terrorism, where any unexplained event is always blamed on the same scary monster: Al Qaeda – without raising the slightest query about this attribution.(23) An explosion? Al Qaeda. A hijacking? Al Qaeda. An attack on civilians? Al Qaeda. An earthquake? Al Qaeda.

It’s the same again with the dogmatic statements about manmade global warming. This no longer brooks any discussion, any further research, any questioning: it’s a heresy to even think of it. Human CO2 is the Al Qaeda equivalent of the uncertainty factor in global warming.

It’s the same again with pandemics and other health cataclysms of the future. As the GIEC tells us about CO2, the WHO simplifies the problem for us and we thank them: “Get vaccinated. Don’t ask any questions. We have the most trustworthy and competent experts. The pharmaceutical firms, overflowing with philanthropy, are working day and night to save us.” And we believe it.

Humanity of the 21st century is in grave danger, a deadly danger that lurks within each of us.

It’s not Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (24), this Nigerian student of 23, the Christmas present from Al Qaeda to the war strategy of Peace Obama.

It’s not a virus, the St Valentine’s present to Baxter, GSK, Novartis and the rest.

It’s not our CO2, Nature’s present to our bankrupt politicians. It’s not even Al Gore, that serial sweet talker, condemned by the courts in Great Britain for no less than 11 flagrant lies and misrepresentations noted in his film, which inconveniences only the truth. (25) It’s not Al Qaeda, or any other extremist Islamic organisation.

All those are nothing but scary monsters that press the fear button, that’s to say, they are enemies but relatively minor ones.

It’s our abdication. That’s our enemy number one.

We are living in a time when globalisation has not, as it was expected to in the beginning, brought about a world that is better governed, more just, more transparent, but on the contrary, has created a system that is harder to decipher and understand, and is all-powerful.

This brew of omnipotence and dense secrecy, of being all-powerful and totally resistant to democratic investigation, is deadly. That’s the greatest threat to mankind today.

We have surrendered, preferring to go on deluding ourselves, when so many signs that something is going wrong should have impelled us to regain control.

Instead of which we put ourselves in the hands of these great authorities who are suspected of bribery and corruption, endowed with bad faith and a cynicism that balks at nothing.

Guided by the media and looking only at the things they turn their spotlight on, held by the hand, we choose to believe them instead of asking questions.

Given the present situation, I’ll answer my own question without hesitating:

The world would be getting along much better without these international organisations whose original mission has been hijacked for the sake of financial profits for the few.

As far as the WHO is concerned, we would be in much better health.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Sources

WTO: World Trade Organisation, succeeded GATT in 1994.

GATT: General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs, created in 1947. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Agreement_on_Tariffs_and_Trade

IMF: international Monetary Fund, created in 1944. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMF

LON: League of Nations, created in 1919, in the aftermath of the First World War. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations

UN: United Nations Organisation, continuation of the LON, created in 1945. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations

SAGE: Strategic Advisory Group of Experts. http://www.who.int/immunization/sage/SAGE_TORs_Full_21_11_08.pdf

Notes

1. Monsanto Terminator: http://www.greenpeace.org/france/news/ogm-monsanto

2. Article by Sylvie Simon, well-known journalist on health topics: http://www.lepost.fr/article/2009/12/23/1854889_l-oms-ocean-de-corruption-et-d-inefficacite.html

3. The Lancet, http://www.republicain-lorrain.fr/fr/permalien/article/1006828/La-credibilite-de-l-OMS-remise-en-question.html

4. Sylvie Simon, op. cit.

5. Ibid.

6. Cholesterol, lies and propaganda, http://www.lanutrition.fr/Le-lobby-du-cholest%C3%A9rol-au-bord-de-la-crise-cardiaque-a-1708-90.html

7. The worrying connections between Margaret Chan, Michael Repacholi, Bernard Veyret and the mobile phone manufacturers: http://www.next-up.org/pdf/Mobile_phones_and_real_pandemics_05_01_2010.pdfhttp://www.next-up.org/pdf/Serge_Sargentini_Mobilfunk_und_wahre_Pandemien_06_01_2010.pdf

http://videos.next-up.org/FoxNews/Protect_your_self_from_electromagnetic_waves/13_12_2009.html

Mobile phones: falsified data http://www.next-up.org/pdf/Adlkofer_Rudiger_Vienna_Scandal.pdf

8. Quoted in the Dutch article by Louise Voller & Kristian Villesen, “Stærk lobbyisme bag WHO-beslutningom massevaccination“, Information, Copenhagen, 15 November 2009.

9. http://www.voltairenet.org/article163315.html, article by F. William Engdahl, an American journalistwho has published many works devoted to questions of energy and geopolitics. engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/Swine_Flu/Flu_Pope/flu_pope.html

Most recent books in French: Pétrole, une guerre d’un siècle : L’ordre mondial anglo-américain (Jean-

Cyrille Godefroy éd., 2007) et OGM : semences de destruction: L’arme de la faim (Jean-Cyrille Godefroy éd., 2008).

10. Ibid.

12. Jane Bryant et al., “The One Click Group Response: Prof. David Salisbury Threatens Legal Action”, 4 March 2009. Download

13. William Engdahl, op.cit.

14. L’Humanité: http://www.humanite.fr/Grippe-A-Ils-ont-organise-la-psychose

 15. Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal (Lower Chamber of the Dutch Parliament.)

16. Martin Enserink, in “Holland, the Public Face of Flu Takes a Hit”, Science, 16 October 2009, Vol. 326, n° 5951, pp. 350–351 ; DOI : 10.1126/science.326_350b.

17. L’Humanité, op.cit., http://www.mondialisation.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16818 TheEuropean Parliament will investigate the WHO and the “pandemic” scandal: http://www.santelog.com/modules/connaissances/actualite-sante-le-député-européen-w.-wodarg-dénonce-«-une-fausse-pandemie-»_2483.htm

18. Sylvie Simon, op. cit. http://www.next-up.org/pdf/AlisonKatzOpenLetterMargaretChanWHO.pdf

19. William Engdahl, op. cit.

20. Conversation with Tom Jefferson: C’est toute une industrie qui espère une pandémie de grippe, Der Spiegel, 21 July 2009.

21. Ibid.

22. Article in Dutch, Louise Voller & Kristian Villesen, “Mystisk ændring af WHO’s definition af enpandemi“, Copenhagen Information, 15 November 2009.

23. http://polidics.com/cia/top-ranking-cia-operatives-admit-al-qaeda-is-a-complete-fabrication.html

24. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17184

25. http://leconservateur.bafweb.com/index.php?2007/10/11/978-un-juge-britannique-met-en-garde-contre-le-film-d-al-gore-une-verite-qui-derange;timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article2632660.ece

Posted in HealthComments Off on Politics and Corruption at the World Health Organization (WHO)

China – Western China Bashing – vs. Western Biowarfare?

By Peter Koenig

Global Research,

On 29 January WHO Director-General, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, said that there was no reason to declare the outbreak of the coronavirus 2019-nCoV in China a pandemic risk. On 30 January, he declared the virus an international emergency, but made clear that there was no reason for countries to issue travel-advisories against travelling to China. Let me speculate – the ‘international emergency’ was declared at the request of Washington, and the comment against the travel-advisory was an addition by Dr. Tedros himself, as he realized that there was indeed no reason for panic, that China is doing wonders in stemming the virus from spreading and in detecting the virus early on.

In fact, Dr. Tedros has himself, as well as other high-ranking WHO officials, on various occasions praised China for her effort to contain the virus, the speed with which Wuhan (population of 11 million, capital of the center-eastern Province of Hubei) and China as a whole has reacted to the outbreak. The latest achievement – in 8 days China has built in Wuhan a 25,000 m2 special hospital for treatment of the coronavirus 2019-nCoV and possible mutations, with 1,000 beds, and for about 1,400 medical personnel, for a budget of the equivalent of US$ 43 million – equipped with state-of-the-art medical technology. No other country in the world would have been capable of such an achievement.

Nevertheless, and against WHO’s guidance, Washington immediately advised its citizens not to travel to China, and withdrew non-essential staff from US consulates and the Embassy in Beijing, thereby triggering an avalanche of similar reactions among Washington vassals around the globe – i.e. most of the European countries did likewise, many of them canceled their flights to China, as did of course the US.

Russia also closed her 4,200 km long border, working hand-in-hand with China in containing the virus. This also means that no infected Russian citizen may leave China. This is a concerted Chinese-Russian effort – spearheaded by China – to control and contain the epidemic.

The NYT and WashPo are on a vicious daily campaign to slander and vilify China with lies and manipulated information on how badly China is managing the disease, when the complete opposite is the case. Compare this to the common flu epidemic, that hits the US and most of the western countries, despite the fact that the US and Europe have virtually implemented carpet vaccination (in some US States and EU countries even compulsory).

Yet, this 2019 / 2020 flu season which is far from over, has so far claimed more than 8,400 lives alone in the US, more than 140,000 hospitalizations and more than 8 million infected people. The US has about 330 million people. Compare this to China’s 1.4 billion population – with, as of 3 February, an infection rate of less than 21,000, a death toll of 425 in China, and outside of China reported two, one in Hong Kong, another one in the Philippines.

Expand these statistics to Europe and you find similar figures. Of course, nobody talks about it. This is an annual occurrence – a bonanza for the western pharma industry. In the west, disease is business. The more the merrier. Once you are in the “medical mill”, it’s difficult to escape. “Specialists’ find always another reason to send you yet to another “specialist” – for another treatment. The ignorant patient has no option than to obey – after all its his health and life. In China it is the total opposite. The Chinese system does everything for its population’s health and well-being.The Coronavirus Epidemic: Chinese Resilience and Silent, Simple and Steady Resistance – A Model for Mankind

Yet, China bashing in one way or another seems to intensify by the day. Yesterday, 3 February, the UN in Geneva has issued an edict that all UN employees returning from China must stay home and work from home for 14 days, i.e. a dictated self-quarantine. And new contracts for Chinese staff will be temporarily suspended. This is all propaganda against China.

Quarantine is absolutely not necessary. Chinese biologists of the Office of Science and Technology of the city of Wuxi (south-eastern Jiangsu province, near Shanghai) have developed a test kit that can detect the 2019-nCoV virus within 8 – 15 minutes, similar to a pregnancy test. This test kit is available to the world. In fact, it has been used to test an airline crew member arriving from New York at the Zurich airport and feeling ill. Within less than an hour, the crew member was sent home – it was the common flu.

In China, where by now scientific evidence is mounting that the disease – like all the coronaviral diseases, including the 2019-nCoV predecessor SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, 2002 / 2003 also in China), and its Middle East equivalent, MERS (Middle East Respiratory Syndrome) are not only laboratory fabricated, but also patented. And so are many others, for example, Ebola and HIV. Both, SARS and 2019-nCoV are not only man-made, but they are also focusing on the Chinese race. That’s why you find very few people infected in the 18 countries where the coronavirus has spread.

It sounds like a strange coincidence that in October 2019 a simulation with precisely the coronavirus was carried out at the John Hopkins Institute in the US, funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the WEF (World Economic Forum), as well as the Pirbright Institute of the UK, one of the world’s few level 4 (highest security level) bio-warfare laboratories (for more details see China’s Coronavirus: A Global Health Emergency is Launched. What are the Facts”).

*

The west’s ‘demolition’ priority seems to have shifted drastically from Russia to China. Why? – Because China is an ever-stronger economic power, soon to surpass the United States in absolute terms. Since mid-2017, China is already number one, measured by the PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) indicator, indeed the most important one, because it demonstrates what people can actually buy with the money.

China’s currency, the Yuan, is also advancing rapidly as a reserve currency, gradually replacing the US-dollar. When that happens, that real money, like the Chinese Yuan, based on a hard economy and covered by gold, against a “fake” fiat currency (based on nothing), like the US-dollar, is taking the lead, then the US-dollar hegemony is broken and the US economy doomed.

To prevent that from happening Washington is doing everything possible to destabilize China – see Hong Kong, Taiwan, the Uyghurs in China’s western Xinjiang Province, Tibet, the infamous Trump-inspired “tariff war” – and now the new coronavirus outbreak. The death toll is at present about 2.1% (of total cases of infection), down from 2.3% a week ago.

But that and the constant bashing with negative western propaganda, travel bans, border closures, flight bans – and more – plus the disease itself, the medical care, work absenteeism, medication and medical equipment, not to forget the specially-built 1,000-bed emergency hospital in Wuhan – and an 8% average decline at the Shanghai stock exchange, bear a considerable economic cost for China. So much so, that the People’s Bank of China (PBC) has recently injected some 1.2 billion yuan (about US$ 174 million equivalent) into the economy.

This new coronavirus, 2019-nCoV, may just be a trial. Imagine a stronger mutation of a coronavirus would be implanted into the Chinese population, say with a mortality rate of 10% to 20% or higher – it could cause real havoc. However, a stronger version may not be so easily controllable and directable – i.e. towards the Chinese race – and may risk spreading to the Caucasian race as well – meaning the executioner would risk committing mass suicide.

Remember the Spanish flu pandemic of 1918, the deadliest in history, infected an estimated 500 million people worldwide – at that time about one-third of the planet’s population – and killed at least 50 million people (a death rate of 10%), including some 700,000 Americans.

While preparing for the worst, because Washington – with the help of its level 4 bio-war lab –  will not let go easily, China’s approach of endless inventive creation, avoiding conflicts, will outlive the aggressor.

Posted in ChinaComments Off on China – Western China Bashing – vs. Western Biowarfare?

Bankers Shape Canadian Policy in Latin America. Juan Guaidó Fêted in Ottawa

By Yves Engler

Global Research,

What’s more likely to shape Canadian policy in the Hemisphere: human rights and democracy or bankers’ bottom-line?

Last week Venezuelan politician Juan Guaidó was fêted in Ottawa. The self-declared president met Canada’s Prime Minister, international development minister and foreign minister. Trudeau said, “I commend Interim President Guaidó for the courage and leadership he has shown in his efforts to return democracy to Venezuela, and I offer Canada’s continued support.”

Last month Guaidó was dethroned as leader of Venezuela’s national assembly. While the vote was contested, it represents a significant blow to Guaidó’s year-old claim to be Venezuela’s legitimate President. To shore up his position as opposition leader, Guaidó travelled to a number of international capitals, the World Economic Forum in Switzerland and was a guest of Donald Trump at the US president’s state of the union adress.

The Ottawa stop on Guaidó’s legitimacy seeking tour was the latest installment of the Trudeau government’s multipronged effort to overthrow Nicolás Maduro’s government. In a bid to elicit “regime change”, Ottawa has worked to isolate Caracas, imposed illegal sanctions, took that government to the International Criminal Court, financed an often-unsavoury opposition and decided a marginal opposition politician was the legitimate president.

On the same day Guaidó was fêted in Ottawa Scotiabank CEO Brian Porter penned “A call to action on Venezuela” in the National Post. The op-ed urged governments to “seize assets of corrupt regime officials” and to use the proceeds to give “support to the democratic movement in Venezuela.” Porter also applauded the Liberal’s “moral clarity by unambiguously condemning the Maduro regime’s abuses” and praised their “tremendous courage and leadership in the hemisphere and on the world stage.”

Scotiabank has long had frosty relations with the Bolivarian government. A few days after Hugo Chavez’s 2013 death the Globe & Mail Report on Business published a front-page story about Scotiabank’s interests in Venezuela, which were acquired just before his rise to power. It noted:

Bank of Nova Scotia [Scotiabank] is often lauded for its bold expansion into Latin America, having completed major acquisitions in Colombia and Peru. But when it comes to Venezuela, the bank has done little for the past 15 years – primarily because the government of President Hugo Chavez has been hostile to large-scale foreign investment.”

The perspective of the world’s 40th largest bank has shaped Ottawa’s position towards Caracas. At the other end of the continent, its interests have contributed to the Trudeau government’s support for embattled billionaire president Sebastián Piñera.Canada Joins with Imperial ‘Mafia’ to Threaten Venezuela

A number of stories have highlighted Scotiabank’s concerns about recent protests against inequality in Chile. The Financial Post noted, “Scotiabank’s strategic foray into Latin America hits a snag with Chile unrest” and “Riots, state of emergency in Chile force Scotiabank to postpone investor day.” Last week Scotiabank’s CEO blamed the protests that began in October on an “intelligence breakdown” with people outside Chile “that came in with an intention of creating havoc.” In a story titled “Why Brian Porter is doubling down on Scotiabank’s Latin American expansion”, he told the Financial Postthat Twitter accounts tied to Russia sparked the unrest!

Two weeks into massive demonstrations against Pinera’s government, Trudeau held a phone conversation with the Chilean president who had a 14% approval rating. According to Amnesty International, 19 people had already died and dozens more were seriously injured in protests that began against a hike in transit fares and morphed into a broader challenge to economic inequality. A couple thousand were also arrested by a government that declared martial law and sent the army onto the streets.

According to the published report of the conversation, Trudeau and Piñera discussed their joint campaign to remove Venezuela’s president and the Prime Minister criticized “election irregularities in Bolivia”, which were disingenuously used to justify ousting leftist indigenous president Evo Morales. A Canadian Press story noted, “a summary from the Prime Minister’s Office of Trudeau’s phone call with Piñera made no direct mention of the ongoing turmoil in Chile, a thriving country with which Canada has negotiated a free trade agreement.”

Despite numerous appeals from Canada’s Chilean community, the Trudeau government has stayed quiet concerning the fiercest repression in Chile since Augusto Pinochet’s dictatorship. A delegation of Québec parliamentarians, professors and union leaders that travelled to Chile in late January recently demanded Ottawa speak out against the abuses (four died in protest related violence last week). In a release about the delegation Mining Watch noted that over 50% of Chile’s large mining industry is Canadian owned. Canadian firms are also major players in the country’s infrastructure and Scotiabank is one of the country’s biggest banks. Chile is the top destination for Canadian investment in Latin America at over $20 billion.

As I detail in my forthcoming book House of Mirrors — Justin Trudeau’s Foreign Policy (Black Rose), the Liberals have said little about hundreds of killings by regimes in Haiti, Honduras, Bolivia, Chile and Colombia. On the other hand, they’ve aggressively condemned rights violations in Venezuela and Nicaragua. Many on the Left would say that is because those governments are aligned with Washington, which is true. But, it’s also because they are friendly to corporate Canada. If you want to understand Ottawa’s positions in Latin America look to what Canadian bankers have to say.

Posted in Canada, VenezuelaComments Off on Bankers Shape Canadian Policy in Latin America. Juan Guaidó Fêted in Ottawa

South Africa’s Government’s Firm Stance against “Israeli Apartheid”

South African Civil Society to Protest Ahead of Ramaphosa’s Upcoming State of the Nation Address (SONA)

By BDS South Africa

Global Research,

South African civil society will be holding a pre State of the Nation (SONA) Palestine solidarity picket in support of the South African government’s firm stance against Israeli Apartheid and in protest against US President Donald Trump’s recent Apartheid Israel plan. 

Last month US President Donald Trump, who once referred to African nations as “shit-hole countries”, announced a plan that he intends to impose on Palestine. A deal wherein indigenous Palestinians would be restricted to tiny Bantustans on a fraction of their historic homeland. The plan has rightly been rejected by Palestinians, progressive Jewish Israelis and countries across the world including South Africa.

The picket, which will start at 2pm on Wednesday 12 February outside the Parliament of South Africa in Cape Town, will be hosted and addressed by BDS South Africa, MJC, ANC, SACP, COSATU, NEHAWU, Embassy of Palestine, ANC YL, YCL, FOCUS, Al Quds Foundation, Media Review Network and various others.

On the eve of his State of the Nation Address (SONA), we are calling on President Cyril Ramaphosa to strengthen our government’s firm stance against Israel’s Apartheid regime. Ramaphosa has previously compared Apartheid South Africa to the situation that Palestinians are living under saying:

“As long as that struggle persists we will be on the side of the Palestinians…we will always be on the right side because we know what is happening there, its gross apartheid taking place there and we cannot but countenance a situation which is a duplicate or replica of what we went through, that we are not going to apologise for.”

*

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on South Africa’s Government’s Firm Stance against “Israeli Apartheid”

Rosa Luxemburg and Debt as an Imperialist Instrument

By Eric Toussaint

Global Research,

In her book titled The Accumulation of Capital, [1] published in 1913, Rosa Luxemburg [2] devoted an entire chapter to international loans [3] in order to show how the great capitalist powers of the time used the credits granted by their bankers to the countries of the periphery to exercise economic, military and political domination on the latter. She sought to analyse the indebtedness of the newly independent states of Latin America, particularly, following the wars of independence in the 1820s, as well as the indebtedness of Egypt and Turkey during the 19th century, without forgetting China.

She wrote her book during the period of an international expansion of the capitalist system, both in terms of economic growth and geographical expansion. At that time, inside the Social Democracy, of which she was a member (the German Social Democratic Party and the Social Democratic Party of Poland and Lithuania – territories shared between the German and the Russian Empire), a significant number of socialist leaders and theorists supported colonial expansion. This was particularly the case in Germany, France, Great Britain and Belgium. All these powers had developed their colonial empires in Africa, mainly in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Rosa Luxemburg was totally opposed to this orientation and denounced the colonial plunder and destruction of the traditional (often communitarian) structures of pre-capitalist societies by the expanding capitalism.

Colonial possessions in 1914 (Source: http://etudescoloniales.canalblog.com/archives/2010/10/23/19409935.html)

She was opposed to these same socialist leaders who claimed that this expansionist phase of strong capitalist growth demonstrated that capitalism had overcome periodic crises, the last of which had occurred in the early 1890s. Rosa Luxemburg denounced this view which gave a false interpretation of the functioning of the capitalist system. Rosa was all the more vehemently opposed to it since this vision of an influential part of the social-democratic leadership served as a basis and justification for an increasingly collaborative attitude with the capitalist governments of the time [4].

While writing The Accumulation of Capital, Rosa Luxemburg aimed to construct a substantive argument to counter the pro-colonialist and class collaborationist orientations within social democracy that she had been fighting since the late 1890s. She also pursued another objective, which had its origins in 1906-1907, when she taught a course in Marxist economics at the SPD – the Social Democratic Party of Germany – cadre school, in Berlin. In fact, on that occasion, in order to prepare her lectures, she had gone back to read Capital and had deduced that there was a mistake in Marx’s substantiation of the extended reproduction scheme of capital [5]. In order to find a solution, particularly, to this problem, she made an enormous effort to analyse capitalism’s evolution during the 19th century. It should be pointed out that Marx, in Capital, develops his actual theoretical explanation assuming that the capitalist society has reached a stage in which only capitalist relations exist. He analyses capitalism in its pure state.

Rosa Luxemburg starts from the observation, made even by Marx in a series of writings like in the Grundrisse [6] (which she did not have the opportunity to read because these works by Marx had not yet been published during her times) or chapter 31 of the first volume of [7] which says that capitalism, in its expansion, destroys the traditional structures of non-capitalist societies that were conquered during the colonial phase.

Concerning the role of colonial plunder, it is worth quoting the Marx of Capital: “The discovery of gold and silver in America, the extirpation, enslavement and entombment in mines of the aboriginal population, the beginning of the conquest and looting of the East Indies, the turning of Africa into a warren for the commercial hunting of black-skins, signalised the rosy dawn of the era of capitalist production.”

It is also in this chapter that Karl Marx puts forward a formula indicating the dialectical link between the oppressed in the metropolises and those in the colonies: “In fact, the veiled slavery of the wage workers in Europe needed, for its pedestal, slavery pure and simple in the new world.” He ends the chapter by saying that “capital comes dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt.”

Marx describes the destruction of traditional textile producers in India during British colonial expansion. He also analyses the destruction of non-capitalist relations that existed in Europe before the massive expansion of wage-labour. But when he comes to highlight the laws of operation of the capitalist system, he assumes that capitalism totally dominates all relations of production and has therefore, already completely destroyed or/and absorbed the pre-capitalist sectors [8].

What is very enriching in Rosa’s approach is her enormous capacity for critical thinking and her willingness to confront theory with practice. She takes her inspiration from Karl Marx by expressing a fundamental agreement with him, but this does not prevent her from questioning, rightly or wrongly, some of his conclusions.

One point on which Rosa Luxemburg agrees completely with Karl Marx is the question of the unequal relations between the capitalist powers and other countries where pre-capitalist relations of production are still largely present. These countries are subject to the former, who exploit them in order to continue their expansion. Rosa Luxemburg, like Marx, shows in particular that the capitalist powers find an outlet for their manufactured products by imposing them on pre-capitalist societies, particularly through the signing of free trade treaties.

The Latin American countries that gained their independence, in the 1820s, against the Spanish empire

If we take the example of the Latin American countries that gained their independence in the 1820s, we see that they imported massively, manufactured goods, mainly from Great Britain, from whom they had taken out international loans to make these purchases. The governments of Latin American countries that borrowed from London bankers spent most of the money they borrowed, on the British market, buying all kinds of goods (military equipment ranging from weapons to uniforms, capital goods for mining and agriculture, and raw materials). Then, to repay their international loans, indebted states resorted to new loans that were used both to repay previous loans and to import even more manufactured goods from Britain or other creditor powers [9].

Rosa Luxemburg states in her 1913 book that loans “they are yet the surest ties by which the old capitalist states maintain their influence, exercise financial control and exert pressure on the customs, foreign and commercial policy of the young capitalist states.” [10]

To illustrate the penetration of manufactured goods from old European capitalist countries such as Britain into the newly independent countries of Latin America we can cite George Canning, one of the leading British politicians of the 1820s [11]. He wrote in 1824: “The deed is done, the nail is driven, Spanish America is free; and if we do not mismanage our affairs sadly, she is English”. Thirteen years later, the English consul in La Plata, Argentina, Woodbine Parish, could write of a gaucho (herdsman) on the Argentine pampas: “Take his whole equipment – examine everything about him – and what is there not of raw hide that is not British? If his wife has a gown, ten to one it is made at Manchester; the camp-kettle in which he cooks his food, the earthenware he eats from, the knife, his poncho, spurs, bit, all are imported England” [12].

To achieve this outcome, Great Britain did not need to resort to military conquest (although, when it considered it necessary, it did not hesitate to use force, as was the case in India, Egypt or China). It used two very effective economic weapons: international credit and forcing these newly independent states to discard protectionism.

Rosa Luxemburg insists on the role of international loans to colonial countries or “independent” states (such as the young Latin American republics or Egypt and China) to finance major infrastructure works (construction of railways, construction of the Suez Canal, …) or purchases of expensive military equipment in the interest of the big imperialist powers. This is how she wrote: “Public loans for railroad building and armaments accompany all stages of the accumulation of capital”.

She also asserts that “The contradictions inherent in the modern system of foreign loans are the concrete expression of those which characterise the imperialist phase.”

Rosa Luxemburg, as Marx had done a few decades earlier, insists on the role of financing the railways all around the world, especially in peripheral countries subject to the economic domination of the imperialist powers. She speaks of the frenzy of loans used to build the railways: “In spite of all periodical crises, however, European capital had acquired such a taste for this madness, that the London stock exchange was seized by a veritable epidemic of foreign loans in the middle of the seventies. Between 1870 and 1875, loans of this kind, amounting to £m. 260, were raised in London. The immediate consequence was a rapid increase in the overseas export of British merchandise.”

At the end of the 19th century, after the London bankers came those of Germany, France and Belgium.

German, French and Belgian imperialism appeared in conjunction with Great Britain, and began to lend massively to the countries on the periphery.

Rosa Luxemburg describes this evolution: “The following two decades made a difference only in so far as German, French and Belgian capital largely participated with British capital in foreign investments, while railway construction in Asia Minor had been financed entirely by British capital from the fifties to the late eighties. From then on, German capital took over and put into execution the tremendous project of the Anatolian railway. German capital investments in Turkey gave rise to an increased export of German goods to that country.

In 1896, German exports to Turkey amounted to 28 millions marks, in 1911 to 113 millions marks. To Asiatic Turkey, in particular, goods were exported in 1901 to the value of 12 millions and in 1911 to the value of 37 millions marks.”

Rosa Luxemburg shows that colonial and imperialist expansion allowed the old European capitalist countries such as Great Britain, France, Germany, Belgium (we can add Italy and the Netherlands), where there is a surplus of capital, to use this unused capital to lend it or invest it in the peripheral countries, which then constitute a profitable outlet. She writes: “There had been no demand for the surplus product within the country, so capital had lain idle without the possibility of accumulating. But abroad, where capitalist production has not yet developed, there has come about, voluntarily or by force, a new demand of the non-capitalist strata.” It’s only by destroying traditional local small-scale production, European manufactured goods took the place of pre-capitalist domestic production. Impoverished peasant communities or craftsmen in African, Asian or American countries were forced to start buying European products, for example British, Dutch or Belgian textiles. Those responsible for this situation are not only the European capitalists, but also the local ruling classes in peripheral countries who preferred to specialise in import-export trade rather than invest in local manufacturing industries (as I have shown with regard to Latin America in the Debt System in chapter 2 and chapter 3). They preferred to invest their accumulated capital to extract raw materials (e.g. mining) or to grow cotton and sell these products in their raw state in the world market, rather than to process them locally. They preferred to import manufactured goods from old Europe rather than invest in local processing industries and produce for the domestic market.

Attack on Peking Palace during Boxer rebellion.

Egypt, a victim of international borrowing

In the case of Egypt, which Marx had not studied in depth, Rosa points her finger on another phenomenon. In order to repay the foreign debt contracted with bankers in London and Paris, the indebted Egyptian government subjected the Egyptian peasantry to overexploitation, either by forcing it to work for free on the construction of the Suez Canal, or by levying taxes that severely degrade the living conditions of the peasants. Rosa Luxemburg thus showed how the overexploitation of the peasantry by methods that are not purely capitalist (i.e. not based on wage-labour relations) benefits the accumulation of capital.

Rosa Luxemburg describes the process summarised above. She explains that the Egyptian workforce “This was throughout the same forced peasant labour over which the state claimed to have an unrestricted right of disposal; and thousands had already been employed on the Kaliub dams and the Suez Canal and now the irrigation and plantation work to be done on the viceregal estates clamoured for this forced labour. The 20,000 serfs who had been put at the disposal of the Suez Canal Company were now required by the Khedive (the Egyptian sovereign, note by Éric Toussaint) himself; and this brought about the first clash with French capital. The company was adjudged a compensation of 67 millions marks by the arbitration of Napoleon III, a settlement to which the Khedive could all the more readily agree, since the very fellaheen whose labour power was the bone of contention were ultimately to be mulcted of this sum. The work of irrigation was immediately put in hand. Centrifugal machines, steam and traction engines were therefore ordered from England and France. In their hundreds, they were carried by steamers from England to Alexandria and then further. Steam ploughs were needed for cultivating the soil, especially since the rinderpest of 1864 had killed off all the cattle, England again being the chief supplier of these machines.”

Rosa Luxemburg describes the numerous purchases of equipment and the entire projects carried out by the Egyptian sovereign through British and French capitalists. She asks the question: “What had provided the capital for these enterprises?” and herself answers: “International loans.” All this equipment and projects were used to export raw materials, mainly agricultural (cotton, sugar cane, indigo, etc.) and to complete the construction of the Suez Canal in order to promote world trade dominated by Great Britain.

The construction of Suez Canal.

Rosa Luxemburg describes in detail the succession of international loans that gradually dragged Egypt and its people into an endless abyss. She shows that the conditions imposed by the bankers make it impossible to repay the capital because it was necessary to borrow constantly to pay the interest. Let us leave the pen to Rosa Luxemburg, who lists an impressive series of loans granted on abusive terms to the benefit of the lenders: “One year before his death in 1863, Said Pasha [13] had raised the first loan at a nominal value of 68 millions marks which came to 68 millions marks in cash after deduction of commissions, discounts, etc. He left to Ismail Pasha the legacy of this debt and the contract with the Suez Canal Company, which was to burden Egypt with a debt of 340 millions marks. Ismail Pasha [14] in turn raised his first loan in 1864 with a nominal value of 114 million marks at 7 per cent and a cash value of 97 millions at 8¼ per cent. What remained of it, after 67 millions had been paid to the Suez Canal Company as compensation (…) In 1865, the first so-called Daira-loan was floated by the Anglo-Egyptian Bank, on the security of the Khedive’s private estates. The nominal value of this loan was 678 million marks at 9 per cent, and its real value 50 million marks at 12 per cent. In 1866, Fruehling & Goschen floated a new loan at a nominal value of 60 million marks and a cash value of 50 million marks. The Ottoman Bank floated another in 1867 of nominally 40 million marks, really 34 million marks. The floating debt at that time amounted to 600 millions. The Banking House Oppenheim & Neffen floated a great loan in 1868 to consolidate part of this debt. Its nominal value was 238 million at 7 per cent, though Ismail could actually lay hands only on 142 millions at 13½ percent. This money made it possible, however, to pay for the pompous celebrations on the opening of the Suez Canal, in presence of the leading figures in the Courts of Europe, in finance and in the demi-monde, for a madly lavish display, and further, to grease the palm of the Turkish Overlord, the Sultan, with a new baksheesh of 20 million marks. The sugar gamble necessitated another loan in 1870. Floated by the firm of Bischoffsheim & Goldschmidt, it had a nominal value of 142 million at 7 per cent, and its cash value was 100 million at 13 per cent. In 1872/3 Oppenheim’s floated two further loans, a modest one amounting to 80 million at 14 per cent and a large one of 640 million at 8 per cent which reduced the floating debt by one half, but which actually came only to 220 million in cash, since the European banking houses paid it in part by bills of exchange they had discounted.

In 1874, a further attempt was made to raise a national loan of 1 000 millions marks at an annual charge of 9 per cent., but it yielded no more than 68 million. Egyptian securities were quoted at 54 per cent of their face value. Within the thirteen years after Said Pasha’s death, Egypt’s total public debt had grown from £m. 3.293 to £m. 94.110, and collapse was imminent.”

Rosa Luxemburg rightly claims that this seemingly absurd series of borrowings has paid off for the bankers: “These operations of capital, at first sight, seem to reach the height of madness. One loan followed hard on the other, the interest on old loans was defrayed by new loans, and capital borrowed from the British and French paid for the large orders placed with British and French industrial capital.

While the whole of Europe sighed and shrugged its shoulders at Ismail’s crazy economy, European capital was in fact doing business in Egypt on a unique and fantastic scale – an incredible modern version of the biblical legend about the fat kine which remains unparalleled in capitalist history.

In the first place, there was an element of usury in every loan, anything between one-fifth and one-third of the money ostensibly lent sticking to the fingers of the European bankers.”

Then she shows that it was the Egyptian people, especially the mass of poor peasants, the fellahs, who repaid the debt: “Ultimately, the exorbitant interest had to be paid somehow, but how – where were the means to come from? Egypt herself was to supply them; their source was the Egyptian fellah–peasant economy providing in the final analysis all the most important elements for large-scale capitalist enterprise. He provided the land since the so-called private estates of the Khedive were quickly growing to vast dimensions by robbery and blackmail of innumerable villages; and these estates were the foundations of the irrigation projects and the speculation in cotton and sugar cane. As forced labour, the fellah also provided the labour power and, what is more, he was exploited without payment and even had to provide his own means of subsistence while he was at work. The marvels of technique which European engineers and European machines performed in the sphere of Egyptian irrigation, transport, agriculture and industry were due to this peasant economy with its fellaheen serfs. On the Kaliub Nile dams and on the Suez Canal, in the cotton plantations and in the sugar plants, untold masses of peasants were put to work; they were switched over from one job to the next as the need arose, and they were exploited to the limit of endurance and beyond. Although it became evident at every step that there were technical limits to the employment of forced labour for the purposes of modern capital, yet this was amply compensated by capital’s unrestricted power of command over the pool of labour power, how long and under what conditions men were to work, live and be exploited.

But not alone that it supplied land and labour power, peasant economy also provided the money. Under the influence of capitalist economy, the screws were put on the fellaheen by taxation. The tax on peasant holdings was persistently increased. In the late sixties, it amounted to 55 marks per hectare, but not a farthing was levied on the enormous private estates of the royal family. In addition, ever more special rates were devised. Contributions of 2.50 marks per hectare had to be paid for the maintenance of the irrigation system which almost exclusively benefited the royal estates, and the fellah had to pay 1.35 mark for every date tree felled, 75 pfennigs for every clay hovel in which he lived. In addition, every male over 10 years of age was liable to a head tax of 6.50 marks.(…)

The greater the debt to European capital became, the more had to be extorted from the peasants. In 1869 all taxes were put up by 10 per cent and the taxes for the coming year collected in advance. In 1870, a supplementary land tax of 8 marks per hectare was levied. All over Upper Egypt people were leaving the villages, demolished their dwellings and no longer tilled their land – only to avoid payment of taxes. In 1876, the tax on date palms was increased by 50 pfennigs. Whole villages went out to fell their date palms and had to be prevented by rifle volleys. North of Siut, 10,000 fellaheen are said to have starved in 1879 because they could no longer raise the irrigation tax for their fields and had killed their cattle to avoid paying tax on it.”

Rosa Luxemburg shows how British capital grabbed at bargain prices what still belonged to the State, and once this was achieved, how it gets the British government to find a pretext to militarily invade Egypt and establish its domination, which we remember, lasted until 1952.

She explains, “an opportune pretext for the final blow was provided by a mutiny in the Egyptian army, starved under European financial control while European officials were drawing excellent salaries, and by a revolt engineered among the Alexandrian masses who had been bled white. The British military occupied Egypt in 1882, as a result of twenty years’ operations of Big Business, never to leave again. This was the ultimate and final step in the process of liquidating peasant economy in Egypt by and for European capital.

It should now be clear that the transactions between European loan capital and European industrial capital are based upon relations which are extremely rational and ‘sound’ for the accumulation of capital, although they appear absurd to the casual observer because this loan capital pays for the orders from Egypt and the interest on one loan is paid out of a new loan. Stripped of all obscuring connecting links, these relations consist in the simple fact that European capital has largely swallowed up the Egyptian peasant economy. Enormous tracts of land, labour, and labour products without number, accruing to the state as taxes, have ultimately been converted into European capital and have been accumulated.”

As I wrote in The Debt System about Egypt : “Egypt’s 15 year-long pursuit for a partially autonomous development came to fruition when progressive young soldiers led by Gamel Abdel Nasser overthrew the Egyptian monarchy in 1952 and the Suez Canal was nationalized on July 26, 1956.”

Conclusion:

Rosa Luxemburg’s analysis about the role of international loan as a mechanism for exploiting peoples and as an instrument for subjugating peripheral countries to the interests of the dominant capitalist powers is highly topical in the 21st century. Fundamentally, the mechanisms that Rosa Luxemburg has laid bare continue to operate today in forms that must be rigorously analysed and fought against.

In the second part, I will address Rosa Luxemburg’s analysis of the debt and the submission of the Ottoman Empire to the interests of European big business. I will also point out some errors and weaknesses in Rosa Luxemburg’s analysis with regard to the debt and the international financial crises of the time that she analyses.

I would like to point out that it was an invitation to participate in September 2019 in a conference in Moscow on Rosa Luxemburg that gave me the opportunity to look again at her work and to prepare the material that we find in this article. The conference was organised by young university professors completely independent of the government and was supported by the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation.

Posted in Politics, WorldComments Off on Rosa Luxemburg and Debt as an Imperialist Instrument

Statement on Stealing the Century: Giving those who do not have to those who do not deserve

Posted by: Sammi Ibrahem,Sr

No photo description available.


In the Name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful

Tunisia on January 29, 2020

US President Donald Trump announced the presence of a president The ministers of the Zionist terrorist entity, Netanyahu, about what he called the “century” plan to solve the Palestinian issue in the presence of representatives of Arab governments supporting this project.

What was stated in the Trump plan is merely an attempt to eliminate the Palestinian issue and confine it to economic needs, where he insisted that Jerusalem be considered a unified capital for the Zionist entity, annexation of settlements, rejection of the right of return, and consideration of a solution for refugees outside occupied Palestine.
The People’s Movement, as it expresses its belief that the question of Palestine always remains the central issue of the Arabs, it is:


1. This Zionist imperialist aggression against our land and our people is rejected and this deal is considered dead as its predecessors and will fall under the feet of the masses of the Palestinian and Arab people and the stones of the children of occupied cities and villages.

2. Calls upon the national and resistance forces in Palestine to close ranks to confront the renewed new conspiracy.

3. Condemns the involvement of Arab regimes in trying to liquidate the central issue of the Arab nation and warns all Arab rulers against submission to the American-Zionist will.

4. Stresses that the resistance in all its forms is the only way to defeat the aggression and calls on the Arab masses to express their rejection of the American aggression policy and express this in all possible forms.
Long live the Palestinian cause.

The struggle of our people lived in Palestine.
Glory, pride and dignity for the resistance.

On behalf of the Political Bureau of the People’s Movement,
Secretary General

Zuhair Al-Maghzawi

Posted in Palestine Affairs, Middle East, USA, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Statement on Stealing the Century: Giving those who do not have to those who do not deserve

Done Deal: How the Peace Process Sold Out the Palestinians

Details of Trump’s ‘deal of the century’ are finally set to be unveiled. But US support for Israel has already changed the reality on the ground

By David Hearst

Global Research,

In November 2016, fresh off his electoral win, US President-elect Donald Trump boasted of his intention to end the Israel-Palestine conflict by striking what he called the “ultimate deal”.

Calling it “the war that never ends,” Trump told the Wall Street Journal: “As a deal maker, I’d like to do … the deal that can’t be made. And do it for humanity’s sake.”

A billionaire property tycoon and reality TV star known for his wheeling and dealing in the New York City real estate market, this was not the first time that Trump had framed the cause of peacemaking and diplomacy in terms of a business transaction.

Asked in March 2016 during his election campaign what the best deal of his life had been, he said it had been the creation of 6,000 housing units on the West Side of Manhattan.

His interviewer then asked him what would be the best deal he could make as president.

“Peace all over the world would be the best deal. And I think I would know how to do it better than anybody else, but peace all over the world,” came the modest reply.

Once in office, Trump tasked another property speculator, his son-in-law Jared Kushner, with delivering that deal, by now widely dubbed the “deal of the century”.

‘Slap of the century’

It has since turned into the most controversial and scandal-plagued peace initiative in the long and sad history of Middle East peace initiatives.Trump Creates, Then Exacerbates, Crisis for Palestinian Refugees

In the process of attempts to get it off the ground, the Palestinian leadership has refused to even open the file, let alone get involved in negotiations, with PA President Mahmoud Abbas calling it the “slap of the century“.

Trump has meanwhile closed the Palestine Liberation Organisation’s mission in Washington; he has recognised Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and the occupied Golan Heights as Israeli territory.

In addition, he has cut funds to the United Nations relief agency UNRWA, which runs schools and medical facilities for millions of Palestinian refugees across the region, as well as providing their main source of employment.

And he has unilaterally called for a change in the definition of a refugee, deciding that all but 500,000 of an estimated 5.5 million Palestinian refugees should be stripped of their status.

All this in an attempt to “break and remake” the Middle East.

The deal has divided analysts. Some believe it is designed to fail. Others believe it does not matter whether it is published or not – it is already being enacted on the ground, with the process of “peace-making” itself now only providing cover for the US administration’s one-sided support for Israel.

Middle East Eye examines this thesis in a series of articles originally published in June 2019 which we have grouped together under the heading “Done Deal” – recognition that whatever is proposed, the reality on the ground has already changed in fundamental ways and continues to do so regardless of what is said in the halls of power in Washington or elsewhere.

In the first of these, we look at how reality is changing to prepare for Israel’s permanent annexation of large parts of the West Bank.

In other articles, we consider how the status of refugees is changing; how access to the Old City in Jerusalem has been restricted; how the stranglehold over Gaza has been progressively tightened; and, finally, how financial incentives and threats, with large sums of money dangled to entice Palestinians into agreeing to an inequitable deal or the withdrawal of funds to compel them to do so, are nothing new.

——————————————————————

Related Articles:

Draft UN Resolution Condemns Trump Middle East ‘Peace’ Plan

Trump Green Lights Greater Israel

“Deal of the Century” Greenlights Israeli Annexation, Apartheid, and Subjugation of Palestinians

Massive Rejection of Trump’s Plan in Palestine, Jordan, Yemen

Palestinians Have Only One Option Left: Stay and Fight

Trump’s Skewed Vision Gives Israel Everything It Wants

Posted in Palestine Affairs, USA, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Done Deal: How the Peace Process Sold Out the Palestinians

Exit poll confirms Sinn Féin election breakthrough

adamssings.jpg

The three main parties in the 26 Counties have polled the same vote share of just over 22 per cent in today’s general election, according to an exit poll released as polling closed this evening.If borne out, the results will be a historic result for Sinn Féin, which will achieve by far its best outcome ever in a general election.

The results of the poll are as follows: Fine Gael 22.4 per cent, Sinn Féin 22.3 per cent, Fianna Fáil 22.2 per cent, Green Party 7.9 per cent, Labour 4.6 per cent, the Social Democrats 3.4 per cent, Solidarity/People Before Profit/Rise/Socialist 2.8 per cent and independents/others 14.5 per cent.

In another measure of the transformation, Sinn Féin won the votes of more than 30% of those aged under 24.

While seat projections in this new scenario are difficult, Sinn Féin could hope to win more than 30 seats out of 159. Moreover, their surpluses could help to elect other left-wing or republican candidates in some constituencies.

The three-way tie means that another hung parliament in Dublin is certain. While nothing will be definite until noon tomorrow, when the parties’ tallies from the vote counts start to come in, difficult coalition negotiations are now more than likely, and a second election this year cannot be ruled out.

The result is also a clear public rejection of the anti-Sinn Féin and anti-republican media agenda of the election campaign. It will have repercussions for the entire political establishment, but particularly the state-run media and the conservative press.

As the polls closed, former Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams criticised Fianna Fail, Fine Gael and elements of the media for what he said was a “nasty, negative campaign”.

He also uploaded a video of himself singing along with rebel song ‘Come Out Ye Black and Tans’, a comment on the outgoing right-wing government’s widely-criticised plans to commemorate forces who fought for British rule in Ireland a century ago. The furore last month helped set the stage for Sinn Féin’s successful election.

Remarking on the exit poll, he also wrote: “Well done everyone! Comgheardas [congratulations] Mary Lou and our leadership team. Martin McGuinness would be chuffed. Lean ar aghaigh. (Go ahead).”

Posted in IrelandComments Off on Exit poll confirms Sinn Féin election breakthrough

Tehran and Moscow: the killer of Selema Ne, Muhannad S. and Mughniyah are killed

While the Syrian army continued its operations along the Idlib hubs, and its units were able to enter Ma`rat al-Numan and sweep its streets in light of the collapse of armed groups and the flight of most of them, the most prominent security event was the operation to shoot down the American military plane in Afghanistan,

After Russian information referred to the killing of Mike Dandria, nicknamed the black angel and responsible for the American intelligence apparatus to confront the axis of the resistance, after it was confirmed that the plane that was shot down in Afghanistan is the plane that Dandria uses as a plane of operations to receive information and issue instructions, and the Taliban announced responsibility for shooting it down, and yesterday night Iranian television broadcast the news of the killing of Dandria with a number of American intelligence officers, who shot down his plane.

And Dandria is responsible for the assassination of the most prominent leaders of the resistance axis, from the assassination of Commander Imad Mughniyeh in 2008 to the assassination of the two leaders, Qassem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis, early this year.

Posted in Middle East, USA, ZIO-NAZI, Iran, IraqComments Off on Tehran and Moscow: the killer of Selema Ne, Muhannad S. and Mughniyah are killed

Shoah’s pages

www.shoah.org.uk

KEEP SHOAH UP AND RUNNING

February 2020
M T W T F S S
« Jan   Mar »
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
242526272829