Archive | July 10th, 2018

China’s Human Robot Labor Force: The Highest Rate of Surplus Value in the History of Capitalism!


Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

I’m writing this short communication to share my observations after watching the 2009 Documentary “The Largest Factory in the World and Chinese Labor” as part of informative article “China and the Restoration of Capitalism. The Largest Cheap Labor Factory in the World” by Professor Michel Chossudovsky.

First allow me to point out a few condensed but essential historical marks in regard to China and its late capitalist development after its triumphant Socialist Revolution. Any analysis about China needs to be a conscious one. In general, instead of proceeding from existence to consciousness -a scientific method of investigation- an impatient or confused political economist starts with a subjective reality to examine the actual existence. In this regard, China has been an amazing field test for these economists.

They have described the Chinese economy by many names except capitalist. As Professor Michel Chossudovsky explains in the mentioned article, any talk about the restoration of capitalism in China was either “taboo” or rejected harshly as “an impossibility” that “goes against the laws of history”! They argued after all “China was a socialist country” and “it could not be reversed”.

In fact since 1949, Chinese leaders had to experiment different economic plans to maintain their power in the backward China as a “Socialist country”. The vast majority of Chinese peasants for centuries were accustomed to literally work with their hands and mainly to feed their families, they rarely had a chance to sell or exchange their surplus produce if any at the farm market. In China, modern agricultural machinery and technology were needed to transfer these scattered rural gardeners to be sufficient producers for a growing economy. At the same time, in order to manufacture equipment in cities, modern factories needed to be built from scratch.

Millions of workers needed to be trained to run these factories which in return needed to be fed, housed and paid. Upon this scenario, at the end of the 20th century, Chinese bureaucrats, in order to be relevant as a modern power had to push faster for modernization. They found the solution in inviting foreign investment and encouraging the private sector. The process of the restoration of capitalism in China started in the 1980’s and at the dawn of 21st century it was completed. However, it is needless to say that this new capitalist state was different from the imperialists’ model which was implemented to plunder the resource-rich China before the 1949 revolution.

Today, the capitalist dimension of the Chinese state is no longer debatable. Although there are some intellectuals who would like to entertain us with the notion that China represents a new trend in the modern history or as the second economic power is a deterrent force against the U.S. imperialist ambition. The fact is that capitalist China just like its competitors -the Western capitalists – wakes up every morning with a fear of impending foreign intervention and domestic revolt. In the case of China, suppression of the producing forces is extreme. This brings us to the core of my observation from the video about a giant factory in China which is as big as a city!

The capitalists in the West have been trying so hard to develop robots that could act like human, however in China they already have succeeded in making humans act like robots! As they say “A picture is worth a thousand words”, this video provides us an opportunity to observe the cruelty of the Red Capitalists against Chinese Workers! After a few minutes of watching the video, we see a factory where the concept of “work” is a constant matter and never stops.

We immediately observe that there are yellow parts in the factory, row after row, which don’t look quiet mechanical as fixed tools in the factory, yet in harmony move around in their tiny spaces and assemble parts as have been instructed. They are the workers who have been trained to work hour after hour to make sure their “team” creates the most “surplus value” in the history of capitalism! One might inquire how this is possible. The answer is obvious, while capitalists in the West look for a faster result as financier rather than industrialist; the capitalist China attempts to maximize the manufacturing production scientifically with its vast cheap army of laborer. The video clearly illustrates this fact. In these modern factories, we will find a new generation of workers who are disconnected from the revolutionary heritage and experience of toilers who participated in 1949 Chinese Revolution.

The documentary reveals that these giant factories have also introduced the principle of slavery but in a humane framework. Even the most savage slave owner in the U.S. wanted to have healthy slaves who could work longer hours on his plantations. The video shows that the control over the life of workers is not limited to time that workers spend on the floor in the factory. For management the question of healthy productive workers is a real concern. What the workers eat is as important as the quality of products that are shipped out of the factory! In short, as video demonstrates all aspects of workers life is part and parcel of the productivity. Young workers who have passed the initial tests and are hired by the giant factory, become the factory’s unofficial property. They have apartments which are cheap and in walking distance from their work place. In contrast to the factories in the West which are not concerned at all about their workers affairs after they leave the factory facilities; the giant Chinese factories control over the workers is not limited to the duration of the workers punched time cards. They even encourage LOVE and intimate relationships among the workers; the company even pays for group weddings since they believe married couples are more loyal to the factory!

However, in general each year the condition of workers in China has turned from bad to worse. The harsh and unsafe working environment routinely takes the lives of the workers. It has been recorded that cheap Chinese products come with the cost of Chinese workers broken bones. The Chinese products are possible only by unbelievable low wages, lack of inherent workers organizations and unions.

What this video shows is that workers in China and around the world share the same problems. The workers in Hunan or Houston live in fear of losing their jobs at any moment because of the unstable economy. Meanwhile the Red and White Capitalists both are preparing their massive army for impending wars, at the same time they are passing laws and policies to control their own domestic foe, the working people.

Only an independent outlook could open the path to an alternative peaceful solution where production is based on a planned economy that nurture the weak and flourish the potential of a strong society- a system that puts people over profit.

Posted in ChinaComments Off on China’s Human Robot Labor Force: The Highest Rate of Surplus Value in the History of Capitalism!

USS Liberty Survivor Named US Delegate on Gaza Flotilla


A survivor of the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty that killed 34 U.S. sailors has joined the Freedom Flotilla headed towards Gaza, as Joe Lauria reports.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Joe Meadors, a survivor of the 1967 Israeli attack on the USS Liberty,  has joined the 2018 Gaza Freedom Flotilla as the delegate from the United States. He will board the Al Awda (The Return), which left Corisca Sunday night for  the final 1,000 miles to Gaza.  Al Awda is one of four boats on the 75-day voyage from Scandinavia.

Meadors was a signalman on the bridge of the USS Liberty, a surveillance vessel operating in international waters of the Mediterranean Sea near Gaza during the 1967 Six-Day Arab-Israreli war.

Israeli war planes and torpedo boats attacked the vessel, killing 34 U.S. sailors and wounding 174 crew members.

USS Liberty after the attack

A 2003 U.S. commission led by Admiral Thomas Moorer found:

“1. That on June 8, 1967, after eight hours of aerial surveillance, Israel launched a two-hour air and naval attack against USS Liberty, the world’s most sophisticated intelligence ship, inflicting 34 dead and 173 wounded American servicemen (a casualty rate of seventy percent, in a crew of 294);

2. That the Israeli air attack lasted approximately 25 minutes, during which time unmarked Israeli aircraft dropped napalm canisters on USS Liberty‘s bridge, and fired 30mm cannons and rockets into our ship, causing 821 holes, more than 100 of which were rocket-size; survivors estimate 30 or more sorties were flown over the ship by a minimum of 12 attacking Israeli planes which were jamming all five American emergency radio channels;

3. That the torpedo boat attack involved not only the firing of torpedoes, but the machine-gunning of Liberty‘s firefighters and stretcher-bearers as they struggled to save their ship and crew; the Israeli torpedo boats later returned to machine-gun at close range three of the Liberty‘s life rafts that had been lowered into the water by survivors to rescue the most seriously wounded;

4. That there is compelling evidence that Israel’s attack was a deliberate attempt to destroy an American ship and kill her entire crew; evidence of such intent is supported by statements from Secretary of State Dean Rusk, Undersecretary of State George Ball, former CIA director Richard Helms, former NSA directors Lieutenant General William Odom, USA (Ret.), Admiral Bobby Ray Inman, USN (Ret.), and Marshal Carter;former NSA deputy directors Oliver Kirby and Major General John Morrison, USAF (Ret.); and former Ambassador Dwight Porter, U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon in 1967;

5. That in attacking USS Liberty, Israel committed acts of murder against American servicemen and an act of war against the United States;

6. That fearing conflict with Israel, the White House deliberately prevented the U.S. Navy from coming to the defense of USS Liberty by recalling Sixth Fleet military rescue support while the ship was under attack; evidence of the recall of rescue aircraft is supported by statements of Captain Joe Tully, Commanding Officer of the aircraft carrier USS Saratoga, and Rear Admiral Lawrence Geis, the Sixth Fleet carrier division commander, at the time of the attack; never before in American naval history has a rescue mission been cancelled when an American ship was under attack… .”

Dean Rusk, U.S. Secretary of State at the time of the incident, wrote:

“I was never satisfied with the Israeli explanation. Their sustained attack to disable and sink Liberty precluded an assault by accident or some trigger-happy local commander. Through diplomatic channels we refused to accept their explanations. I didn’t believe them then, and I don’t believe them to this day. The attack was outrageous.”

Meadors and Seaman Francis Brown, who was later killed in the attack, hauled up a second American flag from the bridge after the first was shot down early in the air assault. Meadors remained on the bridge throughout the 25-minute attack and was one of several eyewitnesses to the Israeli machine-gunning of the ship’s life rafts.

Meadors has described the Israeli attack in detail on the USS Liberty Veteran’s Association website:

“I watched some jets pass us, then turn left after they passed our ship, then they started strafing us. The attack lasted 90 minutes, during which we got a message off to the Sixth Fleet asking for assistance. We learned later that Joe Tully, commanding officer of the USS Saratoga, launched aircraft within minutes of the attack, but he told us later they were recalled before they reached the horizon. We found this out 20 years after the attack.

“The most frustrating thing has been a lack of reaction from the U.S. government. On June 8, 2005, we filed a war crimes report, and they are required to investigate these allegations. They’ve created reports about our mission, but they never did conduct an actual investigation of the attack itself.

“It was an illegal attack. We were on the high seas conducting legal activities. They admitted that they closed the area for military purposes but we tried to find out the boundaries of that area and they wouldn’t tell us.

“The Israelis break international laws with impunity and the U.S. government is not going to hold them accountable, nobody is. There is no doubt that the Israelis were committing piracy on the high seas against the 2010 Gaza Freedom Flotilla and used deadly force against unarmed humanitarians.”

Meadors was aboard the Sfedoni in the 2010 Gaza Freedom Flotilla. He was in Greece for the 2011 and 2015 Freedom Flotillas.  Born in Corpus Christi, Texas, Meadors is a past president of USS Liberty Veterans Association, founded in 1982.

The Flotillas aim to bring attention to the illegal blockade imposed by Israel on Gaza since 2007.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, USA, GazaComments Off on USS Liberty Survivor Named US Delegate on Gaza Flotilla

Soft Brexits and Hard Realities: The Tory Revolt


It was meant to be an away day at Chequers in total hermetic isolation, an effort on the part of UK Prime Minister Theresa May to sketch some common ground in a cabinet that has struggled to agree on much regarding the imminent departure of Britain from the European Union.  The clock is ticking, for many ominously, with the departure date slated for March 29, 2019. 

The initial signs seemed good: a consensus had, initially, been reached by all brands of Brexiter. Chief Brexit minister David Davis and Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson had, in principle, come on board, though there were mutterings of dissatisfaction at the PM’s new plan.  At least for a time, collective cabinet responsibility had been satisfied.

The plan focused on, in the words of the Chequers statement, a proposal establishing “a free trade area for goods. This would avoid friction at the border, protect jobs and livelihoods, and ensure both sides meet their commitment to Northern Ireland and Ireland through the overall future relationship.”  Such a vision free of friction would entail maintaining “a common rulebook for all goods including agri-food” with a stress on harmonising UK laws with those of the EU.  Parliament have the ultimate say on their passage. “Regulatory flexibility” would govern the issue of services; “strong reciprocal commitments related to open and free trade” would characterise UK-EU relations.

The issue of the role played by EU courts, always trouble for the fanatical leavers, would continue to play a part in so far as UKcourts would heed “the common rulebook”.  A joint institutional framework would ensure consistent interpretation and application of such rules, but “the supremacy of UK courts” would be assured.

As for the issue most worrying to the market types amongst the Tories, the proposal suggested “a new Facilitated Customs Arrangement that would remove the need for customs checks and controls between the UK and the EU as if a combined customs territory.”  This would leave Britain to have its own seat at the World Trade Organisation and strike trade deals with other states, another cherry for the harsh Brexiters.

The populist element was also considered: free movement, a central EU principle, would end, but the UK would seek a principle of ensuring that UK and EU citizens would still be permitted to visit, work and live in respective jurisdictions with ease.  Large annual payments to the EU, those so heavily stigmatised during the 2016 referendum campaign, would also end, though this would not terminate specific contributions to areas of “joint action”.

It did not take long for the ruptures within government ranks to begin.  After the discomforting unity came the blood filled flood; first three resignations, all associated with the “hard” variety of Brexit lore.  The most prominent of them was Davis himself who had shown various, and variable colourings of competence during his time in that newly created position in the aftermath of the 2016 referendum.  He had been marginalised of late, the Prime Minister evidently feeling that the issue was simply too important to leave to him. More to the point, he had threatened some five times to resign since November 2017, making him seem like a purveyor of empty threats.

With Davis’ exit went deputy Steve Baker and junior Brexit minister Suella Braverman.

“The general direction of policy,” came a liberated Davis in his letter of resignation, “will leave us in at best a weak negotiating position, and possibly an inescapable one.”

Parliamentary control, he opined, would be “illusory rather than real”.  The “common rule book” policy would effectively hand “control of large swathes of our economy to the EU and is certainly not returning control of our laws in any real sense.”

On Monday, just minutes before May’s address to members of parliament, Downing Street announced that Johnson was also making a dash for it.  His resignation letter was certainly heavy with opportunistic John Bull flavour; Britain, he charged, risked heading “for the status of a colony”.

The PM, he accused, was “sending our vanguard into battle with the white flags fluttering above them” in preparations for a “semi-Brexit”.  “It now seems that the opening bid of our negotiations involves accepting that we are not actually going to be able to make our own laws.”

There is not much sincerity all around.  Individuals like Environment Minister Michael Gove are backing May for the moment, thinking that a streak of sound pragmatism runs through this flawed plan.  But anyone having Gove’s backing is bound to feel the sheath of a blade, if not the blade itself, at some point.

Those remaining on May’s rocked ship have become apocalyptic in a different way, suddenly seeing the EU as less problematic than their opponents opposite the Parliamentary chamber.

“If we don’t pull together,” went a Cabinet minister to The Guardian, “we risk the election of Jeremy Corbyn as prime minister.”

Never mind Europe, went this particular line of reasoning: Labour might just walk in.

Within British politics, May’s Friday product does not seem to be flying well, though it had taken off in a fashion.  Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, taking the Scottish angle on this, suggested that the plan had started to unravel early, though it had a kernel of good sense.

“It simply underlines the fact that the UK is leaving the EU (which I wish it wasn’t) the only workable solution is to stay in single market and customs union.”

Then comes the most obvious point that would render this whole exercise drily spent and academic: Will the EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier and his crew have a bar of it?  There is, superficially, too much of the Swiss solution to this, too much of the “give me your market” but spare me the regulatory trade-off.  Having expressed his dislike for such a solution in the past, it is clear that May is facing the toughest of sells.   The EU apparatchiks still wish to make an example of Britain, a form of deterrence against others who wish to take the exiting step in the name of reclaiming sovereignty.

But there is something striking about the latest chapter in the ever ballooning Brexit script.  The Chequers statement is a product of a person who has not only survived, but shredded the hard Brexit base within her cabinet.  With Davis and Johnson gone into the dangerous ether of political disruption, the issue is whether the positions will firm up or loosen.  Till then, and even after, few sane individuals will want May’s job.

Posted in UKComments Off on Soft Brexits and Hard Realities: The Tory Revolt

Starving and Bombed Children of Yemen Seek Entrapment in Flooded Thai Cave


Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

While the world watched and waited with bated breath for the outcome of the substantial global effort – involving over 100 cave divers from various countries, 1,000 members of the Thai Army and 10,000 others in various roles – to rescue a team of 12 young football players and their coach, who were trapped inside a flooded cave in Thailand for 17 days, 850,000 children were killed by human adults in other parts of the world, many of them simply starved to death in Yemen or other parts of Africa, Asia and Central/South America.

But other children were killed in ritual sacrifice, many children were killed after being sexually trafficked, raped and tortured, many were killed in wars (including in Yemen), many were killed while living under military occupation, many died as child soldiers or while working as slave laborers, and vast numbers of other children suffered violence in a myriad other forms ranging from violence (including sexual violation) inflicted in the family home to lives of poverty, homelessness and misery in wealthy industrialized countries or as refugees fleeing conflict zones. See ‘Humanity’s “Dirty Little Secret”: Starving, Enslaving, Raping, Torturing and Killing our Children’.

Why did the world’s corporate media highlight the flooded Thai cave story so graphically and why do so many ordinary people respond with such interest – meaning genuine emotional engagement – in this story? But not the others just mentioned?

And what does this tell us about human psychology and geopolitics?

Needless to say, a great deal.

Image on the right: British divers near the Thai cave (Source: Idaho Statesman)

During the Thai cave drama, major corporate media outlets, such as the Washington Post and the BBC, were routinely releasing ‘breaking news’ updates on the status of the rescue effort. At high points in the drama, reports on this issue were overshadowing major political and other stories of the day. At the same time, there were no ‘breaking news’ stories on any of the many myriad forms of violence against children, which were (and are still) killing 50,000 children each day.

So why the corporate media interest in this essentially local (Thai) story about a group of 12 children trapped in a cave? And why did it attract so much support, including foreign cave divers, engineers and medics as well as technology billionaire Elon Musk, who flew in to investigate rescue options and assist with the rescue effort. They and their equivalents are certainly not flying in to rescue children in a vast number of other contexts, including where the provision of simple, nourishing meals and clean water would do wonders.

Well, in essence, the story was a great one for the corporate media, simply because it reported on something of little consequence to those not immediately impacted and enabled the media to garner attention for itself and other (western) ‘heroes’ drawn into the story while engaging in its usual practice of distracting us from what really matters. And it was an easy story to sell simply because the media could use a wide range of safe emotional triggers to draw people into the dramatized story without simultaneously raising difficult questions about the (appalling) state of the world and responsibility for it.

In simple language: like sports events and other forms of entertainment, the cave rescue provided a safely contained time and space for people to feel emotionally engaged in (this case) a real-life drama (with feelings like fear and relief allowed an outlet) while carefully reinforcing their unconscious feeling of powerlessness to do anything about it and their acceptance of this. This is why it was so important that expert rescue efforts were highlighted: the key media message was that ‘there is nothing you can do’.

Of course, in this context, this was largely true. The problem is that the corporate media coverage wasn’t aimed at this context. It was aimed at all those other contexts which it wasn’t even discussing, let alone highlighting: the vast range of issues – including the many ongoing wars and endless military violence, the threat of nuclear war, the climate catastrophe and innumerable threats to our biosphere posed by such activities as rainforest destruction, the refugee crisis, military occupations, as well as the ongoing violence against children in so many contexts as touched on above – that need a great deal of our attention but for which the elite uses its corporate media to distract us and reinforce our sense of powerlessness.

Another aspect of the story was the way in which it highlighted the ‘accidental’ nature of the incident: no one was really responsible, even the hapless coach who was just trying to give his young players an interesting excursion and whom, according to reports, none of the parents blamed.

By focusing on the logistical details of the story (the distance into the cave, the narrowness of certain passages, rescue possibilities, equipment, the threat of monsoon rains…), without attributing blame, the media could reinforce its endless message that ‘no-one’ is responsible for the state of the world. Hence, no individual and no organization is responsible for doing anything either. Again, this message is designed to deepen a sense of powerlessness and to make people disinclined to act: to make them powerless observers rather than active participants in their own fate.

As an aside, of course, it should be noted that in those contexts where it serves elite interests to attribute blame, it certainly does so. Hence, elites might contrive to blame Muslims, Russians, Palestinians or the other latest target (depending on the context) for some problem. However, in these contexts, the story of ‘blame’ is framed to ensure that elites have maximum opportunity to act as they wish (often militarily) while (again) engendering a sense of powerlessness among the rest of us.

The tragedy of the Thai cave incident is that one man died and many boys spent 17 days in a situation in which they were no doubt terrified and suffering genuine physical privation. But elite media cynically used the event to distract us from vitally important issues, including ongoing grotesque violence against children in a large number of contexts, and to reinforce ‘The Delusion “I Am Not Responsible”’.

In short, while the 12 boys and their coach were rescued after 17 days trapped in a flooded cave in Thailand which required a sophisticated and expensive international effort, during the same period around the world, 850,000 children were killed by human adults. Even in Thailand during this 17-day period, apart from those children violated and killed as a result of sex trafficking and other violence, 119 children drowned (at the rate of seven each day). See ‘Swim Safe: Preventing Child Drowning’. Obviously, these children were ignored because there was no profit in reporting their plight and helping to mobilize an international effort to save them.

So what can we do?

Well, for a start, we can boycott the corporate media and certainly not spend any money on it. What little truth it contains is usually of even less value (and probably gets barely beyond a good sports report). Instead, invest any money you previously spent on the corporate media by supporting progressive news outlets. They might not have reported events in relation to the Thai cave rescue but they do report on the ongoing violence inflicted on children in more grotesque circumstances such as the war in Yemen. They will also report and analyze important global events from a truthful and life-enhancing perspective and will often offer strategies for your engaged involvement.

If you want to understand why most people are suckered by the corporate media, whose primary function is to distract and disempower us, you will get a clear sense from reading how adults distract and disempower children in the name of ‘socialization’. See ‘Why Violence?’ and ‘Fearless Psychology and Fearful Psychology: Principles and Practice’.

If you want to nurture children to be powerful agents of change who will have no trouble resisting attempts (whether by the corporate media or any other elite agent) to distract and disempower them, you are welcome to consider making ‘My Promise to Children’.

If you are easily conned yourself, you will vastly enhance your capacity to discriminate and focus on what matters by ‘Putting Feelings First’ which will, among other things, restore your conscience, intuition and ‘truth register’, vital mental functions suppressed in most people.

You are also welcome to consider participating in ‘The Flame Tree Project to Save Life on Earth’ which maps out a fifteen-year strategy for creating a peaceful, just and sustainable world community so that all children (and everyone else) has an ecologically viable planet on which to live.

And for the vast range of other manifestations of violence against children touched on above, you might consider using Gandhian nonviolent strategy in any context of particular concern to you. See Nonviolent Campaign Strategy or Nonviolent Defense/Liberation Strategy.

You might also consider signing the online pledge of ‘The People’s Charter to Create a Nonviolent World’ which explicitly identifies the role of the corporate media, among many other elite agencies, in promoting violence.

Am I pleased that the 12 children and their coach in Thailand were rescued? Of course I am. I just wish that an equivalent effort was being made to rescue each of the 50,000 children we will kill today, tomorrow, the next day and the day after that….

Posted in Saudi Arabia, YemenComments Off on Starving and Bombed Children of Yemen Seek Entrapment in Flooded Thai Cave

The Ethiopian-Eritrean Peace Will Lead to a New Era for the Horn of Africa


Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

The official end of hostilities between Ethiopia and Eritrea has the chance of ushering in a new era of peace and prosperity for what has up until this point been one of the tensest and most impoverished parts of Africa.

 The fast-moving Ethiopian-Eritrean rapprochement culminated in Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed visiting President Isaias Afwerki and signing a joint peace agreement to end to their countries’ twenty-year-long state of war, the implications of which are literally game-changing for the entire Horn of Arica. It can’t be emphasized enough just how important of a development this is in giving the region the chance to usher in a new era of peace and prosperity for what has hitherto been one of the continent’s tensest and most impoverished corners.

Eritrea’s 1993 secession from Ethiopia following the end of the latter’s civil war was agreed to with the new authorities in Addis Ababa but the subsequent security dilemma that soon sprouted up stemming from the distrust that both states had of one another led to the 1998-2000 war that killed around 80,000 people despite pretty much retaining the geostrategic status quo. Both countries became much poorer as a result and forced to overcommit their precious resources to defense in order to prevent a Continuation War over the town of Badme.

Awarded to Eritrea by an international court in 2002, Ethiopia refused to abide by the ruling and therefore kept the tense military state of affairs between the two countries frozen in a seemingly never-ending Cold War that since saw the outbreak of numerous low-intensity proxy conflicts inside of one another’s borders and especially Somalia. In fact, it was because of Asmara’s alleged assistance to the Al-Shabab terrorist group that it was placed under UNSC sanctions in 2009 and remains so to this day, drastically holding back its post-war development.

The combination of a controversial military policy of potentially indefinite conscription and rampant underdevelopment paired with stereotypical “socialist” mismanagement and international isolation to produce the “perfect storm” of systemic destabilization inside of Eritrea that has since led to the outflow of tens of thousands of its citizens to Europe. As for Ethiopia, the incessant Hybrid War challenges posed by Eritrea’s patronage of multiple ethno-separatist groups took its toll on the nation and prompted the ruling Ethiopian People’s Democratic Revolutionary Front (EPDRF) to impose stringent security measures that hampered economic development.

Both countries recently started moving in opposite geostrategic directions as well, with tiny Eritrea cozying up to the wealthy GCC after allowing its territory to be used in the War on Yemen while Ethiopia struck crucial Silk Road deals with China to become the main African partner for the People’s Republic. It even appeared for some time like the two Horn of African states would become a proxy battleground between China and the GCC, but thankfully that scenario was averted by both extra-regional parties’ responsible efforts to improve cooperation between them and preempt this possibility.

The situation largely remained static in the larger sense of the concept until new Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed seemingly came out of nowhere to rapidly rise to power in March following the surprise resignation of his predecessor, which enabled the reformist wing of the EPRDF enter into the position of influence that they’d been patiently waiting for years to obtain. After initiating wide-ranging socio-economic and political reforms at home, PM Abiy then unveiled his grandest one last month by announcing that his country will accept the 2002 court ruling to withdraw from Badme.

This move was greeted very positively in Asmara and had the geostrategic effect of shifting the regional dynamics, averting what had up until that moment appeared to be an Egyptian-Eritrean alliance against Ethiopia that could have pushed the region’s military tensions past the threshold into all-out war. PM Abiy walked the walk by proving the sincerity of his intentions by inviting a high-level Eritrean delegation to Addis Ababa, which preceded his own visit to Asmara to meet with President Afwerki and ultimately announce the end of hostilities between these two brotherly nations.

Both formerly united states will now fast-track their comprehensive infrastructural reintegration through the revival of a Red Sea connectivity corridor that will physically embody the path to peace that Ethiopia and Eritrea have committed to. It can therefore be expected that UNSC sanctions against Asmara might soon be lifted after Addis Ababa reveres its position by campaigning on its neighbor’s behalf, something that was utterly unthinkable for Ethiopia to do just a month ago. Equally remarkable is that Eritrea will probably cut off all militant support to its Ethiopian proxies in return.

Somalia might also see some much-needed relief as it will no longer be a theater of competition between both rivals, possibly even allowing Ethiopia and Eritrea to cooperate with one another in stabilizing it via their respective proxy channels. There’s still a lot of work that needs to be done in Somalia, and al-Shabaab remains a formidable terrorist force that requires serious and sustained efforts to defeat, but it can’t be overlooked just how positive of an impact the Ethiopian-Eritrean peace could have on this country as well.

Analyzed from a regional perspective, Ethiopia’s use of Eritrea’s port facilities will eventually decrease its existing and near-total dependency on Djibouti and the Chinese-built Djibouti-Addis Ababa Railway (DAAR), China’s chief Silk Road investment in Africa, and complement the landlocked giant’s other recent port deals and related plans to ambitiously build a navy. This will have the effect of diversifying its connectivity potential and thwarting any forthcoming Hybrid War destabilizations directed against its main Chinese project, which altogether positions Ethiopia as the regional integrational core for the Horn of Africa and a rising Great Power in general.

Eritrea will finally receive the development that it deserves and Somalia will be relatively (key word) more stabilized than before. Djibouti’s importance as the terminal point of DAAR and the key facilitator of Ethiopia’s trade with the rest of the world will remain, and the entire Horn of Africa will benefit as a result. The positive effects of the Ethiopian-Eritrean peace can also spread beyond the immediate region by creating structural opportunities for the Intergovernmental Authority on Development’s (IGAD) other members of Sudan, South Sudan, Uganda, and Kenya to seize in enhancing their comprehensive integration with one another.

With South Sudan on the brink of peace following extensive diplomatic efforts by Ethiopia, Sudan, and Uganda, now might be the time for the Greater Horn of Africa region to finally overcome its history of conflict & poverty and collectively work together to forge a new future. The greatest impediment to that happening has just been removed following the Ethiopian-Eritrean peace announcement, so it wouldn’t be amiss to suggest that all of those countries might be about to embark on a new and exciting era spearheaded by PM Abiy and his reformist vision.

Posted in AfricaComments Off on The Ethiopian-Eritrean Peace Will Lead to a New Era for the Horn of Africa

Future of Brexit


After the resignation of the two Brexiteers, David Davis and Boris Johnson in the UK, several scenarios are possible – and they will ALL lead to chaos in the UK.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Possible UK scenarios

The weakness of Ms. May and the Conservative party can surely lead to a Labour victory in any snap election – but the UK has no time, not even for a quick election.

This may keep hardline Tory Brexit backbenchers from taking Ms. May down, even if the now resigned Brexiteers should push for it. But logic thinking is not the strong side of the Brexit-movement. Also possible is, that Brexit Tories will push for a Party leadership-change without calling for general elections – trying to replace Ms. May with Mr. Rees-Mogg, Mr. Johnson or a similar hardline character. All this is possible, but not the very most likely.

Mr. Davis and Mr. Johnson have lost face – but Ms. May has not gained strength, and ominously, Ms. May could not find any high-profile politicians to replace these two ministers, whose resignation was expected to come.

Most likely road to chaos for the UK

The most likely scenario is that Ms. May will stay, and she will try to paddle through a short time with her delusionary “Brexit-plan”, which has no definite content – and soon, Ms. May will hit the EU Iceberg.

When Titanic May hits the Iceberg, the UK may likely already later in 2018 run into one of the worst thinkable situations at the moment: A “no-deal” Brexit – real-life prospects of the UK society coming to a paralysis, a stand-still – constitutional crises with Scotland and Northern Ireland – London government disintegration – and chaotic snap elections.

When a moral, legal, economic and physical chaos of a type never seen before in history descends on the UK for real, many die-hard Brexiteers will remain unmoved… but a few UK opinions may change in one or two other corners.

Labour may win a chaos-election, declared maybe 2018, carried out early 2019, on a ticket to say either stay in the Customs Union, and even run a new Brexit-vote to reverse the “Leave” decision. Mr. Cameron may even return as Tory leader with the same ticket: Stay in the Customs Union, or even reverse the Brexit-vote.

Scotland and Northern Ireland may win big-time if they play hard in a likely scenario – which means that the EU in the future will be even stronger in relation not just to member-states, but also as a supporter of self-governing parts inside member-states.

EU wins – every time

In a long range of EU “crises” (Euro, Brexit, 5-Star etc.etc.), the doom of the EU has been pronounced. Every time, the EU comes out even stronger.

The EU is needed – each time Europe at large realizes the consequences of it falling apart, they prefer to strengthen it.

Posted in Europe, UKComments Off on Future of Brexit

British MPs Should be Ashamed of Supporting Regime Change in Tehran

Middle East Eye

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Britain’s prime minister has been fighting a valiant, losing battle to rescue British relations with Iran in the wake of US President Donald Trump’s reckless attempts to wreck them.

But last week Theresa May was dealt a devastating blow to her authority after several Tory MPs defied her by going to Paris for a meeting designed to promote regime change inside Iran. This event is the latest sign that the prime minister and her foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, are facing a mutiny over Iran.

No regime change

Former cabinet minister Theresa Villiers was among senior Tories who travelled to Paris last week to hear Rudy Giuliani, former mayor of New York and Trump’s highly influential lawyer, call for the downfall of the Iranian government.

This meeting was a direct defiance of British government policy, which aims to save the Iran nuclear deal intact, and is against engineering a change of government in Iran. Indeed, Johnson assured Parliament in May that

“I do not believe that regime change in Tehran is the objective that we should be seeking.”

Three Tory MPs – along with one Labour MP – travelled to the event, organised by the National Council of Resistance of Iran, a front organisation for Mojahedin-e-Khalq Organisation (MEK), once listed by the US as a terror organisation.

There is no question that these reflect a powerful and vocal body of sentiment inside the Conservative Party.

This has been clear ever since the House of Commons debate on Iran on 9 May. The overwhelming majority of Conservative MPs favoured Trump’s policy of dismantling the JCPOA – and condemned May’s policy of keeping it. The overwhelming majority of speakers (I calculate 19) in the debate spoke out against the JCPOA, and only five were explicitly in favour.

Those opposing the JCPOA included former defence secretary Michael Fallon and former cabinet minister Stephen Crabb. Former leader Iain Duncan Smith also spoke out against the deal in a Commons debate later in May.

Troubling questions

These interventions raise troubling questions about the judgment and the allegiance of Tory backbenchers. So yesterday I approached the three Tory MPs who attended last weekend’s conference in Paris with a series of questions.

I asked them: who paid for and authorised their attendance at the MEK conference? Why as a signatory for the JCPOA are members of the current government pushing for the toppling of a signatory nation? Is it the government’s policy to pursue regime change in Iran? Do they think the MEK actually have popular legitimacy in Iran?

Image result for Matthew Offord

There was no reply from any of them. Tory MP Matthew Offord‘s office even hung up the phone on MEE rather than answer legitimate questions.

Then I asked the Conservative Party’s central office if they knew about and had given permission for the Tory MPs to attend. Once again – no response. A wall of silence from all involved. The support inside the Tory party for the MEK looks like a sign of a party that has taken leave of its senses.

Here is an organisation with a proven history of terrorism, including against Western interests. Though founded by the husband and wife team of Massoud and Maryam Rajavi, the MEK reportedly forces members to divorce and give up their children to foster care so as to avoid the distraction of familial love.

It has other characteristics of a cult.

For instance, former members also describe participating in regular public confessions of their sexual fantasies. The clear ambition of last week’s meeting was to use the MEK as a vehicle to bring down the current government in Iran.

No coherent plan

This conference in Paris comes against a menacing international background. The Trump administration is working flat out to destabilise Iran through the installation of brutal economic sanctions. Some observers believe the conduct of the US is very similar to the CIA destabilisation campaign aimed at Iranian prime minister Mohammad Mosaddeq in 1953.

The CIA then at least had a clear alternative future in mind for Iran – restoration of the shah under American tutelage. In American terms, this policy was a success for the next two decades. Trump’s people have no coherent plan for Iran.

The cultivation of the MEK – an opposition group based outside Iran and thought to be supported by a rackety coalition of international backers including Saudi Arabia – has strong echoes of Ahmed Chalabi‘s Iraqi National Congress in the run-up the Iraq invasion in 2003.

Chalabi was hugely influential in convincing the neo-conservative backers of the Iraq invasion that he had strong support inside Iraq and could turn the country into a model state. He was proved wrong.

Giuliani boasted how Trump had “turned his back on that very dangerous nuclear agreement with Iran”. He further boasted that recent popular protests inside Iran have been orchestrated from outside the country, insisting that they “are not happening spontaneously”.

And he ended his speech exclaiming:

“Next year, at this time, I want us to have this convention in Tehran!”

Ominously, last year’s chief speaker at the Paris conference was John Bolton, one of the most eloquent advocates of the Iraq invasion, who has now become Trump’s national security adviser. This means that Trump has decided to repeat – in a larger and more dangerous country – all the errors of American policy in Afghanistan and Iraq.

He intends to hand over Iran to politicians with no democratic legitimacy – and no more loyalty to the United States and Western values than America’s former protégés, the Taliban and al-Qaeda. British MPs should be ashamed of helping him.

Posted in UKComments Off on British MPs Should be Ashamed of Supporting Regime Change in Tehran

Top Nazi Security Expert Warns Against War with Iran


Top Israeli Security Expert Warns Against War with Iran

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Featured image: Eran Etzion, a former Israeli deputy national security adviser (Source: PressTV)

Former Israeli deputy national security adviser Eran Etzion has warned Tel Aviv “not to become entangled with Iran directly” as he expressed alarm over frictions between the two sides in Syria.   

“Something dramatic is happening in Syria: For the first time, there is direct military friction between Israel and Iran,” Israel’s Haaretz newspaper quoted Etzion as saying.

“There is now a higher probability than ever before of deterioration into an open war, which could take all kinds of different forms,” he added.

An Israeli airstrike against the T-4 airbase in Syria’s Homs Province on April 9 killed more than a dozen people, including seven Iranian military advisers. Iran has pledged that it would punish Israel for the deadly air raid.

“[Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu is constantly harping that our goal is to remove the Iranians from all of Syria, and everyone involved is echoing him. That goal is simply not within our power, and insistence on it is liable to generate a war in what is a very unstable environment, involving Iranians, pro-Iranian militias and Hezbollah, with Turkey also meddling,” he added.

Over the past few years, Israel has frequently attacked military targets inside Syria in an attempt to prop up terrorist groups that have been suffering defeats at the hands of Syrian government forces.

Tel Aviv has also been providing weapons to anti-Damascus militants as well as medical treatment to the Takfiri elements wounded in Syria.

Iran has been offering military advisory support to Syria at the request of the Damascus government, enabling its army to speed up its gains on various fronts against terror outfits.

Etzion said that

“if a war between Israel and Hezbollah is something we haven’t yet experienced, then a direct war between Israel and Iran is something I don’t want to imagine.”

Asked who is stronger Iran or Israel, he said,

“The question is how you measure strength. There’s a key term called ‘strategic depth,’ which the Iranians used not long ago, precisely in the context of this friction.”

“A senior Iranian figure said that Israel should be careful, because it has no strategic depth. You really have to go to the basics and look at the geography, the demography and the history. Israel possesses military power, but Iran has tremendous geography, a population of 80 million and a history going back thousands of years. It’s a civilization.”

Referring primarily to the 2009-2013 period, when the idea of an Israeli assault on Iran’s nuclear facilities was under discussion, Etzion said he was very concerned.

“I dealt with that subject a great deal both in the National Security Council and when I was in the Foreign Ministry,” he said.

“There are things I can’t talk about, but if my wife were sitting here, she would tell you how many sleepless nights I had. And not because I was in the office working. Simply from deep concern.”

Iran nuclear deal ‘not bad’

Elsewhere in his remarks, he stressed that the nuclear deal signed between Iran and the P5+1 group of countries in 2015 was “not bad”, adopting a stance which is contrary to that of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

“The agreement, in my view, as is the view of the overwhelming majority of experts on the subject, is not bad. Netanyahu labeled it a bad agreement and launched a war around the headline, ‘Better no agreement than a bad agreement.’ But the good agreement, in which Iran abandons its entire nuclear capability and closes all its nuclear studies faculties, etc., just doesn’t exist.”

In May, US President Donald Trump announced Washington’s pullout from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and vowed to reinstate nuclear sanctions on Iran. Netanyahu hailed Trump’s decision, calling the accord a “recipe for disaster.”

Under the deal, which entered into force in January 2016, Iran agreed to limit some aspects of its peaceful nuclear program in exchange for the removal of all nuclear-related sanctions.

150115 Long War Cover hi-res finalv2 copy3.jpg

The Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” against Humanity

Michel Chossudovsky

The “globalization of war” is a hegemonic project. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The U.S. military agenda combines both major theater operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states.

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-6-0
Year: 2015
Pages: 240 Pages

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, IranComments Off on Top Nazi Security Expert Warns Against War with Iran

A Neoconservative Plan for Punishing Iran


No understanding in the White House of what might come next

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above 

President Donald Trump makes a point of insisting that he has nothing against the Iranian people and is only interested in opposing what he regards as the dangerous activities of their government, but his own record in office belies that claim. It is clear that what he is trying to do is put pressure on the people of Iran to rise up and force a change in government, a process otherwise referred to as regime change. Indeed, if one is to believe Trump confidant Rudy Giuliani, the White House is now committed to “bring down the Iranian regime.” He added that

“The collapse of the Islamic Republic of Iran is around the corner.”

Giuliani was addressing a Paris meeting of the National Council of Resistance of Iran at the end of June, the political front group for the terrorist Mujahideen-e-Khalq, for which he has been a frequent paid speaker. This dream of an abrupt transition in government is a fantasy project that is widely held within neoconservative and pro-Israel circles in Washington, to include Giuliani, and it very often is invoked as part of what is sometimes referred to as the “Obama betrayal,” which posits that if President Barack Obama had actively supported so-called “green” reformers in the Iranian election of 2013, they might have actually won. That supposition greatly inflates the actual support for the reformers at that time and also currently, confusing a largely civil rights movement with a unified political party.

Obama then went on to sign the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) nuclear agreement with Iran, which has been a target of joint Israeli and neocon wrath ever since. Trump, of course, has risen to the bait and has withdrawn the United States from the deal, also reintroducing both general and targeted sanctions as well as seeking to ban the sale of Iranian oil worldwide.

Unfortunately, as is so often the case, Trump and his advisers, certainly to include National Security Adviser John BoltonSecretary of State Mike Pompeo, U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley and Senior Adviser for Policy Stephen Miller, are engaging in the wrong tactics to bring about any what might reasonably be regarded positive changes to moderate the grip of Iran’s Supreme Religious Council and are instead hardening domestic popular support for the government through the threats and sanctions which ultimately accomplish little more than punishing the Iranian people.

Oddly, the White House seems unaware of the fact that Iran is neither Libya nor Iraq. It has a strong and historic national identity that means that it does and will resist being bullied by outside powers, including the “leader of the free world” United States. The neocon and pro-Israel script that has evidently taken control of Trump pushes all the wrong buttons as it basically employs an increasing number and severity of sanctions to seek to wreck the economy and create discord in Iran that will eventually bring people out into the streets in large numbers. That means in practice using not only sanctions that selectively targeting “bad guys” like the Revolutionary Guards but also benign institutions that exist to maintain social stability inside the country.

Reports from inside Iran suggest that the renewed and additional sanctions are already hurting the Iranian people while at the same time having little impact on the government commitment to remain in Syria, which is the principal bone of contention at the moment vis-à-vis the joint U.S./Israeli/Saudi grossly exaggerated and self-serving assessment of what Iran may or may not be doing to destabilize the Middle East.

Two organizations which have recently come under sustained attack by the neocons and their allies are the “Execution of Imam Khomeini’s Order” (EIKO) and its associated Barakat Foundation. The EIKO’s principal mission is to help poor families in Iran and to perform other charitable works, but it has been assailed as a major economic resource controlled by the Supreme Religious Leader Ayatollah Khamenei’s office, which misrepresents how the foundation is organized and functions.

Leading the charge against EIKO, inevitably, has been renowned neocon Canadian import and Iranophobe Mark Dubowitz, Chief Executive of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD), who has described how the Iranian leadership controls a vast business empire which must be targeted with U.S. sanctions to punish the government and strip it of the resources available to make mischief.

This campaign, spearheaded by Dubowitz and his associate Saeed Ghasseminejad, has been going on since Trump was elected, with the folks at FDD confident they had a friend in the White House.

Other outlets in the pro-neocon-inclined and friendly to Israel media have also picked up on the theme that Iran must be the target of what amounts to economic warfare. The National Interest recently ran an article advocating the imposition of oil sanctions on Iran in general while also targeting EIKO in particular in order to “change Iran’s behavior,” which is presumed by the authors to be very bad though without any real explanation of why that is so.

And the U.S. Congress is also in on the act. As is nearly always the case, the U.S. House of Representative’s Oversight and Government Reform Committee’s subcommittee on National Security sought expert testimony on how to punish Iran but only looked for speakers who were inclined to take a hard line. They received that kind of enlightenment from the FDD’s own Richard Goldberg, who is hardly a disinterested observer on the subject.

Goldberg begins by making his case for bipartisan ire directed against Tehran, gushing about how “[he] had the privilege to work with many talented people – Democrats and Republicans – who shared a passion for keeping America and our allies safe from the long list of threats posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran. Together, we put forward numerous bipartisan bills to increase the pressure on Iran. …It is my sincere hope that we can find a way to resuscitate the bipartisan spirit that once infused this important national security issue.”

Goldberg, who is a bit vague on exactly what kind of “long list of threats” Iran represents, was senior foreign policy adviser to Israel-firster hawk former Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois. He celebrates in his FDD bio how “[he] was instrumental in the deployment of a U.S. missile defense radar to the Negev Desert – the first-ever full-time deployment of U.S. forces in Israel. In the Senate, Rich emerged as a leading architect of the toughest sanctions imposed on the Islamic Republic of Iran. He was the lead Republican negotiator for three rounds of sanctions targeting the Central Bank of Iran, the SWIFT financial messaging service and entire sectors of the Iranian economy.”

There has been some pushback against the war-by-sanctions approach currently being advanced by the Trump Administration. Robert Fontina of Counterpunch has rejected the depiction of EIKO as anything but a charitable foundation. The truth is that EIKO engages in major social projects, including rural poverty alleviation, empowering women, home and school building, and provision of healthcare. American sanctions against it and similar entities hit ordinary Iranians’ lives by producing food insecurity while also restricting the supplies of needed medications. Ahmad Noroozi of the Barakat Foundation claims that numerous Iranians have already been affected by U.S.-initiated sanctions directed against his country, restricting access to cancer treatments and other pharmaceuticals. And it is all aimed at fomenting social unrest and ultimately regime change.

Iranian writer Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich, no friend of the Iranian government, has declared that American sanctions directed against the Iranian economy and people are little more than “sanctioned terrorism.” Her assessment is undeniably correct.

It is indeed disturbing that the abandonment of the rule of law by the Trump Administration and its allies in the media has meant that Washington is resorting more and more to sanctions as an extreme form of punishment in order to enforce its geopolitical demands. Countries that oppose Washington’s policies are now routinely subjected to financial and trade penalties. Cuba, North Korea, and Iran have recently been joined by Russia and Syria as targets of the U.S. Treasury Department. Even America’s European allies and friends are being threatened if they seek to buy Iranian oil or cooperate with Russian energy initiatives.

The sad fact is that the pretense of U.S. global leadership now consists of a basket of new “rules” that are both arbitrary and basically illegal supported by pretexts that are essentially fabricated. Consider the frequent fallacious designation of Iran as “the world’s biggest state sponsor of terrorism” and the repeated false assertions from U.S. and Israeli government sources that Tehran is secretly building a nuclear bomb. Trump has become effectively the mouthpiece of Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu, with the latter calling the shots. Shortly after Trump had announced American withdrawal from JCPOA, Israel mounted a series of deadly air strikes against Syria, specifically targeting Iranian military personnel present by invitation in the country to fight ISIS and other terrorist groups. It was an incident that could have rapidly escalated into a broader war, which was clearly the Israeli intention.

There are deadly consequences to following the Israeli and Saudi lead into a possible major war with Iran. If sanctions produce desperation inside Iran, an apparent breakdown in order could easily invite a hypocritical U.S. and Israeli “humanitarian” intervention, possibly escalating into an international conflict, something that the White House appears to not understand. As is often the case, the Trump Administration has not developed sufficient maturity to appreciate that if one pushes hard against a certain country or group of countries there will be an equally strong reaction, and the results might not be pretty. Punishing the Iranian people without any real understanding of what might emerge in pursuit of nebulous political objectives just might not be a good idea.

Posted in IranComments Off on A Neoconservative Plan for Punishing Iran

Murder on the Beach: British-backed Wars Helped Create Tunisian Killer


British foreign policy has partly helped turn Libya and Syria into training and facilitation hubs for militants who conducted numerous atrocities across Europe


Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Three years ago on 26 June, a 23-year-old Tunisian armed with a machine gun mowed down 38 tourists at a beach hotel in the resort of Port El Kantaoui. Thirty British tourists were among the dead in the worst attack on Britons since the July 2005 London bombings and Tunisia’s deadliest attack ever.

The atrocity was perpetrated by an adherent of the Islamic State (IS) group, which claimed responsibility. But, in a broader context, it is another instance of terrorism arising partly from UK foreign policies for which British governments remain unaccountable.

‘Two guys from England’

The murderer, Seifeddine Rezgui, an engineering student, had been trained in neighbouring Libya, reportedly visiting there several times in late 2014 and early 2015.

Image result for Seifeddine Rezgui

Seifeddine Rezgui

Training was conducted by both IS and Ansar al-Sharia, an al-Qaeda-linked Tunisian terrorist group in camps near the Libyan city of Sabratha, 60 miles over the border from Tunisia. Rezgui is said to have possessed only 120 bullets for his attack, suggesting he had become an expert shooter from his training at these camps.

It is likely that Rezgui was trained in the same camp complex in Libya as Salman Abedi, the Manchester-based terrorist who blew up 22 people at a pop concert in May 2017. A study for the Combating Terrorism Centre at the West Point military institution notes that Abedi built up connections to IS in Sabratha from where the Tunisia attack was staged.

Intelligence officials told the New York Times that Abedi met with IS members of the Katibat al-Battar al-Libi faction of IS several times in Sabratha. Other sources informed the Independent’s Kim Sengupta that Rezgui had told friends that “two guys from England” were at the same camp as him in Sabratha.

Rezgui and Abedi had something else in common. They both reportedly went to Libya during the 2011 uprising against Gaddafi, a British-backed NATO war in which Islamist militias essentially acted as NATO’s boots on the ground.

The British also appear to have facilitated the despatch to Libya of British-based former fighters of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), a militant force which the UK had previously covertly funded to assassinate Gaddafi.

In 2011, Ramadan Abedi, Salman’s father, who had also been a member of the LIFG, reportedly took his three sons to Tunisia, where he worked providing logistics for rebels in western Libya before joining the fight against Gaddafi.

A safe haven

The camps near Sabratha where Rezgui and Abedi were trained in 2014-15 were full of weapons captured from Gaddafi’s arsenals during the 2011 war. Journalist Marie Colvin, who was later killed covering the Syria war, visited a camp outside al-Ajaylet, near Sabratha, in September 2011 and reported that it housed “hundreds of flame-throwers, napalm, detonators, crates of assault rifles, thousands of anti-personnel and anti-tank mines”.

By the time the Tunisia terrorist attack occurred in June 2015, the Telegraph’s Richard Spencerreported that the Sabratha camps still housed “whole arsenals of small arms, surface-to-air (SAM) missiles, semtex and other explosives and landmines” which “disappeared from under the noses of the allies, led by Britain and France, who won Libya’s civil war in 2011.”

Spencer added that in 2011

“the SAS was there, so were the Americans and French and a whole cast of monitors and weapons experts. But they seem to have concentrated on tracing the SAMs, as murky figures with lorries drove off the rest of the loot into the desert – despite warnings”.

These weapons ended up in the hands of Islamist militias.

A Twitter account linked to IS had forewarned of an attack in Tunisia a few months previously, saying:

“To the Christians planning their summer vacations in Tunisia, we cant accept you in our land while your jets keep killing our Muslim Brothers in Iraq & Sham [Syria] (sic)”.

During the attack, a Tunisian witness said Rezgui ordered him to get out of the way as he was not aiming at locals but at “British, French”.

The British overthrow of Gaddafi in 2011 helped turn Libya into a safe haven and base for militants and jihadists. After the Syrian war broke out, Libya became a training and facilitation hub for Tunisian and other fighters on their way to Syria to join the likes of IS or Al-Nusra Front, the al-Qaeda affiliate, to fight the Assad regime there. The first sign that Tunisian militants were being trained in camps in Libya was in the spring of 2012.

Consequences of Britain’s Libya war

At this point, the US and UK, far from doing their utmost to prevent militants heading to Syria, in effect sided with them in a huge covert operation with their Arab allies to bankroll and arm militant forces opposed to Assad.

By 2014, the US and UK began waging all-out war on IS in Syria and Iraq. As militants were forced out of these two countries, many went to Libya instead where an IS chapter had been formed. Libyan-trained militants went on to conduct numerous terrorist atrocities in Germany, Italy, France and Belgium.

Since 2015, IS has been forced out of Sabratha and some other Libyan cities due to US air strikes on its training bases, including those in Sabratha. But by then the genie was already out of the bottle: this European-wide terrorism was partly enabled by David Cameron’s disastrous war in Libya and the UK’s and its allies’ covert operation in Syria.

Three years ago, Theresa May, then home secretary, laid flowers on the Tunisian beach where the Britons had been murdered. David Cameron led a national minute’s silence for the victims and promised a “full spectrum response” to the atrocity.

But Britain is still waiting for this response to include a comprehensive public enquiry into Britain’s Libya war of 2011 and what has followed from this.

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, TunisiaComments Off on Murder on the Beach: British-backed Wars Helped Create Tunisian Killer

Shoah’s pages