Michael HUDSON: How Western Military Interventions Shaped the Brexit Vote; The Real NEWS Network, June 27, 2016

globalcrisis/globalchange NEWS
Martin Zeis, 29.06.2016

We continue the debate on BREXIT with an interview on The Real News Network with Michael HUDSON.

———-

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/27/how-western-military-interventions-shaped-the-brexit-vote

How Western Military Interventions Shaped the Brexit Vote
MICHAEL HUDSON

Michael Hudson argues that military interventions in the Middle East created refugee streams to Europe that were in turn used by the anti-immigrant right to stir up xenophobia.

GREGORY WILPERT: Britain’s referendum in favor of leaving, or exiting, the European Union, the Brexit referendum, as the results are known, won with 52 percent of the vote on Thursday, June 23, stunning Europe’s political establishment. One of the issues that has raised concern for many is that what does the Brexit mean for Britain’s and Europe’s economy and politics. This was one of the main topics leading up to the referendum, but a lot of disinformation [reigned] in the discussion.

With us to discuss the economic and political context of the Brexit is Michael Hudson. He is a research professor of economics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, and author of Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Destroy the Global Economy. Also, he is an economics adviser to several governments, including Greece, Iceland, Latvia, and China. He joins us right now from New York City.

So let’s begin with the political context in which the Brexit vote took place. Aside from the right-wing arguments about immigrants, economic concerns, and about Britain’s ability to control its own economy, what would you say–what do you see as being the main kind of political background in which this vote took place?

HUDSON: Well, almost all the Europeans know where the immigrants are coming from. And the ones that they’re talking about are from the near East. And they’re aware of the fact that most of the immigrants are coming as a result of the NATO policies promoted by Hillary and by the Obama administration.
The problem began in Libya. Once Hillary pushed Obama to destroy Libya and wipe out the stable government there, she wiped out the arms–and Libya was a very heavily armed country. She turned over the arms to ISIS, to Al-Nusra, and Al-Qaeda. And Al-Qaeda used these arms under U.S. organization to attack Syria and Iraq. Now, the Syrian population, the Iraqi population, have no choice but to either emigrate or get killed.
So when people talk about the immigration to Europe, the Europeans, the French, the Dutch, the English, they’re all aware of the fact that this is the fact that Brussels is really NATO, and NATO is really run by Washington, and that it’s America’s new Cold War against Russia that’s been spurring all of this demographic dislocation that’s spreading into England, spreading into Europe, and is destabilizing things.
So what you’re seeing with the Brexit is the result of the Obama administration’s pro-war, new Cold War policy.

WILPERT: So are you saying that people voted for Brexit because they are really–that they were concerned about the influence of the U.S.? Or are you saying that it’s because of the backlash, because of the immigration that happened, and the fact that the right wing took advantage of that…
HUDSON: It’s a combination. The right wing was, indeed, pushing the immigrant issue, saying wait a minute, they’re threatening our jobs. But the left wing was just as vocal, and the left wing was saying, why are these immigrants coming here? They’re coming here because of Europe’s support of NATO, and NATOs war that’s bombing the near East, that is destabilizing the whole Near East, and causing a flight of refugees not only from Syria but also from Ukraine. In England, many of the so-called Polish plumbers that came years ago have now gone back to Poland, because that country’s recovered.
But now the worry is that a whole new wave of Ukrainians – and basically the U.S. policy is one of destabilization – so even the right-wing, while they have talked about immigrants, they have also denounced the fact that the European policy is run by the United States, and that you have both Marine Le Pen in France saying, we want to withdraw from NATO; we don’t want confrontation with Russia. You have the left wing in England saying, we don’t want concentration in Russia. And last week when I was in Germany you had the Social Democratic Party leaders saying that Russia should be invited back into the G8, that NATO was taking a warlike position and was hurting the European economy by breaking its ties with Russia and by forcing other sanctions against Russia.
So you have a convergence between the left and the right, and the question is, who is going to determine the terms on which Europe is broken up and put back together? Will it simply be the right wing that’s anti-immigrants? Or will it simply be the left saying we want to restructure the economy in a way that essentially avoids the austerity that is coming from Brussels, on the one hand, and from the British Conservative Party on the other.

(…)

HUDSON-Brexit-Military-Interventions160628.pdf

Hybrid Wars 4. In the Greater Heartland (III) | Oriental Review

RELATED POSTS Smashing Greater Central Asia (III)Central Asia: Top 10 Developments in 2010 Smashing Greater Central Asia (II)Turkmenistan as the Three-for-One Staging Ground of Eurasian Destabilization Hybrid Wars 3. Predicting Next Hybrid WarsNew Integration Project for Eurasia – Making the Future Today Comments comments

Quelle: Hybrid Wars 4. In the Greater Heartland (III) | Oriental Review

Prof. Tim Anderson: The Dirty War on Syria: Washington Supports the Islamic State (ISIS)

Dear all,

Tim Anderson, Professor at the department of political economy at the University of Sydney, publishes his new book „The Dirty war on Syria“ chapter by chapter progressively on the site globalresearch. You can find all chapters here:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/author/tim-anderson

As Anderson announces, the full electronic book will be available sometime in January. His proved analysis on the war in Syria is able to unmask the western myths about the war and provide a lot of facts and background information.

Below you find a part of the introduction of „Washington Supports the Islamic State“ and Andersons conclusions. Full text available under url:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-dirty-war-on-syria-washington-supports-the-islamic-state-isis/5494957

File attached.

Sincerely yours

Elke Schenk

globalcrisis/globalchange NEWS

The Dirty War on Syria: Washington Supports the Islamic State (ISIS)

The Evidence

By Prof. Tim Anderson

Global Research, December 29, 2015

[…]

There is no doubt that the Arab and Muslim peoples of the Middle East hate the terrorist monstrosity called ISIS, ISIL or DAESH. Polling by the Washington-based Pew Research Centre found that 99% of Lebanese, 94% of Jordanians and 84% of Palestinians had an ‘unfavourable’ view of ISIS. As Lebanon’s constitutional system requires sectarian identification it was also found that 98% of Lebanese Sunni Muslims rejected ISIS (Poushter 2015). That latter finding discredits the common western assertion that ISIS somehow springs from Sunni communities. Less than 1% in Lebanon, 3% in Jordan and 6% in Palestine viewed the banned terrorist group favourably. The remainder did not express an opinion. Of all Syria’s neighbours, Turkey had the lowest ‘unfavourable’ view of ISIS, at 73%; the favourable score was 8% (Pous hter 2015). The aim of this chapter is to help clarify what role Washington has had in creating or turning loose this Frankenstein’s monster.

Washington maintains two closely linked myths as regards terrorism in the Middle East. Then there is a ‘fall-back’ story. The first ‘existential myth’ is that, from 2014, the US became engaged in a war against extremist terrorists, in both Iraq and Syria. This followed several years of trying to topple the Syrian Government by backing illegal armed groups, which it calls ‘moderate’. Through this myth the US claims to be playing a protective role for the benefit of the peoples of the region. The second myth is that there is a significant difference between the ‘moderate rebels’ the US arms, finances and trains, and the extremist terrorists (DAESH or ISIS) it claims to be fighting.

These claims represented a shift in the rationale for the war on Syria, from one of ‘humanitarian intervention’ to a revival of the Bush era ‘war on terror’. The ‘fall back’ story, advanced by some of Washington’s domestic critics, is that US practice in the region has created a climate of resentment amongst orthodox Sunni Muslim communities, and the extremist groups emerged as a type of ‘organic reaction’ from those communities to repeated US interventions. This story hides the more damaging conclusion that Washington and its allies directly created the extremist groups.

However there is little point in simply asserting that last version, without evidence. The ‘existential myth’ of a western war on terrorism is so insistent and pervasive, and backed by such a commitment in political capital, arms and finance, that it is very difficult for western audiences to accept this new ‘war’ might be a charade. Further, diplomacy requires that stated policy positions be pursued to their logical conclusions, and that the aims be tested. For these reasons I suggest we should document the key elements of evidence, on Washington’s relationship with the sectarian terrorists. After that we can draw better informed conclusions.

[…]

This article has presented sufficient evidence for us to safely draw these conclusions.

First, Washington planned a bloody wave of regime change in its favour in the Middle East, getting allies such as the Saudis to use sectarian forces in a process of ‘creative destruction’.

Second, the US directly financed and armed a range of so-called ‘moderate’ terrorist groups against the sovereign state of Syria while its key allies the Saudis, Qatar, Israel and Turkey financed, armed and supported with arms and medical treatment every anti-Syrian armed group, whether ‘moderate’ or extreme.

Third, ‘jihadists’ for Jabhat al Nusra and ISIS were actively recruited in many countries, indicating that the rise of those groups was not due to a simple anti-western ‘Sunni’ reaction within the region.

Fourth, NATO member Turkey functioned as a ‘free transit zone’ for every type of terrorist group passing into Syria.

Fifth, there is testimony from a significant number of senior Iraqi officials that US arms have been delivered directly to ISIS.

Sixth, the ineffective, or at best selective, US ‘war’ against ISIS tends to corroborate the Iraqi and Syrian views that there is a controlling relationship. In sum we can conclude that the US has built a command relationship with all of the anti-Syrian terrorist groups, including al Nusra ISIS, either directly or through its close regional allies, the Saudis, Qatar, Israel and Turkey. Washington has attempted to play a ‘double game’ in Syria and Iraq, using its old doctrine of ‘plausible deniability’ to maintain the fiction of a ‘war on terrorism’ for as long as is possible.

ANDERSON-Washington-Supports-ISIS-GR2015_12_29.pdf

Pepe ESCOBAR: Putin Stands up For Statehood, Checks Nation-Breakers; RI Sep 30, 2015

globalcrisis/globalchange NEWS
Martin Zeis, 30.09.2015

Dear all,

following an opinion by Pepe Escobar* refering back to Vladimir Putins speech on the UN General Assembly (70th session) Friday, 28.09.2015. I recommend You to read the full transcript achievable via <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q13yzl6k6w0> and <http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/50385>

*see attachment

globalcrisis/globalchange NEWS
Martin Zeis, 30.09.2015

Dear all,

following an opinion by Pepe Escobar* refering back to Vladimir Putins speech on the UN General Assembly (70th session) Friday, 28.09.2015. I recommend You to read the full transcript achievable via <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q13yzl6k6w0&gt; and <http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/50385&gt;

*see attachment

Greets,
Martin Zeis

—————–

RI, 30.09.2015 — http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/putin-stands-statehood-checks-nation-breakers/ri10041

Putin Stands up For Statehood, Checks Nation-Breakers

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s message at the UN General Assembly was stark; either sovereign states get together in a broad coalition against all forms of terror, and the principle of statehood is respected as enshrined in the UN charter – or there will be chaos

By Pepe ESCOBAR

This UN General Assembly revealed that the Obama administration’s perpetual newspeak does not cut it anymore. A review of UN speeches by both Putin and Obama is almost painful to watch. Putin acted like a serious global statesman. Obama acted like a poseur flunking a screen test.
Putin’s key talking points could not but be easily accessible to the Global South — his prime audience, much more than the industrialized West.

1) The export of color — or monochromatic — revolutions is doomed.
2) The alternative to the primacy of statehood is chaos. This implies that the Assad system in Syria may be immensely problematic, but it’s the only game in town. The alternative is ISIS/ISIL/Daesh barbarism. There’s no credible “moderate opposition” — as there was not in NATO-“liberated” Libya.
3) Only the UN — as flawed as it may be — is a guarantor of peace and security in our imperfect, realpolitik geopolitical environment. (1)

Gotta slay those myths
Washington believed its own Arab Spring myth in 2011, betting that after Tunis and Cairo, Damascus would fall in a flash.
The Beltway believed its own myth of “moderate rebels” taking power.
The Beltway did not listen to Syrian minorities warning about the danger of an extremist Sunni/Salafi-jihadi take over.
Thus the current Syrian tragedy; the end result of a formidably complex power play, political and religious, Syrian, regional and global.
ISIS/ISIL/Daesh — for all its barbarism — may eventually win a few battles, but it won’t control the whole of “Syraq”.
To defeat the cancer, there’s only one possibility: a real military campaign conducted by a real coalition including the US, Russia, Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia.
Washington though never joins a coalition that it cannot control at will.
Thus a possible road map of what may lie ahead — as debated by Obama and Putin, face to face, for 90 minutes in New York; a two-headed coalition, one led by the US, the other led by Russia, but “coordinating” on the ground.
Still, Moscow will be struggling to form a wide-ranging coalition duly approved by the UN.
The task is immense. “Syraq” will have to be reconstituted.
That implies an Iraq acceptable for all Iraqis — and that’s impossible to accomplish without Iran. And a Syria acceptable to all Syrians — and that’s impossible without Iran and Russia.
Washington after all would have never been able to accomplish both in the first place. The Empire of Chaos specializes in nation breaking, not nation building.

Gotta slay that dragon
Gorbachev wanted to integrate the USSR in the European family — aiming for a Europe from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
Post-Soviet Russia though was not even invited to enter the house. What happened was NATO colonization of the former Soviet space.
Gorbachev dreamed that the West would share peace dividends with Russia. What Russia got instead was a neoliberal shock — and a humiliated society treated as a loser of the Cold War. Exceptionalism prevailed.
Under Putin, Russia tried once again a strategic partnership with the EU. Does anyone remember Sergey Lavrov as late as 2011 swearing that modernization of Russia was ready to go as a pan-European project, just as in the time of Peter the Great?
Yet by 2007, Putin had changed the game, and was ready to openly contest the unipolar “order” — and slowly but surely project Russia back to the geopolitical limelight.
Post-Ukraine, still under sanctions, but armed with a strategic partnership with China, the time for a checkmate is now.
In New York, Putin even proposed the lineaments of a New World Order. The genuine article, not that “vision thing” concocted by Daddy Bush post-collapse of the USSR.
It would be an equitable, fair world order — where state sovereignty is respected, sanctions are meaningless, NATO ceases to expand ad infinitum and exceptionalism does not apply.
The devil will be in the (many) details, of course. For instance, if a coalition to fight ISIS/ISIL/Daesh is forged and blessed by the UN, it will need the — virtually impossible — cohabitation of Sunnis and Shi’ites.
And in the near future, Brussels will have to tame visceral internal antagonism to have the European Union interacting with the Russia-led Eurasia Economic Union (EEU), which by that time will be totally integrated with the China-led New Silk Roads.
What’s certain — for the overwhelming majority of the Global South — is that the Empire of Chaos made a mess everywhere, from Northern Africa and Southwest Asia to Russia’s western borderlands.
Putin now rides into the hellish mess ready to slay the dragon of chaos — and the machinations of the Empire of Chaos. His sword? The UN. No wonder checkmated neocons, neoliberalcons and “humanitarian” imperialists can barely conceal their apoplexy.

Note
(1) ‚Do you realise what you’ve done?‘ Vladimir Putin addresses 70th session of the UN General Assembly (FULL SPEECH); Video, 24:26min, URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q13yzl6k6w0
Transcript (engl.) see: http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/50385 posted: September 28, 2015 19:25 New York – Video included
Greets,
Martin Zeis

ESCOBAR-Putin-checks-nation-breakers150930.pdf