Archive

Archive for June, 2017

The Government’s Plan …

… to Survive Nuclear War Doesn’t Include You

by Mac Slavo

via SHTFplan.com (June 20 2017)

Zero Hedge (June 24 2017)

Once again this week, the United States teetered a little closer towards war with the Russians. On Sunday, the US military shot down a Syrian jet that was allegedly targeting US-backed forces. The Russians have since claimed that the aircraft was engaging ISIS, and have revealed that their air defense systems will now track any of our aircraft {1} that happen to fly over Western Syria. They also suspended a hotline between the US and Russia that was in place to prevent mid-air collisions over the crowded skies of Syria.

Amid incidents like this, you have to wonder what our government is thinking. For most Americans, Syria must seem inconsequential. Why is our military involved in a country, where we are brushing shoulders with a nuclear-armed nation? If it’s to fight ISIS, then we could easily sit back and let Russian and Syrian forces wipe them out. If it’s to affect regime change, then clearly our government hasn’t learned anything from Iraq or Afghanistan. Why are we risking a war with the Russians just to influence the outcome of a regional civil war that has little bearing on the daily lives of most Americans?

The answer to that question could probably fill a novel, but there is one reason that the elites in Washington will never admit to. They can afford to make careless decisions because they are insulated from the results. If there is a war with Russia, which could easily turn into a nuclear war, they’ll have plenty of spacious bunkers to hide out in while the rest of America burns. And that’s been our government’s plan in regards to nuclear war since the beginning of the Cold War.

That’s the main takeaway from a new book called Raven Rock: The Story of the US Government’s Plan to Save Itself {2}. Our government has spent decades building sprawling bunkers, like Raven Rock, that high ranking officials can flee to in the event of a nuclear war.

 

The idea for Raven Rock was to have a military base that would function as an alternative to the Pentagon and would be dug out of a mountain and deep enough to survive any Russian attack.

A site was chosen six miles from Camp David, the Presidential retreat in Maryland, and work began in 1951 on the $17 million project

Some 300 men worked round the clock in three shifts to carve a 3,100-foot tunnel out of the granite; engineers invented technology as they went along including blast doors and blast valves.

Inside the facility, there was 100,000 square feet of office space in five parallel caverns big enough to hold a three-story building in each.

The entire facility could fit 1,400 people and was placed on giant springs to reduce the impact of a blast. {3}

Meanwhile, as they were building these bunkers and trying to convince Americans that nuclear war could be easily survivable, behind the scenes they knew it would be a bloodbath for civilians.

At the end of the 1950s, the Federal Civil Defense Administration created “Battleground USA”, a grim 120-page report on how cities should manage civil defense operations in the event of an attack.

It said that the area should be divided into “mortuary zones” with “collection teams” in charge of identifying bodies.

Post Office mail trucks would ferry the wounded to one of 900 improvised hospitals set up near attack sites in places like federal prisons.

In Kansas, officials planned to confiscate household vitamins for use by the general population.

Planners estimated they could assemble two million pounds of food after an attack from their own reserves and from stores.

They could also find eleven million “man-days” of food in the forests and plains in rabbit meat, ten million “man-days” of wild birds and five million “man-days” of fish.

Most chillingly they budgeted nearly twenty million “man-days” of meat in residential pets.

It was disturbing reading and a view of the world that summed up by Eisenhower in one meeting: “The destruction might be such that we might ultimately have to go back to bows and arrows”.

During another meeting, Eisenhower admitted that nation didn’t have “enough bulldozers to scrape the bodies off the street in the event of a nuclear strike”. {3}

 

And as we all know, our government didn’t take many measures to protect civilians from the potential carnage that would be inflicted by a nuclear war. They didn’t build many bunkers for the rest of us.

At first glance that may sound like an impossible task, but it’s not. Take Switzerland for instance. Despite not having any nuclear weapons, they’ve built enough fallout shelters to house every Swiss citizen {4}. You might say that we could never afford that many shelters, but it’s not a question of cost. Switzerland’s GDP per capita is similar to America’s.

The truth of the matter is that our leaders don’t give a damn about what happens to American civilians. As long as they have their bunkers, they feel safe while antagonizing nuclear-armed nations like Russia. They know that if there’s a war, they’ll survive while the rest of us burn and starve.

Make no mistake, if there’s ever a war with Russia, you’ll be on your own. Whether or not you survive {5} depends entirely on your willingness and ability to prepare now {6}.

Links:

{1} http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/russia-shoot-down-all-flying-objects-in-syria-us-regime-warplane-isis-terror-a7797101.html

{2} http://amzn.to/2rBIFjJ

{3} http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4618354/How-government-elites-plan-survive-nuclear-attack.html

{4} https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/prepared-for-anything_bunkers-for-all/995134

{5} http://amzn.to/TwaloQ

{6} https://toptiergearusa.com/

http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/there-wont-be-enough-bulldozers-to-scrape-the-bodies-off-the-street-heres-how-the-us-government-plans-to-survive-a-nuclear-war_06202017

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-24/governments-plan-survive-nuclear-war-doesnt-include-you

Categories: Uncategorized

Fear and Loathing …

… on the Afghan Silk Road

by Pepe Escobar

CounterPunch (June 23 2017)

Will the New Silk Roads, aka Belt and Road Initiative (“BRI”) ever manage to cross the Hindu Kush?

Temerity is the name of the game. Even though strategically located astride the Ancient Silk Road, and virtually contiguous to the US$50 billion China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (“CPEC”) – a key BRI node – Afghanistan is still mired in war.

It’s easy to forget that way back in 2011 – even before President Xi Jinping announced BRI, in Kazakhstan and Indonesia, in 2013 – the then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton touted her own Silk Road, in Chennai. No wonder the State Department’s vision bit Hindu Kush dust – because it assumed war-torn Afghanistan as the plan’s linchpin.

The state of play in Afghanistan in 2017 is even more depressing. Dysfunctional does not even begin to describe the administration that emerged out of the fractious 2014 presidential election and which passes for a government.

Since 2002 Washington has spent a mind-boggling US$780 billion on its (unfinished) Operation Enduring Freedom. It has absolutely nothing to show for it – apart from over 100,000 dead Afghans.

President Obama’s much-touted 2009 nation-building-cum-counterinsurgency surge was, predictably, a disaster. Aside from reframing the global war on terror (“GWOT”) as Overseas Contingency Operations (“OCO”) it achieved nothing. There was no “clear, hold, and build”; the Taliban are back virtually everywhere.

Washington has spent around US$110 billion in Afghan “reconstruction”. Adjusted for inflation that’s roughly equivalent to the full cost of the Marshall Plan. Yet no gleaming Afghan Frankfurt sprang up around the Ghazni minaret; over US$70 billion went to the Afghan military and police, and waste and corruption were always pervasive. Afghanistan’s GDP last year was still a paltry US$17 billion, or US$525 per capita.

The new Afghan “policy” under the Trump administration has consisted in dropping a MOAB (Mother of All Bombs) in the east, to no effect, coupled with the Pentagon demanding more troops. Enduring Freedom forever, indeed.

Wanna Go Mining? Ask the Taliban

It should not come as a surprise that, under the radar and without most Atlanticist circles even noticing, Chinese government researchers recently met with foreigners in Beijing for a discussion billed as “Afghanistan Reconnected”.

Sun Yuxi, the first Chinese ambassador to Kabul after the Taliban were bombed out of power in late 2001, correctly summed up the stakes as follows: “If the way and connectivity through Afghanistan is not open, it would be like an important vein being blocked on the Belt and Road, which leads to many diseases to this organ”.

How to reconnect/ reconstruct/ rebuild Afghanistan is the substance of sleepless nights in places such as the Beijing-based Centre for China & Globalization think tank.

Everyone knows about the projections Afghanistan may be sitting on at least US$1 trillion in mineral wealth from copper, gold, iron ore, uranium, and precious stones. But how to safely extract it?

Beijing’s security dilemma about protecting its investments is spectacularly illustrated by the ongoing Mes Aynak copper mine saga. The Chinese Metallurgical Group Corporation bought the mine – forty kilometers southeast of Kabul – in 2008. Theirs was the largest foreign investment project in Afghanistan. It took the Taliban another eight years to pledge its resolve not to attack it.

Meanwhile, on the railway front – which is key to BRI – in September 2016 the first ever freight train from China arrived in Hairatan, in Afghanistan, via Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. The trade flow is still negligible, though, so no regular service for now.

The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (“SCO”), led by Russia and China, is finally stepping in. At its latest summit, while warning about the security “deterioration”, the SCO pledged to be directly engaged in finding an “all-Asian” solution for Afghanistan, with both India and Pakistan, now full SCO members, on board.

The “Syraq” Connection

Afghanistan is a close neighbor to the Xinjiang autonomous region – and some of its most inaccessible parts host the odd member of the Uyghur separatist East Turkestan Islamic Movement (“ETIM”), which is closely linked to al-Qaeda (while being dismissed by Islamic State).

To compound the problem, any possible New Silk Road eventually traversing the Hindu Kush must consider the direct connection with what’s happening with the phony caliphate in “Syraq”.

The Syrian Arab Army (“SAA”) is moving inexorably towards the Iraq border. At the same time, the Iraqi Popular Mobilization Units have reached the Syrian border in Al-Waleed. Between them we happen to find US forces – which are occupying al-Tanaf in Syria. Damascus and Baghdad have agreed, however, to close the al-Tanaf crossing from the Iraqi side of the border. This means the US forces have nowhere to go, except back to Jordan.

Bets can be made that the Pentagon won’t take this lightly. The Ministry of Defense in Moscow is convinced these US forces will use High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (“HIMARS”) to eventually prevent the meeting of the Iraqi units and the Syrian army, whose mission is to pursue Daesh remnants inside Syrian territory.

This “Syraq” meeting of the armies is so important because it heralds in effect the realignment of a key nexus in the New Silk Roads: Tehran, Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut.

It is a categorical imperative for Beijing to expand BRI across the Levant, linking China to the Mediterranean overland just like the Ancient Silk Road did. And yet that clashes frontally with the crucial fact admitted on record by Lieutenant General Michael Flynn himself: that the Obama administration made a “willful decision” to let Islamic State fester, with the objective of arriving at a “Sunnistan” across “Syraq” as a means to accelerate regime change in Damascus. Translation: let ISIS break up the BRI in the Levant.

There’s no question influential sectors of the US deep state have not abandoned the project. At the same time President Trump has declared unwavering war on ISIS. The fundamental question is whether the “House of Saud policy” – striking against Damascus and its supporters in Iran – will prevail in Washington.

When the Taliban went after Afghan warlords across Pashtun lands in the mid-1990s, the local population supported them because they brought safety to roads and villages. They were widely regarded as angels fallen from heaven to help the Prophet against his enemies in Mecca.

In my travels across “Talibanistan”, some of them documented at Asia Times, I found the Taliban to be stone-cold pious and moralistic, enveloped in a sort of heavily-weighted obscurity, virtually inaccessible.

But the main actors in this renewed Great Game in the Hindu Kush are far from being the Taliban. It’s all about the jihadi diaspora after the collapse of the caliphate in “Syraq”.

ISIS is already shipping out jihadis in retreat in both Iraq and Syria to the Hindu Kush. At the same time, it is actively enrolling scores of Pashtuns with lots of cash and weapons – a workforce including tens of thousands of potential suicide bombers.

Besides Afghans, a new batch of recruits includes Chechens, Uzbeks, and Uyghurs, all of them quite capable of blending in with the scenery in a mountainous region inaccessible even to the Pentagon’s MOABs.

It’s no wonder secularized Afghans in Kabul already fear that Afghanistan is the new citadel of a re-morphed caliphate. Against the self-declared Islamic State Khorasan (“ISK”), it’s up to the SCO – primarily China, Russia, India, Pakistan – to come up with a rescue brigade. Otherwise, Eurasian integration will be in mortal danger all across the intersection of Central and South Asia.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/06/23/fear-and-loathing-on-the-afghan-silk-road/

Categories: Uncategorized

Putin Tries to Avoid …

… a Wider War With the US

by Mike Whitney

CounterPunch (June 23 2017)
 

The shooting down of the Syrian SU-22 is another demonstration that the US is prepared to resort to the most reckless means to defend its footholds in Syria and lay the basis for the broader war that is being prepared.

– Peter Symonds, https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/06/19/syri-j19.html

 

The downing of a Syrian warplane by a US F-18 Super Hornet on Sunday proves that Washington’s real objective in Syria is not to defeat ISIS but to topple the government, carve up the country and install a puppet who will follow Washington’s directives. ISIS doesn’t have an airforce nor is there any chance that the lumbering Soviet-era SU-22 was mistaken by the American pilot before it was shot down. No, the Syrian plane was positively identified on a clear day flying over Syrian territory. The US ignored the normal protocols, failed to communicate their activities on the “de-confliction” hotline (as per their agreement with Moscow) and – BAM – the Syrian warplane was taken out with two missiles over Ja’Din in the western part of Raqqah province. The attack was a clear provocation.

The downing comes on the heels of three other similar incidents in which Syrian troops were attacked by US-coalition forces in the area around Al Tanf near the Jordanian border. All four of these provocations have taken place within the last month suggesting that Washington intends to prevent the Syrian army from liberating its cities and territory in the east where US-proxy militias are operating.

In late May, the Syrian Arab Army (“SAA”) launched Operation “Grand Dawn” which combined the 800th Battalion of the Republican Guards, Hezbollah, Iranian combat troops, and Russian Special Forces (to assist in an advisory capacity.) Grand Dawn, which is the biggest operation of the war, is aimed at clearing the eastern border, liberating ISIS-held cities and territory east of the Euphrates, and reopening the corridor between Damascus to Baghdad. The campaign is an attempt to reestablish the central government’s control over its land, its resources and its population centers in the East.

So far, the operation has made great strides as two main Syrian armies have pressed ahead on parallel tracks killing or routing jihadist fighters on the way. Sunday’s attack (on the Syrian warplane) may have been a desperate attempt to slow the forward progress of loyalist troops rapidly advancing on the cities of Raqqa, Deir Ezzor and Abu Kamal, all located on the banks of the Euphrates.

The surge of Syrian troops poses a clear threat to Washington’s operational strategy called Plan B which is aimed at (a) splintering the state into smaller, US-controlled enclaves, (b) blocking the critical land bridge between Beirut, Damascus, Baghdad and Tehran, and (c) establishing a secure base for training Sunni militants to reenter Syria-proper and engage in future regime destabilizing operations. Seen in this light, the downing of a Syrian SU-22 might have been an attempt by coalition leaders to wave off the Syrian assault which is undermining Washington’s fallback strategy.

The Russian response to the attack was fast and ferocious. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov condemned the action as “a massive violation of international law and military aggression”.

He said: “This strike has to be seen as a continuation of America’s line to disregard the norms of international law … (It is) an act of aggression … designed to help to the very terrorists the US says it is fighting”.

Not surprisingly, the Russian Defense Ministry (“MoD”) announced it would end its cooperation with the US military under the terms of the Memorandum on the Prevention of Incidents and Ensuring Air Safety in Syria. In practical terms, that means that Moscow will terminate the use of a military hotline for preventing accidents in Syrian airspace. So while media giants like The Wall Street Journal applaud the reckless attack as “signaling an increased willingness by the Trump administration to directly challenge President Bashar al-Assad and his allies”, more sober analysts anticipate that the move will only ratchet up the tensions increasing the probability of a clash between the two nuclear-armed superpowers.

The Russian MoD statement added that “any airborne objects, including aircraft and unmanned vehicles of the [US-led] international coalition, located to the west of the Euphrates River, will be tracked by Russian ground and air defense forces as air targets”.

If the attack was intended to provoke a response, then it appears to have succeeded. If another Syrian warplane is shot down, Moscow will have to retaliate. Was that the intention?

Russia does not want to deepen its involvement in Syria. Its primary goal is to defeat ISIS, preserve the elected government, and prevent the country from disintegrating into failed state anarchy. Russian President Vladimir Putin addressed this topic recently in an interview where he was asked: “Can you explain why you sent troops to Syria and what your objective was?”

Putin answered:
 

It’s very easy to explain. We saw what was happening to other countries in the region, particularly Iraq and Libya … due to the forceful ousting of their governments. The governments were destroyed, not simply ousted from power, and their leaders were killed. We don’t want to see the same thing happen in Syria or the whole region will be plunged into chaos.

 

There it is in black and white. Russia has no territorial ambitions in Syria nor does it have any designs on Syria’s resources, industry or pipelines. This isn’t about money, oil or land. It’s about Russia’s national security which has been greatly impacted by the scourge of terrorism. It’s also about defending “sovereignty”, which is the bedrock principle upon which global security rests. This is why Russia is in Syria.

That said, it’s not in Russia’s interest to shoot down American aircraft, intensify the war on coalition-proxies or take any action that would lead to a military escalation. Putin does not want to prolong or expand the war, he wants to end it.

Unfortunately, there are so many players sharing the same, crowded battlespace that even the slightest miscalculation could lead to a serious conflagration. It’s going to take enormous restraint to tip-toe through the Syrian minefield without triggering a Third World War. We’ll have to see if Putin is up to the task or not.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/06/23/putin-tries-to-avoid-a-wider-war-with-the-us/

Categories: Uncategorized

The Final Government Objective

Enslave or Kill Us All

by Jeremiah Johnson (Nom de plume of a retired Green Beret of the United States Army Special Forces)

via SHTFplan.com (June 21 2017)

Zero Hedge (June 23 2017)

In the world situation, we are all aware of the “hot spots”, such as North Korea, Syria, and Ukraine that could escalate into a full-blown regional war and then expand even further, either on their own or with “assistance” from governments and oligarchs alike. We also have seen a rekindling of the tensions that existed during the first Cold War and the shaping of a new Cold War with Russia. Meanwhile, with all foreign policy in shambles and diplomatic ties in a limbo-vacuum, the US government has adjusted its pace domestically. The President was sworn in with a tide of almost “messianic” fervor; however, six months have elapsed with little change evident and many of his reforms stopped dead in the water for the time being.

Domestically the US government was instituting and initiating “reforms” at a running pace under Obama. The reforms were actually removals of more and more of our liberties. This pace has slowed down, but has not ceased. Read the article “Senate Bill: Travelers Must Register Cash and Digital Amounts Over $10K or Face 10 Years in Prison and Full Asset Seizure# {1}. Labeled Senate Bill 1241, this nefarious totalitarian measure also contains provisions for wiretapping anyone suspected of “drug trafficking or money laundering” to fit the bill for asset seizure and further torment by the government.

They want to know everything you have, everything you’re doing, everywhere you’re going, and track you in real time with your happy cellular telephone.

We may appear to digress, now, but this next item is chillingly interrelated to the information previously mentioned. Another article by a neuroscientist, a Miss Shelly Fan. The government has been working on technologies such as this one for some time. Here is the first step, in Miss Fan’s article “Forget Police Sketches: Researchers Perfectly Reconstruct Faces by Reading Brainwaves” {2}.

There you have it, straight out of George Orwell’s 1984 (1949), where Winston Smith was confronted and tortured by O’Brien. The latter informed Smith there were two problems for the State (Oceania) to overcome: How to kill off hundreds of millions in an instant, and how to know exactly what a human being is thinking. Well, here we are. If they can pattern facial recognition technology to create sketches of people from the human mind, how long will it be before they can take your thoughts and formulate words or other images … even place them on a screen and store them for later use? Will such a thing hold up in a court? Probably not. Nowadays, they don’t need probable cause to snag you … only “reasonable suspicion”, and they can doggedly pursue you across the ends of the earth.

Each week or even more often, we are seeing more technological advances, along with more Draconian, totalitarian edicts termed “legislation”. Here we see the enemy of the people in the form of a tyrannical state that has abused its powers and privileges afforded it by the Constitution and the vote of the people. Here we see an almost bankrupted government, running on the fumes of Fiat currency and the treaties made in the birthing of the vampiric Petrodollar … a medium created with the Saudis that (as evidenced by Qatar) they may very well be the ones to plunge the stake through the heart of the vampire. Here we see the last stages of a Republic’s collapse into totalitarianism.

The almost omnipresent police state … the federalization local and state police departments and Sheriff’s departments, the fusion centers, the data collection facility in Utah, the steadily-hatching CCTV “chickadees” popping up on every corner, in every gas station, public building, and convenience store. It is a well-known fact that before an empire slips completely into tyranny, it enslaves, torments, brutalizes, and kills its citizens. Foreigners come and go, illegally and with a passport, carte blanche: Americans are the ones subjected to the scrutiny when they travel. An empire can’t have its subjects … taxpaying, system-supporting subjects … going “off” the reservation, now, can they?

If there is a war, I have stated (and stand by the assertion) in previous articles that the war will be initiated with an EMP (Electromagnetic Pulse) attack. Stefan Stanford penned a brilliant article entitled, “This ‘Game Changer’ Could Lead to 270 Million Dead Americans and Foreshadows a Massive False Flag on the Horizon” {3}. Stefan’s belief is that an EMP may be too severe for the powers that be to recover from without losing a great deal of their assets. He expostulates an excellent theory that it will be a controlled cyber attack that accomplishes exactly what the EMP attack would, minus the recovery time.

He also mentioned the show “Revolution” that had a couple of seasons and then was discontinued abruptly and for no reason when the ratings were good … a show that had a cyberattack that brought down the whole shooting match as its theme. Readers also undoubtedly recall the “Jericho” series that lasted only two seasons that had nuclear devices exploded in 23 American cities to collapse the country and usher in a new era of chaos and “warlord” type engagements between factions claiming to be “the” legitimate government. Stefan and I are in complete agreement with the fact that these cancellations are way too obvious when you consider the predictive programming policies carried out by the US government and Hollywood, the puppet-lackey of the State. The scenarios are too feasible to be discounted.

In the meantime, the public plods through the day, dulled to the everyday events that lead us closer to the corral, and eventually into the cages. We need to focus on these changes as they are made and keep abreast of what is happening. Such measures are neither “cheap”, nor are they instituted by our wonderful Congressional members for no reason. It would be a lack of reason to discount such actions as anything other than plans for the future … their plans to rule it, as well as their plans to “deal” with us.

Links:

{1} http://www.activistpost.com/2017/06/senate-bill-force-travelers-register-cash-cash-cryptocurrency-assets.html

{2} https://singularityhub.com/2017/06/14/forget-police-sketches-researchers-perfectly-reconstruct-faces-by-reading-brainwaves/

{3} http://allnewspipeline.com/False_Flag_Electrical_Grid_Warning.php

http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/the-final-government-objective-enslave-or-kill-us-all_06212017

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-23/retired-green-beret-fears-final-government-objective-enslave-or-kill-us-all

Categories: Uncategorized

Government Arms Race Kicks into High Gear …

… as DHS buys 2,700 Armored Vehicles for Streets of America

by Mike Adams

Natural News (March 05 2013)

Infowars (March 05 2013)

When the US Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) purchased 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition {1}to be used domestically, inside the USA, and I said this looks like a government agency preparing for war with the American people, I was told, “That’s crazy. The government would never do that.”

When DHS purchased 7,000 full-auto assault rifles {2} to be used inside the United States, calling them “personal defense weapons” that could be used in urban warfare, I was once again told I was crazy for suggesting the government was arming up for war with the American people.

Now DHS has retrofitted 2,717 “Navistar Defense” armored vehicles for service on the streets of America. Click {3} to see pictures and specs for this vehicle from the manufacturer’s website.

These vehicles, which people who don’t know any better might call “light tanks”, are specifically designed to resist mines and ambush attacks. They use bulletproof windows and are designed to withstand small arms fire, including smaller-caliber rifles such as .223 Remington.

The retrofit was completed in May 2012, and these 2,700+ armored vehicles are now ready to deploy across the streets of America, reports Modern Survival Blog {4}, the primary source for this story.

A Domestic Arms Race

Importantly, none of these armaments – billions of bullets, thousands of full-auto assault rifles and thousands of armored assault vehicles – are being purchased by the Pentagon for use in wars overseas. Instead, these are being purchased by DHS for use inside the United States … on the streets of America.

This is a domestic department of the federal government that is clearly and unambiguously arming for war against the American people.

This war will also involve the use of armed military drones attacking American citizens, which is exactly why the Obama administration now claims the legal authority to assassinate Americans on US soil {5} using militarized drones.

This is at the same time the American people are arming up like never before as well. US ammunition manufacturers are currently producing over one billion rounds per week. All that ammo is flying off the shelves, with virtually nothing remaining in stock anywhere.

Magazine manufacturers like ProMag Industries are backordered for over a year, and gun manufacturers are anywhere from six months to eighteen months behind schedule, desperately trying to keep up with customer demand that continues to grow. I called Desert Tactical Arms {6} today and confirmed their guns are running six months behind schedule. This is the company that makes the portable .338 Lapua and .50 BMG rifles favored by US troops in activities such as so-called “hard target interdiction” (that is, killing vehicles).

As the government arms race continues to stockpile weapons and ammo in the hands of DHS, the American people are increasingly turning to large-caliber weapons for their own stockpiles. Just last week, I recently went shooting here in Texas where we had three .50 caliber Barrett BMG rifles, plus two .338 Lapua Magnum sniper rifles, all firing on some thick steel targets. The targets were decimated, and every single shooter in our group was able to put lead on target, even from long-range distances.

Holocaust Deniers and DHS Deniers

Of course, there are people who deny DHS is engaged in an arms race, just as there are Holocaust deniers who deny Hitler ever took guns away from the Jews (before committing mass murder). Those deniers either claim that these purchases are not happening (but they are), or that the government is only buying such large quantities “to save money”.

This is a distraction, of course. You don’t “save money” buying things you don’t need. Clearly, someone at the top of DHS believes the government needs these armored vehicles and full-auto assault rifles deployed on the streets of America.

But the bigger question – and this is the question the mainstream media refuses to even ask – is WHY does DHS need:

* 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition

* 7,000+ assault rifles

* 2,700+ armored assault vehicles

Unless you’re insane or a denier, the answer is clear: DHS is expecting a large-scale domestic conflict.

Why is DHS Expecting a Domestic War?

So then, the commonsense question becomes: Why is DHS expecting a domestic war?

I’ve asked this question of many of my contacts, and what I keep hearing is that an economic collapse is fast approaching, and DHS is likely going to use all this equipment to try to maintain government power during the chaos and riots that are sure to follow the economic collapse. This equipment will all be needed to “maintain order on the streets”, I’m told.

But that’s only one possible scenario. Another scenario involves the criminally-run government announcing a nationwide gun confiscation scheme (just as Senator Feinstein says she wants), then attempting to defend itself against the inevitable civil war that will result. The most likely outcome here is that DHS will only be able to control the areas that have been forcibly disarmed such as Chicago and New York City. They will be utterly unable to hold rural territories where freedom-loving Americans have already decided to fight back against tyranny no matter what the cost.

Yet a third scenario could involve government anticipation of a nuclear attack from North Korea followed by a “Red Dawn” land invasion from China or Korea. And DHS is here to fight for freedom and defeat the communists. (And if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell ya … far more likely is that DHS wants to welcome in the communists!)

This Domestic War Machine was Built by Claiming it was for Terrorists

Keep in mind that DHS was created by President Bush in response to the 9/11 terror attacks. In fact, since 2001, the US federal government has built a domestic war infrastructure by claiming it was all being constructed to protect us from the terrorists.

Now, in 2013, the government has “flipped the script” on who the threat is. According to Janet Napolitano, head of DHS, the real threat to America is now returning veterans and gun owners. So the feds have this massive armament infrastructure and spy grid lockdown over the entire population, and it turns out it was all built not for terrorists but for YOU.

The terrorists are nowhere to be found in all this, by the way. Every single terror plot halted by the FBI is a terror plot that was literally dreamed up, planned and nearly carried out by the FBI. {7}

The DSA’s Transportation Security Administration (“TSA”) has caught exactly zero terrorists trying to sneak through airport security.

The “war on terror” is and always has been a complete hoax {8}. The purpose of the hoax was to provide a cover story for the building up of a massive domestic military force to be used against the American people when the time comes.

That’s what we are really seeing with the purchase of ammo, automatic weapons, and armored assault vehicles. This is why cable barriers are being erected on highways across the country. And this is why DHS has recently begun redacting the requested quantities from its public bid documents {9} … in order to make sure the public can no longer learn how much it’s stockpiling weapons and ammo.

But None of This is Real, Right?

Astonishingly, the vast majority of Americans remain completely unaware of any of this. For those mainstream sheeple, anything that doesn’t appear on CNN must not be real.

So DHS really isn’t buying 1.6 billion rounds of ammo, 7,000+ assault rifles, or 2,700+ armored mine-resistant assault vehicles. All of us who are reporting these purchases are “conspiracy theorists”, we’re all told, even though what we’re reporting on is absolutely true.

Remember this: Former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs has now publicly admitted he was ordered by the White House to deny the existence of the US militarized drone program [10} even while the program existed and was known to be real. Denial has always been a key tactic for any government preparing to do something unethical or criminal.

But I’ve been told by some seemingly convincing people that none of this is real. It’s all just a bad dream, you see, and soon you will wake up and find yourself in the land of the free, where there isn’t poison in the crops and there isn’t mercury in the vaccines. The President loves you, and corporations are all ethical. Senators are humanitarians who put the good of the country ahead of their own selfish greed. The FDA stops censoring the truth about nutritional therapies and the USDA outlaws GMOs.

That’s the delusional world that ninety percent of Americans believe they live in, and they even believe that as long as they just “believe” something, then reality doesn’t even matter. Belief IS reality, according to the “Law of Attraction” followers, and if you just believe the government is good, then your belief will make it so.

That’s a fascinating bit of self-hypnosis because DHS doesn’t care what you believe. It is stockpiling guns, ammo and armored vehicles for some very real reason. This isn’t their imagination: it’s hardware.

And hardware is rarely accumulated in such large quantities unless it is deemed necessary for some specific purpose. It seems that the American people – delusional or otherwise – may soon discover what purpose DHS has in mind.

Links:

{1} http://www.naturalnews.com/038407_ammunition_homeland_security_civil_war.html

{2} http://www.naturalnews.com/038844_DHS_assault_weapons_documents.html

{3} http://www.navistardefense.com/NavistarDefense/vehicles/maxxpromrap/maxxpro_mrap

{4} http://modernsurvivalblog.com/government-gone-wild/latest-homeland-security-vehicle-street-sweeper/

{5} http://www.naturalnews.com/039046_military_drones_American_citizens_murder.html

{6} http://www.deserttacticalarms.com/

{7} http://www.naturalnews.com/035849_domestic_terror_plots_FBI.html

{8} http://www.naturalnews.com/034321_war_on_terror_paranoia_hoax.html

{9} https://www.infowars.com/dhs-censors-information-about-firearms-purchase/

{10} http://www.disinfo.com/2013/03/former-white-house-press-secretary-robert-gibbs-says-he-was-told-not-to-acknowledge-existence-of-drones-program/?utm_source=NaturalNews

 

http://www.naturalnews.com/039345_DHS_arms_race_armored_vehicles.html

https://www.infowars.com/government-arms-race-kicks-into-high-gear-as-dhs-buys-2700-armored-vehicles-for-streets-of-america/

Categories: Uncategorized

Is Trump Launching a New World Order?

The Petro-Powers vs the Greens

by Michael T Klare

TomDispatch (June 11 2017)

That Donald Trump is a grand disruptor when it comes to international affairs is now a commonplace observation in the establishment media. By snubbing Nato and withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement, we’ve been told, President Trump is dismantling the liberal world order created by Franklin D Roosevelt at the end of World War Two. “Present at the Destruction” {1} is the way Foreign Affairs magazine, the flagship publication of the Council on Foreign Relations, put it on its latest cover. Similar headlines can be found on the editorial pages of The New York Times and The Washington Post. But these prophecies of impending global disorder miss a crucial point: in his own quixotic way, Donald Trump is not only trying to obliterate the existing world order but also attempting to lay the foundations for a new one, a world in which fossil-fuel powers will contend for supremacy with post-carbon, green-energy states.

This grand strategic design is evident in virtually everything Trump has done at home and abroad. Domestically {2}, he’s pulled out all the stops in attempting to cripple the rise of alternative energy and ensure the perpetuation of a carbon-dominated economy. Abroad, he is seeking the formation of an alliance of fossil-fuel states led by the United States, Russia, and Saudi Arabia, while attempting to isolate emerging renewable-energy powers like Germany and China. If his project of global realignment proceeds as imagined, the world will soon enough be divided into two camps, each competing for power, wealth, and influence: the carbonites on one side and the post-carbon greens on the other.

As noted in Foreign Affairs, this is a very different perception of the international system than that of the Wilsonian internationalists {3}, who still see a world divided between liberal democracies (led by the US and its European allies) and illiberal autocracies (led today by Vladimir Putin’s Russia). Surprisingly, it is no less distinct from the disjointed global system portrayed by disciples of the late Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntington {4}, author of The Clash of Civilizations (1997), who portrayed a world divided along “civilizational” lines principally distinguished by a clash between Islam and the Judeo-Christian West. Trump clearly has no patience with the first of these models and while he’s certainly exploited {5} anti-Islamic sentiment during the election campaign and in his first months {6} in office, he does not appear wedded to the Huntington thesis either. His loyalty seems to be reserved solely for states that produce fossil fuels, while his disdain is largely directed at countries that favor green energy.

How you view the world – which of these visions you embrace – truly matters when it comes to shaping American foreign policy. If you favor a Wilsonian view (as do most American diplomats {7}), your primary objective will be to bolster ties with Great Britain, France, Germany, and other like-minded democracies while seeking to limit the influence of illiberal autocracies like Russia, Turkey, and China. If you uphold a Huntingtonian outlook (as do {8} many of Trump’s followers, advisers, and appointees), your goal will be to resist the spread of Islamist movements, whether they are backed by Shiite-majority Iran or Sunni-majority Saudi Arabia. But if, like Trump, your view of the world is largely governed by {9} energy preferences, none of these other considerations matter; instead, you will lend your support to nations that embrace fossil fuels and punish those that favor the alternatives.

Laying the Groundwork for a New World Order

The vigor with which Trump is pursuing this grand scheme was on full display during his recent visit to the Middle East and Europe, as well as in his decision to withdraw from the Paris climate accord. In Saudi Arabia, he danced and dined {10} with oil-drenched kings, emirs, and princes; in Europe, he dismissed and disrespected Nato and the green-leaning European Union; at home, he promised to eliminate any impediment to the expanded exploitation of fossil fuels, the planet be damned. To critics, these all appeared as separate manifestations of Trump’s destructive personality; but viewed another way, they can be seen as calculated steps aimed at bolstering the prospects of the carbonites in the forthcoming struggle for global mastery.

Step one in this process was to revitalize the historic US alliance with Saudi Arabia, the world’s leading oil producer. For decades, it was the cornerstone {11} of American policy in the Middle East, aimed at preserving a conservative political order in the region and ensuring American access to Persian Gulf oil. President Obama had allowed the alliance to fray by raising the unwelcome issue of human rights and negotiating with Iran over its nuclear enrichment program. Trump journeyed to Riyadh in May to assure {12} the Saudi royals that human rights concerns would no longer be an irritant in their relations and that Washington would join them in their drive to combat Iranian influence in the region.

“We are not here to lecture”, Trump insisted {13}. “We are not here to tell other people how to live, what to do, who to be, or how to worship. Instead, we are here to offer partnership.” As part of this “partnership”, he signed {14} a $110 billion arms sales agreement with the Saudis. Expected additional sales over the coming decade could bring the total to $350 billion. Many of these arms, once delivered, will be used by the Saudis in their brutal air campaign against rebel factions in Yemen. The Saudis claim the rebels (mostly Houthis from the country’s barren north) are receiving weapons from Iran, thereby justifying their own attacks, but most observers agree {15} that such Iranian aid is limited at best. In the meantime, the Saudi strikes are taking a heavy toll {16} on civilians and helping to create a humanitarian crisis that has contributed to a severe outbreak {17} of cholera and threatens {18} famine on a massive scale.

While in Riyadh, Trump also discussed closer ties between American energy firms and the Saudi oil industry, largely controlled by that country’s royal family. “The two leaders stressed the importance of investment in energy by companies in both countries, and the importance of coordinating policies that ensure the stability of markets and an abundance of supplies”, Trump noted {19} in a joint statement with Saudi King Salman.

Step two in this process was the enfeeblement of the Nato alliance and the European Union (“EU”) – most of whose members are strong supporters of the Paris climate agreement – and the improvement of US relations with Russia, the world’s number two oil producer. So far, President Trump has been unable to make much progress on the second of these goals, thanks to the ongoing uproar in Washington over allegations of Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election, but he achieved spectacular success in the first during his May 25th visit to Nato headquarters in Brussels. He even crossed up {20} his own advisers by switching speeches at the last moment and refusing to commit himself to Nato’s mutual defense agreement. He refused to reassure {21} its members of Washington’s commitment to the “one-for-all, all-for-one” principle embedded in Article 5 of the Nato Treaty, obliging all member states to come to the aid of any member under attack (although he would later make an explicit commitment {22} to that article during a White House press conference). In addition, he hectored {23} them about their failure to devote adequate resources to the common defense. Other American presidents have offered similar complaints, but never in such a disdainful and dismissive manner, guaranteed to alienate key allies. On top of this, he appeared to differ {24} with senior Nato officials over the threat posed to the alliance’s solidarity by Russian cyber attacks and political meddling, downplaying their significance.

Trump then proceeded to further alienate {25} Europe’s leaders at the final stop on his trip in Taormina, Sicily, for a meeting of the G-7 top economies. According to news reports, the Europeans, led by newly elected French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, sought to convince him of the urgency of remaining in the Paris climate accord, stressing its importance to Euro-Atlantic solidarity. “If the world’s largest economic power were to pull out, the field would be left to the Chinese”, Merkel warned {26}. But Trump proved unyielding, claiming job promotion at home outweighed environmental considerations. “Now China leads”, said a dejected Macron, a comment that may prove prophetic.

Step three was President Trump’s formal announcement of a US withdrawal from the Paris agreement in a Rose Garden ceremony on his return to the White House. As it currently stands, that agreement would require significant reductions in US emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (“GHGs”), principally through curbs on the combustion of fossil fuels. To fulfill such obligations, President Obama pledged to constrain GHG emissions from electrical power generation through his Clean Power Plan {27} that, if fully implemented, would have severely diminished the domestic use of coal. He also mandated improvements in the efficiency of petroleum-fueled vehicles. In repudiating the pact, Trump hopes, against all odds {28}, to breathe new life into the domestic coal industry (currently suffering from intensified competition from natural gas, wind, and solar power) and reverse the trend {29} toward more fuel-efficient cars and trucks, thereby increasing the demand for oil.

In announcing his decision, the president claimed, however inaccurately {30}, that the Paris accord would allow other countries, including China and India, to continue building coal plants while preventing the US from exploiting its own fossil-fuel assets, and so would benefit their economies at America’s expense. “We have among the most abundant energy reserves on the planet, sufficient to lift millions of America’s poorest workers out of poverty”, he declared {31}. “Yet, under this agreement, we are effectively putting these reserves under lock and key, taking away the great wealth of our nation”.

When speaking of the abundant energy reserves he seeks to develop, Trump was not, of course, referring to the nation’s limitless wind and solar potential, but rather to its oil, coal, and natural gas supplies. He bragged about how coal mines were already “starting to open up” again and emphasized his plans to eliminate all restrictions on drilling for oil and natural gas on federal lands.

It will undoubtedly take years of rule-writing, judicial maneuvering, and negotiations with Congress and the international community before the White House can fully achieve such pro-carbon objectives. Still, the steps already announced ensure that regulatory impediments to increased fossil fuel consumption will be lifted and incentives of all sorts for the installation of renewable energy obliterated.

The New Trilateral Axis

And keep in mind that these are only the first steps the president is considering. Ultimately, he seems to be aiming at the creation of a new world order governed largely by energy preferences. From this perspective, an alliance of Russia, Saudi Arabia, and the United States makes perfect sense. As a start, authoritarian-minded leaders who detest liberal ideas and seek to perpetuate the Age of Carbon now run all three countries. They, in turn, exercise a commanding role in the global production of energy. As the world’s three leading producers of petroleum, they account {32} for about 38% of total global oil output. The US and Russia are also the world’s top two producers of natural gas. Along with Saudi Arabia, they jointly account for 41% of global gas output.

In addition, each of the three is closely linked to other major oil and gas producers: in the case of the US, Canada; for Saudi Arabia, the Persian Gulf sheikhdoms (including tiny Qatar with its giant natural gas fields which, at this very moment, the Saudi royals are trying in a draconian fashion {33} to dominate and subjugate); and for Russia, the former Soviet republics of Central Asia. All of this only adds heft to the hydrocarbon dominance of this potential trilateral alliance. When oil and gas output from all of these countries, including Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Turkmenistan, and the United Arab Emirates, is added to that of the Big Three, the resulting combine controls approximately 57% {34} of world oil output and 59% of its natural gas production. Given that petroleum is still the world’s most valuable trade commodity and that oil and gas together account for sixty percent {35} of the world’s combined energy supply, this represents a stupendous concentration of economic and geopolitical power.

To the degree that Trump and his top aides have articulated a grand strategic vision, it is to bolster US ties with these other petro-powers in the energy, diplomatic, and military realm. This means strengthening links between American energy companies and those of the other potential alliance members, increasing diplomatic coordination, and enhancing military ties. It also means aligning with them against their sworn enemies, as Trump has pledged to do in the case of Saudi Arabia’s feud with Iran. (Trump had hoped to collaborate with Russia in a similar manner in the war against ISIS in Syria, but political circumstances in Washington have made that untenable for now.)

The US-Saudi arm of this alliance is already strikingly in play. Trump had clearly expected to make equal progress on Russia on entering the White House, though his own missteps {36} (and those of his close associates, including his son-in-law Jared Kushner) have impeded that effort. Soon after taking office, members of his staff instructed {37} the State Department to begin exploring ways to lift economic sanctions on Russia (originally imposed after that country’s annexation of Crimea) that have prevented greater cooperation between US and Russian energy companies. “There was serious consideration by the White House to unilaterally rescind the sanctions”, Dan Fried, chief American coordinator for sanctions policy until late February, told {38} Yahoo News.

These efforts were stymied when it became known that Trump’s newly appointed national security advisor, Michael Flynn, had spoken privately with Russia’s US ambassador, Sergey Kislyak, about sanctions relief during the campaign, and lied about it in conversations with Vice President Mike Pence and others. Nevertheless, Trump has made no secret of his belief that the furor over Russian links to his campaign organization is unwarranted {39} and that the country’s interests would be best served by significantly improved ties with Moscow.

And lest there be any question about the triangular nature of this incipient alliance, Russian President Vladimir Putin met with Defense Minister Mohammed bin Salman, the Saudi deputy crown prince, in Moscow just a few days after Prince Mohammed met with Trump in Riyadh. “Relations between Saudi Arabia and Russia are seeing one of their best stages at the moment”, said {40} the prince, reported Tass, Russia’s state-run news agency. As with Trump’s visit to Riyadh, energy cooperation was a key feature of the Russo-Saudi dialogue. “Agreements in the energy sphere are of high importance for our nations”, Putin declared.

There are, of course, many obstacles to Trump’s plan for a petroleum-based trilateral alliance. Although Russia and Saudi Arabia share many interests in common – particularly in the energy field where both seek to constrain {41} production in order to boost prices – they also differ on many issues. For example, Russia supports the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria, while the Saudis want to see him ousted; likewise, the Russians are major arms suppliers {42} to Iran, a country the Saudis seek to isolate. Nevertheless, Putin’s meeting with Prince Mohammed in the wake of Trump’s visit to Riyadh suggests that these are impediments that might be overcome.

The Outlines of a Potential New Global Order

In his famed 1993 “Clash of Civilizations” {43} essay, Samuel Huntington wrote that “the fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future”, with the divide between Islam and the West the most conspicuous among them. Many of Donald Trump’s supporters rabidly adhere to just this view, but not Trump himself (though he is obviously no friend {44} to Muslims).

By building an alliance of fossil-fueled states, Islamic countries included, Trump hopes to bolster the strength of pro-carbon forces globally. Ironically, his antics aimed at weakening the power of any incipient future green alliance have so far had a boomerang effect {45}, encouraging potential future green powers to bolster their collaborative linkages and forge ahead more forcefully in dominating the planet’s alternative energy future. In this sense, he seems to be creating a self-fulfilling prophecy by pushing the green states closer together.

Recall Merkel’s comment to Trump at the G-7 summit. If the US were to pull out of the Paris accord, she said, “the field would be left to the Chinese”. Trump did indeed pull out, and Merkel wasted no time in turning her sights on China. Five days later, she hosted {46} the Chinese prime minister, Li Keqiang, for talks in Berlin. He then flew on to Brussels to confer with leaders of the EU. Mutual pledges to uphold the Paris climate accord were said to be a prominent feature of these discussions.

“Possibly we will see an important shift in the China-US-EU triangular relations, with China and the EU moving closer while the US and EU drift apart”, commented {47} Wang Dong, assistant professor at the School of International Studies at Peking University. “Premier Li and Chancellor Merkel will likely reaffirm their commitments to upholding the Paris agreements”.

Keen to assume world leadership in the production of renewable energy, China has been making enormous strides in the development and installation of wind and solar power. As Keith Bradsher of The New York Times wrote {48} in a recent report on China’s progress in creating large-scale floating solar panels (a technology likely to prove widely adaptable by other countries seeking to increase their reliance on renewable energy),

The project reflects China’s effort to reshape the world order in renewable energy as the United States retreats. Such technological expertise will form the infrastructure backbone needed for countries to meet their climate goals, making China the energy partner of choice for many nations.

 

India is also seeking to join the A-team of leading green powers. Once considered a stumbling block to any Paris agreement thanks to its partiality for coal-fired power plants, India is now making giant strides in the development of renewable energy. According to the respected environmental website Carbon Tracker, India is now expected {49} to obtain forty percent of its electricity from non-fossil fuel sources by 2022, eight years ahead of schedule. In the process, it is already canceling many of its plans for new coal-fired plants.

That India is moving rapidly to assert leadership in the development of green energy has also caught the attention of Germany’s Angela Merkel, who invited {50} Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to Berlin in late May for two days of talks on enhanced economic cooperation.

It is still early days, but the outlines of a potential new global order seem to be emerging, with the fossil-fuel states battling to preserve their dominance in an era in which an ever-increasing share of the world’s population is clearly going to embrace green energy technology (and the massive job-creation machine {51} that will go with it). The events of just the first few months of Donald Trump’s presidency already give us ample food for thought on the emergence of a new bipolar energy planet, including a willful attempt to cripple Nato; a so-far-abortive effort to forge a US-Russian alliance; Washington’s embrace of Saudi regional hegemony; and the emergence of a possible Chinese-German alliance. Keep your eyes open for further developments along these lines.

One thing is clear: everyone on the planet will be affected by the ways in which such reshuffled alliances and rivalries will play out. A world dominated {52} by petro-powers will be one in which oil is plentiful, the skies hidden by smog, weather patterns unpredictable, coastlines receding, and drought a recurring peril. The possibility of warfare is only likely to increase {53} on such a planet, as nations and peoples fight over ever-diminishing supplies of vital resources, especially food, water, and arable land.

A world dominated by green powers, on the other hand, is likely to be less ravaged by war and the depredations of extreme climate change as renewable energy becomes more affordable and available to all. Those, like Trump, who prefer an oil-drenched planet will fight to achieve their hellish vision, while those committed to a green future will work to reach and even exceed the goals of the Paris agreement. Even within the United States, an impressive lineup of cities, states, and corporations (including Apple, Google, Tesla, Target, eBay, Adidas, Facebook, and Nike) have banded together {54}, in an effort dubbed “We Are Still In”, to implement America’s commitment to the climate accord independently of what Washington says or does. The choice is ours: allow the dystopian vision of Donald Trump to prevail or join with those seeking a decent future for this and future generations.

Links:

{1} https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2017-04-17/present-destruction

{2} https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/23/climate/trump-budget-energy.html

{3} https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2017-04-17/plot-against-american-foreign-policy

{4} https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_P._Huntington

{5} https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/trump-muslims-islamophobia-hate-crime/500840/

{6} http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/trumps-travel-ban-tweets-show-his-disdain-for-the-law

{7} https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/05/us/politics/diplomats-quiet-revolt-donald-trump-tensions.html

{8} http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176239/tomgram%3A_ira_chernus%2C_now_who%27s_the_enemy/

{9} http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176222/

{10} http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-gulf-arrival-idUSKCN18G06K

{11} https://www.amazon.com/dp/0805079386/ref=nosim/?tag=tomdispatch-20

{12} https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-gets-elaborate-welcome-in-saudi-arabia-embarking-on-first-foreign-trip/2017/05/20/679f2766-3d1d-11e7-a058-ddbb23c75d82_story.html

{13} https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/20/world/middleeast/rex-w-tillerson-saudi-arabia-human-rights.html

{14} http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/20/us-saudi-arabia-seal-weapons-deal-worth-nearly-110-billion-as-trump-begins-visit.html

{15} https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/05/16/contrary-to-popular-belief-houthis-arent-iranian-proxies/

{16} https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/16/third-of-saudi-airstrikes-on-yemen-have-hit-civilian-sites-data-shows

{17} https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/02/world/middleeast/unicef-yemen-cholera-saudi-war.html

{18} https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/mar/16/yemen-conflict-7-million-close-to-famine

{19} https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/05/23/joint-statement-between-kingdom-saudi-arabia-and-united-states-america

{20} https://www.thenation.com/article/rather-russia-america-fear/

{21} https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-told-in-brussels-that-west-should-focus-on-values-not-only-interests/2017/05/25/7aa1865c-40cd-11e7-9869-bac8b446820a_story.html

{22} http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-washington-updates-trump-commits-to-nato-s-article-5-1497037705-htmlstory.html

{23} https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/25/world/europe/donald-trump-eu-nato.html

{24} https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/25/world/europe/donald-trump-eu-nato.html

{25} https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/27/world/europe/trump-paris-climate-accords-g7.html

{26} http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/trump-pulls-out-of-climate-deal-western-rift-deepens-a-1150486.html

{27} http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/global-warming/reduce-emissions/what-is-the-clean-power-plan#.WTV3G2jyuUk

{28} https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/26/business/energy-environment/coal-power-renewable-energy.html

{29} http://www.nbcnews.com/business/autos/trump-rolls-back-obama-era-fuel-economy-standards-n734256

{30} https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2017/05/17/china-india-make-progress-climate-us-efforts-judged-inadequate/

{31} https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/06/01/statement-president-trump-paris-climate-accord

{32} http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.html

{33} https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/05/world/middleeast/qatar-saudi-arabia-egypt-bahrain-united-arab-emirates.html

{34} http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.html

{35} http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.html

{36} https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/03/world/europe/trump-putin-russia-relations.html

{37} http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-russia-criminal-probe-paul-manafort-campaign-links-a7771386.html

{38} https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-administrations-secret-efforts-ease-russia-sanctions-fell-short-231301145.html

{39} http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-updates-everything-president-trump-says-russia-talk-fake-news-as-1488138553-htmlstory.html

{40} http://www.thenational.ae/world/europe/saudi-arabias-mohammed-bin-salman-meets-putin-in-moscow

{41} http://www.thenational.ae/world/europe/saudi-arabias-mohammed-bin-salman-meets-putin-in-moscowhttp://www.reuters.com/article/us-g20-china-saudi-russia-oil-idUSKCN11B0UF

{42} http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/14/russia-may-sell-iran-10-billion-worth-of-tanks-and-jets-in-new-a/

{43} https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/1993-06-01/clash-civilizations

{44} http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/27/politics/donald-trump-refugees-executive-order/index.html

{45} https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/01/us/politics/climate-accord-trump-china-global-leadership.html

{46} https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/31/world/europe/china-sees-an-opening-in-rift-between-trump-and-germany.html

{47} https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/31/world/europe/china-sees-an-opening-in-rift-between-trump-and-germany.html

{48} https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/05/business/energy-environment/china-clean-energy-coal-pollution.html

{49} http://climateactiontracker.org/countries/india.html

{50} https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/31/world/europe/china-sees-an-opening-in-rift-between-trump-and-germany.html

{51} http://fortune.com/2017/01/27/solar-wind-renewable-jobs/

{52} https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/11/19/were-on-pace-for-4c-of-global-warming-heres-why-the-world-bank-is-terrified/

{53} http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-war-risk-increase-syria-isis-heatwave-drought-a7155401.html

{54} http://www.businessinsider.com/we-are-still-in-group-represents-62-trillion-of-the-us-economy-plans-to-stay-in-paris-agreement-2017-6

_____

Michael T Klare, a TomDispatch regular, is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and the author, most recently, of The Race for What’s Left (2012). A documentary movie version of his book Blood and Oil (2005) is available from the Media Education Foundation. Follow him on Twitter at @mklare1.

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Book, John Dower’s The Violent American Century: War and Terror Since World War II (2017), as well as John Feffer’s dystopian novel Splinterlands (2016), Nick Turse’s Next Time They’ll Come to Count the Dead (2016), and Tom Engelhardt’s Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World (2014).

Copyright 2017 Michael T Klare

(c) 2017 TomDispatch. All rights reserved.

http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/176294/

Categories: Uncategorized

Leading the Multipolar Revolution

How Russia and China are Creating a New World Order

by Federico Pieraccini

Strategic Culture Foundation (June 20 2017)

The last thirty days have shown another kind of world that is engaging in cooperation, dialogue and diplomatic efforts to resolve important issues. The meeting of the members of the Belt and Road Initiative (“BRI”) laid the foundations for a physical and electronic connectivity among Eurasian countries, making it the backbone of sustainable and renewable trade development based on mutual cooperation. A few weeks later, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (“SCO”) meeting in Astana outlined the necessary conditions for the success of the Chinese project, such as securing large areas of the Eurasian block and improving dialogue and trust among member states. The following Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (“AIIB”) meeting in the Republic of Korea (“ROK”) will lay out the economic necessities to finance and sustain the BRI projects.

The SCO and the BRI have many common features, and in many ways seem complementary. The SCO is an organization that focuses heavily on economic, political and security issues in the region, while the BRI is a collection of infrastructure projects that incorporates three-fifths of the globe and is driven by Beijing’s economic might. In this context, the Eurasian block continues to develop the following initiatives to support both the BRI and SCO mega-projects. The Collective Security Treaty Organization (“CTSO”) is a Moscow-based organization focusing mainly on the fight against terrorism, while the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (“AIIB”) is a Beijing-based investment bank that is responsible for generating important funding for Beijing’s long-term initiatives along its maritime routes (ports and canals) and overland routes (roads, bridges, railways, pipelines, industries, airports). The synergies between these initiatives find yet another point of convergence in the Eurasian Economic Union (“EEU”). Together, the SCO, BRI, CTSO, AIIB, and EEU provide a compelling indication of the direction in which humanity is headed, which is to say towards integration, cooperation and peaceful development through diplomacy.

On the other side, we have the “old world order” made up of the IMF, the World Bank, the European Union, the UN, Nato, the WTO, with Washington being the ringmaster at the center of this vision of a world order. It is therefore not surprising that Washington should look askance at these Eurasian initiatives that threaten to deny its central and commanding role in the global order in favor of a greater say by Moscow, Beijing, New Delhi and even Tehran.

One of the most significant and noteworthy events in the last month, or even in recent years, has been the admission into the SCO of India and Pakistan, two nuclear powers with a history of tension and conflict between them. These two countries are critical to the peaceful and fruitful integration of Eurasia. The slow, two-year process of India and Pakistan’s admission into the SCO benefited greatly from China and Russia’s mediation, culminating in the historical agreement signed by Modi, Sharif, Putin, and Xi. This is not to mention Afghanistan’s Ghani being at the same table with Modi and Sharif, representing one of the most infamous locations where Eurasian powers have clashed with each other, acting as an obstacle to the integration and development of the region. The main goal of the new SCO organization is a peaceful mediation between New Delhi and Islamabad, and certainly to reach a wider agreement that can include Afghanistan. Kabul is a good example of how the SCO can offer the ideal framework for achieving a definitive peace settlement. This reflects the sentiment that was expressed during the meeting that took place a few weeks ago in Moscow between Pakistan, India, China, Russia, and Afghanistan over the complicated situation in the country. Clearly, there are conflicting interests, and it is only through the mediation of Beijing and Moscow that it will be possible to reach a wider agreement and end the sixteen-year-old conflict.

Afghanistan is a good example of how the SCO intends to support the BRI. In this sense, it is important to note that Moscow and Beijing have decided to engage in a partnership that looks more like an alliance with long-term projects planned deep into 2030. The extent to which Russia and China are committed to common initiatives and projects can be seen in the BRI, SCO, AIIB, and CTSO.

 

 

Security and Development

 

 

Beijing is fully aware that it is impossible to defeat terrorism without laying the foundation for economic growth in underdeveloped countries in Africa, Middle East, Central Asia and South Asia. Terrorist organizations are generally better able to recruit from populations suffering from low income and poor schooling. The SCO is required to manage and control its members’ most unstable areas (Central Asian republics, Afghanistan, India-Pakistan border, Beijing-New Delhi relations) and mediate between parties. The BRI and SCO go hand in hand, one being unable to operate without the other, as Xi and Putin have reiterated.

The SCO and BRI are both capable of meeting the challenges of economic growth through development and progress. Just looking at the BRI’s major projects helps one understand the level and extent of integration that has been agreed. The Eurasian Land Bridge begins in Western China and ends in Western Russia. The China-Mongolia-Russia economic corridor begins in Northern China and arrives in Eastern Russia. Central Asia will be connected to Western Asia, which practically means China linking with Turkey. The China-Indochina corridor runs from Southern China to Singapore, and the Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar corridor starts in Southern China and arrives in India. The nearly completed China-Pakistan corridor starts in south-western China and reaches Pakistan. Finally, the maritime route running from the Chinese coast through to Singapore will reach the Mediterranean in Greece or, in the future, Venice.

What is evident is that countries like India, Singapore, Turkey, and Myanmar, just to name a few, do not wish to miss the opportunity to join this initiative that promises to revolutionize trade and globalization as we know it. Today’s main economic problems, as well as the problem posed by terrorism, stem from the lack of economic growth brought on by a globalization that enriches the elites at the expense of ordinary people. The BRI aims to reinvent globalization, avoiding the protectionist drift that many countries today adopt in response to an aggressive and failed approach to globalization. Beijing intends to bring about a radical change to its industries by restructuring its production and boosting its investment in technology, generating more internal consumption, and becoming a country that offers services and not only manufacturing. For this process to be successful, it will be fundamental to reorganize the regional supply chain by transferring production to more competitive countries that will play important roles in sectors such as agriculture, energy, logistics, and industry. Southeast Asia, in particular, seems to offer ideal destinations for transferring Chinese industries.

In this process of transforming a good part of the globe, some countries currently outside of the SCO organization are nevertheless fully part of the integration schemes and will play a decisive role in the future. In particular, Iran, Turkey, and Egypt are the main focus when one looks at their geographical position. The importance of these three countries vis-a-vis the SCO arises mainly from the need of the organization to pursue its work of political expansion and, in the future, to counter militarily the problem of terrorism and its spread. Naturally, countries like Iran and Egypt already devote a large part of their resources towards counteracting the terrorist phenomenon in the Middle East and North Africa. Their entry into the SCO would be seen by many protagonists of the BRI, especially China, as providing the opportunity to expand their projects in areas in North Africa and the Middle East that are currently tumultuous.

This should not come as a surprise since even countries like Jordan and Israel have been taken into account by Beijing for important infrastructure projects related to the transport of desalinated water to regions with a high rate of drought. With Israel, the Chinese partnership is stronger than ever, counting on various factors such as technological development and the expansion of several Israeli ports to connect more Chinese maritime routes with destinations in the Mediterranean like Piraeus in Greece and probably Venice in Italy. Turkey’s entry into the SCO is mainly aimed at gathering the region’s major oil and gas suppliers and consumers under a single umbrella guaranteed by the SCO. These operations take time and a degree of cooperation that is hard to maintain, although the resolution of the situation in Syria, in addition to the crisis in the Gulf between Qatar and Saudi Arabia, could accelerate synergies and easily facilitate them.

The entry of Iran, Egypt, and Turkey into the SCO is inevitable, receiving the strong encouragement of China and Russia, especially as regards the future connection between BRI and other infrastructure projects that are part of the EEU. The advantages are quite obvious to everyone, bringing about greater integration and infrastructure links, the increase of trade between nations, and general cooperation in mutual development. Products can travel from one country to another based on conditions determined bilaterally, something that often favors bigger nations rather than smaller ones. The intention of China’s Globalization 2.0, coupled with a Eurasian revival of the EEU, is to change the future of humanity by shifting the global pole of globalization and development towards the east. The BRI is immense and mind-boggling in its scope, given that it embraces realities ranging from Panama (focused on the extended channel and the Nicaragua project for a new channel) to Australia, passing through Europe, the Middle East, Asia and the Persian Gulf.

Naturally, in this delicate balance, Europe is called on to play a decisive role in the future. The United States, with its “America First” policy, has already burned bridges with the Chinese BRI revolution, and indeed hopes to throw a spanner in China’s works. European countries including England, France, Germany, and Italy have already begun to sign onto various Chinese proposals. It looks as if America’s allies are no longer listening to their former boss. The European Central Bank has for the first time diversified $500 million into Yuan currency, and London, together with Rome, Berlin, and Paris, was present in Beijing for the launch of the BRI. France, Germany, and England sent high-level representations and delegations, Italy directly the Prime Minister. For Europe, the largest exporter to China and the second-largest regional block importing from China, it is inevitable that it will be an integral part of the BRI, looking to reach Iran, Turkey and Egypt for energy supplies and diversifying sources, all within the framework of the BRI.

In this process of Eurasian integration, there are some key countries to keep in mind, but the first steps have already been made with almost indissoluble ties having been made between Moscow and Beijing, as well as the monumental inclusion of Pakistan and India at the same table. With an understanding between India, Russia and China, as well as a lack of hostility to the project in Iran, Israel, Germany, England, Turkey and Egypt, it will be possible to speed up this global change, bringing it to the African countries, Gulf monarchies, South Asian countries, and even South and Central America. Even Washington’s historic allies like Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the EU vacillate in the face of such an opportunity to broaden their horizons with significant gains. As far as their alliance with the United States, in this world rapidly heading towards a multipolar world order, not even Riyadh, Tel Aviv or London can afford the luxury of ignoring the project that perhaps more than any other will revolutionize the future of humanity in the near future. Not being a part of it is simply not an option.

The United States has two diametrically opposed options before it. It can operate alongside the BRI project, trying to fashion its own sphere of influence, albeit smaller than the countries residing within the Eurasian continent; but of course for Washington, simply being part of a grand project may not be enough, since it is used to getting its own way and subordinating the interests of other countries to its own. If the US decides to try and sabotage the BRI with their normal tools like terrorism, it is very likely that the countries historically aligned with Washington in these affairs (such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia) will be subjected to Chinese economic pressure and encouraged to instead participate in a more positive manner.

 

 

Cooperation Against Threats

 

 

The main question is the extent to which Chinese economic persuasion will succeed in overcoming US military threats. In this respect, the SCO will be a decisive factor as it expands its influence beyond the Eurasian bloc into Africa and the Middle East. To date, the SCO cannot be considered a military bloc opposed to Nato. Everything will depend on the pressures that the United States will bring to bear on participating countries. Therefore, it is likely that the SCO will evolve to include a strong military aspect in order to counter American destabilization efforts.

It is difficult to predict whether the US will be neutral or belligerent. But considering recent history, American hostility is likely to force Moscow and Beijing into an asymmetric response that will hit Washington where it hurts most, namely its economic interests. Aiming at the dollar, and in particular, the petrodollar seems to be the best bet for advancing the BRI, threatening a massive de-dollarization that would end in disaster for Washington. This is the nuclear option that Beijing and Moscow are looking into, with more than a desire to accelerate this economic shift.

The future of humanity seems to be changing in exciting and unprecedented ways. The full integration of the Eurasian bloc will eventually end up changing the course of history, allowing nations that are currently weak and poor to withstand colonial pressures and broaden their cooperation and dialogue. Peace as a method for developing synergies and prosperity seems to be the new paradigm, contrasting with war and destruction as has been the case in the last decades.

_____

Republishing is welcomed with reference to Strategic Culture Foundation on-line journal http://www.strategic-culture.org.

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/06/20/leading-multipolar-revolution-how-russia-china-creating-new-world-order.html

Categories: Uncategorized