US unrealistic about turning India into a pawn

By Ding Gang Source:Global Times Published: 2017/6/28

When Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi went in for a bear hug with his US counterpart Donald Trump during their first in-person meeting, what did US scholars think?

The Global Times cited their views in its Monday's Observer article, saying India serves as a "key piece in the jigsaw" for the US. The opinions are actually a rehash of Cold War logic: using India to counterbalance China.

In a commentary piece on the Trump-Modi summit carried by Foreign Affairs magazine, C. Christine Fair and Bharath Gopalaswamy said, "The Trump administration would be wise to learn the lessons of the past administrations of George W. Bush and Barack Obama: India - not China - is the best bet for securing US interests in Asia."

These viewpoints are more of Washington's own wishful thinking. What can the US offer New Delhi to serve as a pawn to check Beijing?

Unless India grows into a heavyweight Asian economy, it will unlikely assume the tall task the US intends to impose upon it.

But for India to rapidly develop its economy, its only shortcut is to join China's economic growth and participate in the Belt and Road initiative. This, however, will end up improving its relations with Beijing, with India moving further away from the strategic position the US has planned for it. It is a paradox.

It seems that the mentality of US scholars still lingers in the 1950s and 1960s. They deem it feasible for Asian nations to queue up and follow Washington's steps. They have a meager understanding of today's Asia and China.

Take China's Tibet Autonomous Region, which borders India. The GDP per capita there is relatively low compared to the rest of China, but has exceeded $5,000, three times as much as in India. The infrastructure in Tibet is also far better than in India.

China's economic development has spilled over through Tibet and other border regions. Beijing has played an important role in connecting Nepal, Pakistan, Myanmar, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka to the world. It is conceivable that this region will develop into an important growth source for the Asian economy in the next five to 10 years.

In fact, US entrepreneurs are much smarter than US scholars. The entrepreneurs saw the hope of development in this region, and are now fast muscling into its market amid fierce competition from their Chinese counterparts.

According to Chinese statistics, there is an investment boom from China to India. The amount reached $1 billion in 2016, six times that of the previous year. By the end of 2016, the aggregate of Chinese direct investment in India had surpassed $4.8 billion.

US corporations are scrambling to catch up. Statistics released by KROLL and Mergermarket reveal that the US has put $3.17 billion in India's merger and acquisition market in the first half of 2016, for the first time surpassing the volume it invested in this market in China, which stood at $1.33 billion.

Amazon and US auto companies have become a major force of foreign capital in India on par with China's Alibaba and mobile producers. They have consequently become the primary mover to drive the country's economic development.

The competition between Chinese and US firms in India is an outcome of globalization, creating a space for reshuffling, integration and sharing of interests. The competition also demonstrates that no country can win by containing another.

Pundits addicted to safeguarding US interests by reining in China had better take a drive along the Chengdu-Lhasa highway. When they see the well-protected environment, booming infrastructure and people's living conditions, they may stop thinking about Asian nations as Washington's pawns.

The author is a senior editor with People's Daily, and currently a senior fellow with the Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies at Renmin University of China. dinggang@globaltimes.com.cn Follow him on Twitter at @dinggangchina

Posted in: DING GANG,ASIAN REVIEW

PARA EL 2018 EN MÉXICO: MANTENER EL SISTEMA O SALVAR AL PAÍS

Los diferentes partidos políticos y precandidatos a la presidencia de la República en nuestro país están ya en el frenesí de la contienda electoral, a un año de su realización, con propuestas de coaliciones, alianzas, frentes amplios opositores y aún la posibilidad de incluir una segunda vuelta para dichos comicios.

Por un lado, la coalición de partidos que sostienen al actual gobierno, formada por el PRI, PVEM, PANAL y el PES[1] ha establecido ya cuál es su estrategia para las elecciones del 2018: utilización de todos los recursos financieros, materiales y humanos del Estado, en sus vertientes legal e ilegal, para mantener en el poder a dicha coalición, sin importar el daño que se le haga a la imagen del país, las críticas y demandas de la oposición por el uso faccioso del poder del Estado, ni el deterioro que se le ocasionará a las instituciones en materia electoral. Ya comprobaron en las elecciones locales de este año en el Estado de México y Coahuila que la oposición, tanto de izquierda en el primer estado; como de derecha en el segundo, no contaron con la organización, los recursos, ni la voluntad para retar después de las elecciones, el triunfo de los candidatos de la coalición gobernante. De ahí que desde el presidente Peña Nieto, pasando por los gobernadores, presidentes municipales, dirigentes de partidos y legisladores de dicha coalición; hasta la militancia misma, la consigna es, mantener el poder a toda costa.

Por lo que respecta a la oposición dentro del sistema establecido, es decir aquéllos partidos que en lo general han apoyado y avalado las políticas del presidente Peña, en especial el denominado Pacto por México y las llamadas “reformas estructurales” emanadas de él, que fueron incorporadas a la Constitución; es decir, PAN, PRD y MC[2], buscan retar al PRI y sus aliados, para arrebatarles el poder, pero sin modificar en lo esencial las políticas que se han impuesto en México en los últimos 30 años (neoliberalismo económico, “guerra contra el narcotráfico”, “integración” política y económica con Norteamérica; asistencialismo social y estabilidad política interna); subrayando que la incompetencia, la corrupción y la falta de voluntad política para aplicar dichas políticas, han sido las causas de los principales problemas del país, pero insistiendo en que el camino propuesto inicialmente es el correcto.

Es Morena (con su aliado el PT)[3], el único actor político, que jugando dentro de las reglas del sistema,[4] pone en entredicho dichas políticas y sin manifestarse de plano por su abolición, llama a que sea el pueblo (mediante plebiscitos y referéndums) el que decida el rumbo del país en materia política, económica y social, sin dar por sentado que dichas políticas son las que necesita el país; y por el contrario, criticando acremente los resultados de varias de ellas en las últimas décadas.

De ahí que los principales beneficiarios del actual sistema político y económico se han lanzado con todos sus recursos propagandísticos en contra de Morena y de su seguro candidato presidencial, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, pues su principal objetivo es que el sistema se mantenga, pues así los grupos políticos, sectores sociales y conglomerados empresariales que han resultado ampliamente beneficiados con dichas políticas, no se verán afectados por un cambio en las mismas (el 10% de la población se queda con el 65% del PIB; sólo 210,000 participantes en la Bolsa Mexicana de Valores concentran el 22% del PIB; según la OEA, en México se destina cada año el 10% del PNB a la corrupción, lo que equivale a 100,000 millones de dólares).

En este punto vale la pena retomar una parte de las respuestas que el presidente ruso Vladimir Putin dio al cineasta Oliver Stone, en una serie de entrevistas que le hizo éste último al líder ruso entre 2015 y 2017, y que se han dado a conocer en las últimas semanas.

Oliver Stone le preguntó a Putin si Gorbachev[5] le influyó de alguna manera. Y Putin contestó lo siguiente: “El problema es este, el sistema ya no era eficiente desde sus raíces. ¿Y cómo puedes cambiar radicalmente el sistema, pero preservando al mismo tiempo al país? Eso es algo que en ese tiempo nadie sabía---incluido Gorbachev. Y sin embargo, ellos empujaron al país al colapso”.[6]

Se presenta aquí un dilema, que Putin subraya. Para salvar al sistema comunista de su colapso, Gorbachev hizo cambios tan drásticos que acabó poniendo en peligro al país mismo, al dejarlo a merced de las potencias occidentales, los oligarcas locales, el crimen organizado y la lucha de facciones políticas, con un liderazgo disminuido y corrupto, como el de Boris Yeltsin.

Bueno pues resulta que con toda proporción guardada, Peña con sus reformas estructurales (que prácticamente le fueron redactadas en el Consejo de Relaciones Exteriores y en el Centro Woodrow Wilson en Estados Unidos) intentó “salvar al sistema” de su colapso, y lo que ha hecho en cambio, es poner al país con un pie en el despeñadero.

Lo que intentaron las élites beneficiarias del actual sistema político y económico fue refuncionalizarlo dentro del paraguas de la potencia hegemónica; pero manteniendo la misma explotación bestial de la mano de obra (México es el país con el segundo peor salario mínimo en América Latina, sólo superior a Nicaragua); de sus recursos naturales y financieros. Las reformas estructurales tuvieron como objetivo acabar con los últimos remanentes del Estado de Bienestar surgido en la posrevolución; de la economía mixta y del nacionalismo revolucionario que prevaleció en el país desde 1917 hasta 1987 (cuando la tecnocracia triunfa en la elección interna del candidato del PRI a la presidencia de la República, con la postulación de Carlos Salinas de Gortari).

¿Cómo podían esperar que las mismas políticas profundizadas cada vez más, podrían dar resultados distintos a los que han dado por más de 30 años? Simplemente el sistema político y económico ha generado lo que de él se esperó desde el primer momento en que se le implantó, a fines de la década de los años 80 del siglo pasado: brutal concentración del ingreso; absoluta dependencia económica (y ahora también en seguridad y en política exterior) respecto a Estados Unidos; extensión de la pobreza; aumento de la violencia y el crimen organizado; permanencia y profundización de la corrupción y la impunidad; crisis en materia de respeto a los derechos humanos; estancamiento económico y debilidad del mercado interno; extensa economía informal con baja productividad; enclaves de modernización y desarrollo v.s. la mayor parte del país sumido en el atraso y la marginación.

De ahí que tanto las estrategias políticas para las elecciones presidenciales del próximo año, como los enfoques analíticos en materia de ciencia política para explicarnos lo que sucederá en los próximos doce meses, surgirán de planos y visiones totalmente distintos.

Por un lado la coalición gobernante liderada por el PRI busca mantener el poder, y por lo mismo su intención es que el sistema siga funcionando como hasta ahora. De ahí que su enfoque analítico partirá de variables y conceptos que buscan el “mantenimiento de patrones”. Es decir cuáles son “las condiciones del mantenimiento de un patrón básico por una estructura o sistema político, y … los procesos por cuyo conducto se logra tal preservación”.[7] Dicho mantenimiento de patrones no se refiere a que no existan cambios, sino a que se mantienen las características esenciales de un patrón político dentro de límites bien definidos.

Por lo que respecta a la oposición dentro del sistema, esto es básicamente PAN y PRD, buscan un cambio en las élites que detentan el poder y al mismo tiempo un cambio en la manera de elaborar y aplicar las políticas, todo lo cual forma parte de un enfoque que tiene que ver con los “patrones de control”, y cuya principal área es el estudio del poder.[8]

Y por último, en lo que se refiere a Morena, si bien se puede decir que su objetivo es llegar al poder, el punto primordial es cambiar al sistema, antes de que el sistema termine por destruir al país. De ahí que el enfoque de análisis tiene que ser el de los patrones de cambio. El asunto es que algunos plantean el cambio como una evolución pausada, mientras otros lo ven como una ruptura.[9] Incluso los actuales detentadores del poder político en México insisten en que el sistema ha venido cambiando en los últimos 30 años, a través de su “modernización”.

En cambio, los críticos del sistema señalan que esa modernización se ha concentrado en el 25 o 30% de la población, dejando al margen a la gran mayoría.

Así, el único agente de cambio real para el 2018, que no busca su “estabilidad” o su “modernización” -pero sin que una ni otra se refleje en mejores niveles de vida, seguridad y progreso para la gran mayoría de la población- es Morena, por lo que es considerado, una vez más (como lo fue López Obrador en 2006) un “peligro”, pero no para México, sino para el sistema imperante, que está volcado a sostenerse, aún a costa de la destrucción de la economía, la sociedad y la soberanía del país.

---

[1] Partido Revolucionario Institucional, Partico Verde Ecologista de México, Partido Nueva Alianza y Partido Encuentro Social.

[2] Partido Acción Nacional, Partido de la Revolución Democrática y Movimiento Ciudadano.

[3] Movimiento de Regeneración Nacional y Partido del Trabajo.

[4] Hay otros que rechazan participar en el sistema como los grupos armados EPR, ERPI o FARP. En cambio el EZLN en conjunto con el Consejo Nacional Indígena, ha decidido participar en las elecciones presidenciales con una candidata independiente.

[5] Dirigente de la URSS entre 1985 y 1991.

[6] http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2017/06/25/tried-kill-putin-five-times/

[7] Young R. Oran; Sistemas de Ciencia Política; FCE; México; Primera reimpresión 1982; 216 págs.; p.20.

[8] Ibidem. P. 21-22

[9] Ibid. P.23

A Baseless Justification for War in Syria

June 25, 2017

By Dennis J Bernstein

Consortiumnews.com

U.S. government officials, including Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., claim the current U.S. authority to mount military operations in Iraq and Syria is legally based on the Authorization for the Use of Military Force [AUMF] declaration to go after Al Qaeda and related terror groups after the 9/11 attacks in 2001. But how does that cover the recent U.S. attacks on Syrian government forces that have been battling both Al Qaeda and its spinoff, Islamic State?

Francis Boyle, professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law, asserts that the recent U.S. shoot-down of a Syrian government jet inside Syria on June 18 was not only illegal under international law but amounts to an impeachable act by President Trump.

In an interview with Flashpoints’ Dennis J. Bernstein, Professor Boyle said, “What the U.S. government is getting away with here is incredible.” Boyle also talked to Bernstein about the questionable Russia-gate investigation and the darker history behind Special Prosecutor Robert Swan Mueller III, the former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Dennis Bernstein: Will Syria’s hot war and the recent U.S. bombings there lead us into a hot war with Russia? Well, the generals are saying this shoot-down in Syria is legal. You want to jump into this?

Francis Boyle: You know Dunford doesn’t have a law degree that I’m aware of. But, of course, still the Pentagon is going to try to justify whatever war crimes it can. They always do.

Clearly the U.S. invasion, which we have done, and now repeated military attacks against Syria constitutes a Nuremberg crime against peace, and in violation of the Nuremberg charter, judgment and principles, and, of course, a violation of the United Nations’ charter. [It is] an act of aggression as defined by, oh even the new element of the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court that is not yet in force. But it has a definition based upon the 1974 definition of aggression which the World Court found to be customary international law in the very famous Nicaraguan case when it applied it against Nicaragua.

Indeed, it’s very interesting, you know, if you go back and read the Nicaragua case, and change Syria for Nicaragua, pretty much the law, the illegalities remain the same. Likewise, the United States Congress has never authorized any act of war against Syria.

So, this violates the War Powers clause of the United States Constitution, the War Powers Resolution of 1973, and is clearly an impeachable act against President Trump. This is a slam dunk. We don’t have time to go through all the other arguments being made on impeachment here, but for the most part, all those are being made by these totally hypocritical Democratic lawyers who never applied the same impeachable arguments against President Obama. So, I’m not going to waste time with them.

And, finally, this is existentially dangerous, what is going on right now in Syria. But Russia is there with the consent of the legitimate government of Syria. They’re not violating international law. The United States is in clear cut violation, as I have explained. And, now, Russia …  has said that they are going to begin to target U.S. planes and drones. And, the problem is, of course, when you target planes, that triggers their radar and they fire back. So, we’re pretty much on a hair trigger right now in Syria for war between the United States and Russia.

And given the massive war mongering campaign we’re seeing being waged against Russia by almost all the mainstream news media, the Democrats, the whole Democratic Party, the Hillary Clinton people, etc. and sort of neo-McCarthyism against Russia, Putin and everyone else, I shudder to think what would happen if Russia were to shoot down an American pilot under these circumstances. In my lifetime, Dennis, my political lifetime, I don’t think we’ve been in such a dangerous situation since the Cuban Missile Crisis.

I mean, anything could go wrong here, soon. And, even if it’s not deliberate, as President Kennedy said when the Soviet Union shot down a U-2 spy plane at the heart of the Cuban Missile Crisis that could have resulted in World War III, he said something like, “Well, there’s always some son-of-a-bitch down the line who doesn’t get the message.” So, anything could go wrong here. And we could end up being at war with Russia momentarily.

DB: You want to talk a little bit about the so-called deconfliction zones, that are really conflict zones and a potential for war?

FB: Yeah, it’s clear, Dennis, and indeed [the] Financial Times now has an article on this, but I’ve said this for a while, these deconfliction zones are really de-facto partition zones for Russia and the United States. And what we’re seeing here is effectively all these surrounding states are going into Syria and grabbing a chunk of their territory.

It’s like jackals descending on a wounded animal. Iran is in there, Hezbollah is in there, Turkey is in there, the Kurds are in there, the U.S. is in there. We have our proxy terrorist groups in there. The best analogy would be a pack of jackals descending upon and eating away at a wounded animal. And the so-called deconfliction zones are just part of the de-facto carve up of Syria, in violation of Syria’s territorial integrity and political independence guaranteed by the United Nations’ charter.

DB: Well, as you say, these are incredibly dangerous times, and very, very difficult policies. Who loses, who gains on this kind of response to Syria, and bombing of Syria?

FB: Well, the United States government believes it gains because they are out — and have always been out — to overthrow the Assad government, and put a puppet in power. And, you know, continue to achieve their objectives there in the Middle East, going back for quite some time, preparing the way for future action against Iran and Russia, for sure.

So, they believe that this is to their advantage: the Pentagon, the CIA, the White House, the so-called Power Ministries, the Deep State. Call them whatever you want. They could be tragically short-sighted. I mean, this is the way the First World War and the Second World War began. What can I say, Dennis? It’s a tinder box, already.

DB: And how would you characterize Israel’s interest and their role in this policy? Do you think they’re a driving force in it?

FB: Of course. That’s got reported […] in the Wall Street Journal. I guess I should say Israel wants its chunk of Syria, too. They’ve already stolen the Golan Heights, in 1967. And they’ve been arming, equipping and supplying these terrorist organizations since the outset of the uprising in Syria. And, indeed, they’ve now carved out a further buffer zone in Syria.

So, they’re in to get their share of Syria, as well, along with everyone else. I’m not saying they’re any better or any worse than anyone else. But they’re doing exactly the same thing everyone else is doing. As I said, it’s this pack of hyenas going in there to gnaw away, and eat the flesh of Syria. And Israel is getting its pound of flesh, as it sees it.

DB: And this, you think, could easily unravel. These are perhaps, would you say, the most dangerous times of our life time, or close to it?

FB: Well, when you have Russia saying it is going to target so-called paint U.S. jet fighters, and jet fighters bombers, and their standard operating procedure when they get painted is to destroy the source that is targeting them. Yes. As I said, we could have war, at least in Syria, between the United States and Russia.

And given the anti-Russian warmongering and hysteria, and neo-McCarthyism in this country that has been deliberately orchestrated by the Clinton campaign and the Democrats and their fellow travelers in the mainstream news media since the Democratic Convention last summer, if a U.S. pilot gets killed, we could see Congress going into session, and declaring war against Russia. Sure. It’s a catastrophe, Dennis. I mean, anything could happen here. I shudder to think of the consequences.

DB: Amazing. But I do want to, just before we let you go, I want to ask you to weigh in. Because we’ve seen this amazing, as you call it, McCarthyite attack. People don’t like Trump, they find him very difficult. And it’s not hard to find him difficult. How would you describe what is happening against him in terms of … people refer to it as the Deep State, or an intelligence coup? How would you unpack that?

FB: Right, well, first of all, let me say I did not vote for either Clinton or Trump. As I saw it, it was a choice between the cholera and the plague. And I decided not to have anything to do with either of them. But I think if Clinton had been elected we’d probably be at war with Russia, right now. I think what we’re seeing is the elements in the Obama administration that was being run by [Zbigniew] Brzezinski, this ex-patriot Pole who hated the Russians with a passion, and the CIA, the FBI, the Pentagon, all moving further in the direction of a direct conflict with Russia, and especially over Ukraine.

As we know, it was the Obama administration, Assistant Secretary of State [Victoria] Nuland, a neo-con holdover from the Bush administration, who admitted, we had put $5 billion in there to overthrow the democratically elected government of Ukraine. Which we did. It was a standard textbook CIA coup d’etat, that followed the manual going back to the original CIA overthrow of the Mossadegh government in Iran.

Trump seemed to indicate that he was going to take a different approach, and not continue with this agenda. And so, now what we’re seeing is all the forces that had been lined up to steal Ukraine, to confront Russia, are furiously fighting back.

Now, I’m not saying Trump is a good guy here, but what I am saying, if you’re watching the mainstream news media, none of the people involved here are good guys. No one wears a white hat. And it’s an extremely dangerous situation.

[James] Comey, the FBI Director… well, first look at Wesley Swearingen, a decorated retired FBI agent, in his book FBI Secrets, has repeatedly called the FBI “the American Gestapo.” And, of course, you and I and your listening audience certainly know that, Dennis. Certainly African-Americans know the FBI is the American Gestapo. Arabs know it. Muslims know it. Communists know it. I know it since they put me on all the government’s terrorism watch lists here, because I refused to become an informant for them and the CIA on my Arab and Muslim clients.

So, Comey is no great hero here. And, indeed, when he worked for Bush Jr. he was Deputy Attorney General. He was up to his eye balls in every hideous atrocity Bush Jr. inflicted on everyone, both abroad and here at home, including the 1,100 Muslims that they summarily rounded up. Many of them were beaten up, and a few died.

As for Mueller, again, former Director of the FBI, the American Gestapo, Mueller, when he was Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division, Mueller was in charge of fixing the case against Libya and Gaddafi, for the Lockerbie bombing. When everyone knows Libya had absolutely nothing to do with the Lockerbie bombing.

Indeed, we had been told that the Lockerbie bombing effectively was revenge by Iran for the destruction of the Iran air jet by the USS Vincennes in the Persian Gulf, with the loss of all that innocent human life. And the Reagan administration refused to apologize, refused to accept responsibility, decorated the captain of the Vincennes that killed close to 270 completely innocent human beings.

But, in the run up to the Bush Sr.’s war against Iraq to steal Persian Gulf oil, he wanted and needed support of Iran, and also, Syria. There’s evidence Lockerbie might have been staged out of Syria. I don’t know if that’s true or it isn’t. So, we cut a deal that all of a sudden Iran, Syria, whatever the responsibility, they would be let off the hook, in return for Iran and Syria supporting the United States’ war against Iraq. And, all of a sudden, out of nowhere, Libya gets blamed. Mueller was behind all of that. He fixed all that evidence that prevented us, the American people, from finding out who really was behind the Lockerbie bombing. I can’t recall the number there was [270 total people killed], [187] American civilians were killed. Mueller is truly evil. [For more on the Lockerbie bombing, see Consortiumnews “The Crumbling Lockerbie Case”]

And then, in addition, Mueller was head of the FBI, and he was in charge of the cover up of the anthrax attacks of October 2001. At the time, I had given interviews right after these attacks pointing out that this was super weapons grade anthrax that could only be manufactured in a U.S. government lab, or one affiliated, working for the United States government. And, indeed, I informed the FBI of this, given my expertise on biological warfare. And the FBI, then under Mueller, sent a team out there to the Ames Repository for Anthrax, in Ames, Iowa — where we keep our weapons strains — and destroyed them all, attempting to cover up the U.S. government’s origins of the anthrax attack.

That was all done while Mueller was head of the FBI, and under his direct supervision. So, this so-called special council that we see now is just a “fix-it man” for the CIA, the Pentagon, the military industrial complex, despite what you’re reading in the newspaper about character and integrity. This man is a criminal, he should be prosecuted and put in jail, certainly for what he did on Lockerbie, and what he did on the anthrax attacks. And I won’t go through the rest of his record here. So, this is a real scheme by, as I see it, the power ministries, what they used to call it in the Soviet Union, to continue our confrontation with Russia, and in Ukraine, in the Baltics, and also in Syria.

And in my read of the situation, that’s what’s going on. This is not to say Trump is a good guy, except to say, if Clinton had been elected I think we’d be at war with Russia. We dodged a bullet on November 8th. But I don’t know how much longer we will be able to continue to dodge the bullet.

And, again, we have to remember, Dennis, that for eight years under the Obama administration… Obama’s mentor was Zbigniew Brzezinski. Brzezinski and I went through the exact same PhD program at Harvard, the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Department of Government, not the Kennedy School, which is basically a front organization for the CIA, and the Department of Defense. But the same program that produces professors of political science, like Brzezinski, like [Henry] Kissinger, and like me, like [Samuel P.] Huntington. And Brzezinski is an ex-patriot Pole who hates the Soviet Union, and Russia, and the Russians with a passion.

Remember, it was Brzezinski who convinced President Carter to unleash Al-Qaeda [known at the time as the mujahideen] against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, in order to bring about, as he saw it, the Vietnam for the Soviet Union. And he was Obama’s mentor, at Columbia. And when Obama decided to run for president, he brought in Brzezinski to be in charge of his entire foreign affairs and defense operation, during the campaign.

And then, once Obama became president, Brzezinski stacked the Obama administration with his proteges, all up and down the State Department, the Department of Defense, and the White House, and the CIA and everywhere else he could have. So, that is what we saw for eight years of Obama. And Clinton was just continuing along those lines.

DB: Wow. Well, we just have a couple of minutes left. Today happens to be the fifth year that, shall we say, Julian Assange is trapped in the Ecuadorean embassy [in London]. What do you think U.S. and British intelligence officials are so afraid of when it comes to WikiLeaks?

FB: The truth. That’s what they’re afraid of. Well, Dennis, WikiLeaks, as far as I can tell, so far, I haven’t read all of these dispatches and everything, but I’ve read the accounts, is simply telling the truth. And we here live in a democracy. And, we, the American people are entitled to the truth.

You know, all this diddly squat about classifications and security is all baloney. We live in a democracy. We’re entitled to everything so that we can make informed decisions. And the government refuses to do it. The NSA spies on all of us, every one of us.

When the CIA and the FBI came into my office to try to interrogate me for an hour, which they did, the first question they asked me is, well, why are you giving these interviews all over the world, if you can believe that. And then they tried to get me to become an informant, on my Arab and Muslim clients. So, it’s the truth that the United States government cannot stand, and cannot withstand. And so far as I see it, Assange and WikiLeaks have tried to get the truth out.

And, remember, Mr. Justice [Louis] Brandeis of the United States Supreme Court said quite some time ago, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.” And WikiLeaks has been consistently providing sunlight to us Americans, to try and disinfect our own government.

DB: Wow. Professor Boyle we appreciate always your stand, your information, and your willingness to be forthright in taking on the powers that be. We thank you so much, again, for joining us on Flashpoints.

FB: Well, thanks again, Dennis. And, remember, John Yoo to jail. [John Yoo is author of the “Torture Memos,” which advised the CIA, Department of Defense, and president on the use of torture techniques after September 11.]

FB: John Yoo, he’s still there teaching those kids. And he’s been cleansed.

FB: The sick, demented Berkeley Law faculty gave him their most prestigious endowed chair. And that means that the Berkeley Law faculty have become accessories after the fact to the use of torture, war crimes and felonies. That’s right. They knew exactly what they were doing.

And I wouldn’t send my dog to the Berkeley Law School, these days. And I say that in sadness because the late, great dean there, Frank Newman, who taught international law and human rights, was a good friend of mine, and supported me at the beginning of my career. And then later he was on the California Supreme Court. And Yoo is now desecrating his slot there at Berkeley Law with the full cooperation of the sick and demented Berkeley Law faculties.

So I certainly would not go there for any reason. I had a son who could have gone to any top law school in the country and I said, “Don’t go to Harvard Law School, they hired a war criminal. Don’t go to Yale Law School, they have hired and still have war criminals. Don’t go to Berkeley Law School, they have a war criminal. Don’t go to the University of Chicago Law School, where I was an undergraduate, because they have a torture monger on there,” and I went right down the list.

DB: So where does he go? There’s nowhere to go.

FB: Well, he eventually went to work for the high tech business. What can I say? I lost my son… my dad was a lawyer, and I lost this boy to the law. But, regretfully, you just could see the total perversion of the American legal academy after 9/11, 2001. I regret to say that. So, what can I say?

DB: Well, we thank you for the frankness and for the information, Professor Francis Boyle, professor of international law at the University of Illinois, College of Law. Thanks again for joining us on Flashpoints.

Dennis J Bernstein is a host of “Flashpoints” on the Pacifica radio network and the author of Special Ed: Voices from a Hidden Classroom. You can access the audio archives at www.flashpoints.net.

La domesticación del pensamiento

Marcos Roitman Rosenmann

La Jornada 25 de Junio de 2017

Siga la flecha. En una sociedad algorítmica, mutamos en robots. Muchos son los indicios. No busque respuestas al margen del sistema. Compórtese. Sea políticamente correcto. Seres acríticos, sin capacidad de juicio, incapaces de reflexionar, previsibles y pendientes de la voz del amo. Nos dan órdenes y las cumplimos rauda y velozmente. Cada vez que lo hacemos esperamos ser gratificados. El premio, a diferencia de los animales domésticos, son mercancías, coches, apartamentos, joyas, etc., o su equivalente general, dinero. Otras, el resultado es vanidad y orgullo. Ego contenido para señalar las diferencias de estatus y posición de clase. Nos complace el reconocimiento público. Ser los machos alfa de la manada o en su defecto el líder.

Con los animales, el proceso de domesticación sigue el mismo itinerario. Una orden cumplida, una recompensa. Es cosa de observar espectáculos en los parques acuáticos. Focas, delfines, orcas, obtienen, más o menos sardinas, en función del ejercicio realizado. Si por casualidad los animales domésticos alteran nuestra existencia, no hay rubor en someterlos hasta desfigurar su naturaleza. La castración, sin ir más lejos. Así, el propietario, dueño del animal, evita los cantos, aullidos o maullidos en periodo de celo. Los destruimos, a cambio les brindamos seguridad, un techo donde vivir y comida. Nos sirven de compañía, satisfacen nuestros deseos. Sólo les pedimos sumisión, y levantar la patita a la voz del amo.

¿Pero qué sucede si no cumple la orden? No hay que ser muy listo, el premio se convierte en castigo. La desobediencia se penaliza. Si las recompensas no surten efectos, el animal será declarado peligroso, no apto para vivir entre humanos. Mejor sacrificarlo. Como mucho se le perdonará la vida, pasando el resto de su existencia en una jaula, aislado y en condiciones miserables. Los ejemplos de castigos son variados, no haremos una lista, pero sabemos cuál es su función, crear miedo y violentar el cuerpo. Así, los vemos temblar cuando se les recuerda que defecar y mear en el salón está penalizado. Saben la respuesta, pero no han podido frenar sus instintos, la domesticación, tiene sus límites. Cada cierto tiempo, se les recordará quien manda para evitar indisciplinas, sublevaciones o malos comportamientos. Otro tanto ocurre con los seres humanos, temerosos de perder el empleo, se someten a vejaciones múltiples. Es preferible callar que levantar la voz. Amenazas, presiones, calumnias todo será utilizado como mecanismo represivo y de coerción.

Seguramente usted ya está reflexionando. Haciendo comparaciones y sometiendo lo dicho a un juicio reflexivo. En otras palabras, ejerciendo la facultad de pensar. No somos homo sapiens, somos dos veces sapiens, sabemos que sabemos y eso nos hace únicos, como especie. Pensar, anticipa medir las acciones, enjuiciarlas y contrastarlas por sus resultados. No es posible aceptar la injusticia, el hambre, la esclavitud, el tráfico humano, la explotación, la desigualdad. Menos aún justificar guerras, levantar muros fronterizos.

Sin embargo el miedo se ha ido apoderando lentamente de nuestra existencia. Cambiamos derechos y libertades por seguridad. Asesinatos, secuestros, robos, violaciones, catástrofes provocadas, crisis inducidas, guerras étnicas. No hay espacio público que no se encuentre tocado por la inseguridad y el miedo. Tampoco en la esfera privada. La dualidad público-privado ha perdido su significado en un mundo en el cual se nos exige sumisión completa al poder. Podemos ser asaltados, trasformados en rehenes, violados, convertidos en carne de cañón del crimen organizado. La violencia se extrema y permea al conjunto de actividades. El miedo se extiende y se generaliza. Vivimos con miedo. La salida resulta obvia, trocamos miedo por seguridad. Somos capaces de renunciar a cualquier cosa, ser sumisos, con tal de no padecer las angustias de una sociedad sumida en la desconfianza.

Las consecuencias son palpables. Si el poder piensa en verde, nosotros pensamos en verde, si en rojo, nosotros en rojo, si en amarillo, pues en amarillo, y así cuantas veces sea necesario. Nos adaptamos y queremos ser gratificados por ello. Hemos aprendido la lección. No se puede ser la oveja negra, la manzana podrida, el inconformista, el crítico. Mejor seguir el libro de instrucciones para convertirse en un animal de compañía, dócil y siempre dispuesto a complacer al amo. ¿Cómo hemos llegado a esta situación deshumanizante?

Primero, renunciando a la conciencia. Acallando la memoria. Ya no juzgamos las acciones del poder, acatamos órdenes. Segundo, disciplinando el pensar, obedeciendo ciegamente y creyendo ser libres, cuanto más esclavo somos. Tercero, siendo sumiso y socialconformista. Llevando una vida sosegada y placentera, convertidos en caricaturas de seres humanos.

El proceso de domesticación teje sus redes, creando un sucedáneo para la facultad de pensar, la llamada inteligencia artificial y el consabido pensamiento positivo. Aunque usted sea explotado, ninguneado, insultado y menospreciado, siempre habrá una acción positiva que le alegre el día. Todo está dispuesto para hacer de la actividad de pensar un delito. A partir de ese instante su ejercicio será perseguido y criminalizado.

El proceso de deshumanización se yergue para apuntalar un orden social totalitario y represivo. Es necesario, enfrentarse al proceso de domesticación, recuperar la capacidad de pensar secuestrada por el sistema, y perder el miedo, sin caer en actitudes imprudentes y temerarias. Hay que ser osados pero no idiotas. Hablamos de no dejarse avasallar, de romper el círculo del miedo, en nuestra especie, ser indomables.

To Ted Cruz: Further Militarizing Mexico’s Drug War Is a Horrible Idea

by Brian Saady Posted on June 22, 2017 Antiwar.com

Ted Cruz recently provided an exclusive interview to Breitbart News. Heasserted that the U.S. military should be working in conjunction with the Mexican government to fight the cartels. He didn’t suggest a full-scale invasion, but he did propose something similar to our program, "Plan Colombia."

If you’re not familiar, Plan Colombia is officially the U.S. foreign military aid program for Colombia aimed at preventing drug trafficking. The U.S. has provided the Colombian government with $10 billion of military aid over the last 15 years.

Senator Cruz said of Plan Colombia, "It was treated less as a law enforcement matter than as a military matter. Where our military went into Colombia and helped destroy the cartels." His assessment was partially accurate because Plan Colombia isn’t purely an anti-drug strategy. Instead, it is essentially part of a broader U.S. geopolitical strategy in which our country uses the pretense of the drug war to resurrect Cold-War-style intervention.

However, Cruz’s belief that Plan Colombia helped defeat the cartels is completely wrong. First of all, that gives the impression that the program effectively reduced drug production. That couldn’t be further from the truth. The White House released a report in March stating that cocaine production in Colombia had reached record levels last year, roughly 710 metric tons.

Secondly, the program went into effect in 1999, which was many years after the Medellin Cartel had fallen and not long after the leadership of the Cali Cartel had been captured. Plan Colombia was first implemented when the most powerful drug trafficking organizations weren’t traditional crime organizations. Instead, the drug trade was fueling the country’s civil war between the right-wing paramilitary group, the AUC, and the communist rebels, the FARC.

Proponents of Plan Colombia believe that U.S. military support was a factor that led to the eventual disarmament of the FARC and the end of Colombia’s 52-year civil war. That point is debatable. But, even if you concede it, "peace" was reached at what cost?

Both the AUC and the FARC were officially recognized as terrorist groups by the U.S. government. They’re both responsible for an untold number of crimes against humanity. These groups committed mass murder, evacuated entire towns, and used rape as a weapon of war.

However, the right-wing paramilitary groups were closely aligned with the Colombian government and military. Likewise, U.S. military support from Plan Colombia was almost exclusively focused on defeating the communist rebels for geopolitical reasons. Hence, the U.S. and Colombian government turned a blind eye to the atrocities committed by the paramilitaries, which committed far more atrocities.

To be specific, the National Centre of Historical Memory released a reportfinding that 1,982 massacres were committed between 1980 and 2012. The paramilitaries were responsible for 1,166 as opposed to 343 by the communist rebels. Suffice it to say, that was essentially state-sponsored terrorism.

The AUC technically disbanded in 2006, but most of it members didn’t lay down their arms. They simply went their separate ways and formed several different organizations. The Colombian government refers to the splinter groups of the AUC as "Bandas Criminales" or BACRIMs. The BACRIMs are no longer driven by right-wing political ideology, but the proceeds from illegal drugs have helped these groups maintain vast political connections. These groups are more accurately described as organized crime syndicates.

Currently, the most powerful drug trafficking organization in Colombia goes by multiple names, i.e. Los Urabeños, Clan Úsuga, the AGC, or the Gulf Cartel. This group is a decedent of the AUC. Like many other BACRIMs, it terrorizes numerous cities across the country in ways similar to a paramilitary organization. Forced evacuations, murder, and extortion are their main tools for gaining control of territory in the prime drug trafficking routes.

Los Urabeños are becoming more aggressive now that most members of the FARC are disarming. At times, they’ve passed out leaflets threatening journalists, political and human rights activists, and police officers. Last month, after a wave of a dozen police officers were killed in one area, the Colombian police dropped leaflets over the town of Apartado. They offered a $5 million reward for information that leads to the capture of the Los Urabeños, Dario Antonio Úsuga.

Unfortunately, Ted Cruz and other drug war proponents tend to read these kinds of news reports and conclude that we need to make a stronger commitment to the war on drugs. Granted, history has definitely proven that Los Urabeños will eventually be defeated. However, there will always be a group of vicious criminals that is willing to take their place in the black market.

The citizens of Colombia will never truly see peace until there is no longer demand for illegal drugs in the United States, but the demand is showing no signs of slowing down. Therefore, the only realistic measure for reducing the violence in Colombia is ending the war on drugs in the United States.

Is ending the drug war a panacea?

There will always be violent organized crime groups. Homicidal gangs such as Los Urabeños certainly won’t quit overnight. But, there is no better way of reducing their power than taking away their main source of income, drug money. That’s what pays for their guns, assassins, bribes, infrastructure, money launderers, etc. Over time, the number of gang members will drastically fall if there is no black market for drugs.

Both sides of the drug debate recognize the violence of the black market. Remarkably, despite decades of evidence to the contrary, millions of Americans continue to believe that further militarizing the drug war will bring peace and stability to Latin America. And Ted Cruz may best be the strongest supporter of that point of view in Congress.

Ted Cruz has many misguided notions about the drug war. In fact, he has suggested building Trump’s border wall with the proposed $14 billion in asset forfeiture from El Chapo. That idea is flawed on multiple levels. First, a border wall will do nothing to reduce the consumer demand for illegal drugs in the U.S. Second, the U.S. government will likely collect only a small percentage of that $14 billion. According to Mexico’s Attorney General, U.S. investigators have yet to find a single dollar connected to Guzman’s drug empire.

Recent history doesn’t bode well for the U.S. government. The leader of the Beltran-Leyva cartel, Alfredo Beltrán Leyva aka "El Mochomo," was extradited to the U.S. back in 2014. The government originally sought $10 billion in forfeitures. However, the feds settled for roughly 5 cents on the dollar in April. Certainly, five hundred million dollars is a lot of money, but it won’t pay for a border wall.

Now, back to the original topic. Ted Cruz told Breitbart News that we should follow the Plan Colombia formula in Mexico. What he failed to mention is that we already have a similar program in place, which was implemented in 2006. It’s called the Merida Initiative. The U.S. has provided $2.5 billion of military aid through this program since 2008.

Coincidentally, the Merida initiative began in the same year that the former President of Mexico, Felipe Calderón, enlisted the Mexican military in domestic counternarcotic operations. To state the obvious, that was a disastrous decision. It clearly hasn’t stabilized the country. In fact, it has had the opposite effect. There have been an estimated 80,000 murders connected with the drug war in Mexico since 2006.

The Mexican military is another layer in a brutal, corrupt police state. In many instances, massacres have been committed at the hands of Mexican Special Forces troops, yet these murders rarely result in convictions. Simply put, law enforcement officials operate with impunity. For example, the National Commission of Human Rights has opened over 10,000 investigations into torture in the last four years. Only 22 investigations resulted in criminal charges with none of the defendants being sentenced for a crime.

The root of the problem is that the cartels have a significant percentage of the government on their payroll. That includes police, soldiers, judges, prosecutors, prison officials, politicians, etc. Therefore, whenever a major drug bust takes place, it is often at the behest of a rival cartel.

That leads to a question Ted Cruz received in the Breitbart interview. He was asked about the challenge of providing military assistance to the Mexico government when it has such pervasive corruption. Cruz acknowledged the challenge. But, he insisted that our country’s leaders need to find the incorruptible Mexican government officials, secure the border, and block the illegal drug from entering our country.

If only it were that easy. The only sensible solution is to end the war on drugs, take away the power from the cartels, and end the senseless violence throughout Latin America.

Brian Saady is the author of The Drug War: A Trillion Dollar Con Game. His three-book series, Rackets, is about the legalization of drugs and gambling, and the decriminalization of prostitution. Visit his website. You can follow him on Twitter @briansaady.

The Militarization of US Policy on Latin America Is Deepening Under Trump

With development assistance slashed, the face of U.S. diplomacy in the region will more often be wearing a uniform

by Jake Johnston Posted on June 21, 2017Antiwar.com

In a high-level meeting Friday, the presidents of Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador will discuss the region’s security with American and Mexican officials.

Innocuous enough, you may think. But part of the meeting will be held on a US military base in Miami, Florida – the headquarters of the US Southern Command, the Pentagon’s regional subsidiary that oversees American military operations throughout Central and South America as well as the Caribbean. Under President Donald Trump, the militarization of US foreign policy is about to stretch more deeply into Central America.

Central America policy-making, hardly an open book to begin with, is set to become more secretive. With the Conference on Prosperity and Security in Central America just days away, there is no official agenda of speakers or publicly listed events and no involvement of civil society organizations – even press access is extremely limited. What we do know is US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson will be there, as will Vice President Mike Pence – and of course, General John F. Kelly, the director of Homeland Security and the previous head of SOUTHCOM.

These high-level government officials will be joined by a coterie of elite Central American businessmen, invited to the conference by its hosts, the US and Mexico. Trump’s budget envisions a massive cut in US economic assistance to Central America, so officials will apparently be asking the country’s most rapacious and corrupt economic actors to fill the void.

“We must secure the nation. We must protect our people,” Secretary of State Tillerson told his staff last month in a discussion around Washington’s new “America First” foreign policy. “And we can only do that with economic prosperity. So it’s foreign policy projected with a strong ability to enforce the protection of our freedoms with a strong military.” By linking economic success with military operations, Tillerson telegraphed which way the foreign aid dollars will be blowing.

While much has been made of the reduction in the budgets of the State Department and USAID, don’t expect the US to simply retreat. Rather, expect the US military to deepen its involvement in the region. There may be no new official policy announcements, but the shift appears inevitable.

The turf battle between the State Department and the Pentagon over control of foreign assistance – and more specifically “security cooperation” – goes back to the Obama administration. Throughout 2016, the diplomats and the generals fought over control of the billions of dollars of US security assistance allocated each and every year. Surprising few, the Pentagon came out on top and with Trump’s election has been bolstered further.

There are currently more than 80 unique authorizations that allow the Pentagon – with minimal consultation with the State Department – to deliver security assistance to foreign nations’ military, police, and paramilitary forces. With development assistance slashed, the face of US diplomacy in the region will more often be wearing a uniform.

In 2016, the Pentagon distributed nearly $60 million in counter-drug assistance to Central America. Compared to the at least marginally transparent State Department budget, the labyrinthine nature of the Pentagon budget makes it next to impossible to determine precisely how much is spent in Central America – let alone what it may look like next year. But with Secretary Kelly, the former SOUTHCOM commander, in charge, it appears that an increased Pentagon focus on Latin America is likely.

The State Department has been marginalized under president Trump, and many top posts remain vacant. With the Pentagon empowered, and with top generals populating Trump’s inner-circle, it is likely the military will be leading US policy in Central America. This will be on full display at SOUTHCOM’s headquarters outside Miami.

With increasing security assistance coming from the opaque Pentagon budget, congressional and public oversight of US security programs becomes next to impossible. Ahead of the conference, hundreds of Central American and international organizations wrote an open letter to express their concern over the lack of transparency and consultation associated with this apparently increasing militarization. Holding the meeting at SOUTHCOM will “send a dangerous signal” to the hemisphere, many dozens of organizations warned Secretary Tillerson in a separate letter.

Viewing development through a security prism will likely mean less focus on working with the grassroots, on community-led development, or focusing on human rights. The security forces of all three Northern Triangle countries have been implicated in corruption and human rights violations, but unlike State Department funding that is conditioned – even if officials routinely certify state compliance with said conditions ? the Pentagon faces far fewer restrictions.

In 2016, the State Department ? at Congress’ request ? withheld $5.1 million in Foreign Military Financing until there had been a certification that Colombia was respecting human rights. But whatever leverage State may have had was immediately undercut. The same year, the Pentagon gave their Colombian counterparts 15 times more assistance than State could have withheld, with no conditions. (State ended up certifying compliance.)

With fewer resources channeled through traditional means, within US embassies in the region it will be the intelligence liaisons, defense attaches, military group colonels, DEA agents, and other security officials that are empowered to lead US foreign policy. They will be the ones holding and administering the carrots.

In turn, the militarization of US foreign policy can be expected to further shift the balance of political power in Central America towards those nation’s militaries. Civilian governments are weak and fragile and, as the 2009 coup in Honduras showed, still threatened by economic and military elite.

This will likely only exacerbate the root causes of increased violence, devastation and migration that has plagued a region where what is needed are stronger civilian governments, not ever more powerful militaries.

Nor is the presence of Mexico necessarily helpful. The US has enlisted Mexico to act on its behalf, clamping down on migrants coming from the southern border with Guatemala to block them well before they reach the Rio Grande. At a previous security conference in April, the Guatemalan Defense Minister announced that SOUTHCOM would begin joint operations with Mexican and Guatemalan forces on its northern border in the coming months.

The Colombian government will also be present. As with Mexico, the Pentagon is increasingly relying on Colombian military forces to train allied military and police forces throughout the region. In effect, the US is outsourcing its security cooperation to Colombia and Mexico, two countries whose militaries have been implicated in more human rights abuses than any other country’s in the hemisphere.

The militarization of US policy in Central America is more than just a dangerous signal. It is, as we’ve seen with the killing of Berta Caceres in Honduras, a real threat to environmental activists, civil society groups, peasant organizations, and others fighting for a more just and humane development model in the region.

As has been the case in Central America for decades, the economic and security interests the respective militaries will be protecting are not those of the poor and vulnerable, but rather those of the elites. On Wednesday, a who’s who of Central American businessmen was feted by the US Chamber of Commerce and the Inter-American Development Bank; on Thursday, top officials paid lip service to “development” and announced new private sector investments. Next, behind the gates of a US military barracks, political and military leaders were all set to strategize on a plan to protect those investments.

It may be good for a few big corporations’ bottom lines, for the Pentagon’s relevance in the region, and for local security forces and their political patrons, but don’t expect this militarized approach to development to solve the ongoing crises in Central America.

Jake Johnston is a Research Associate at the Center for Economic and Policy Researchin Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from Foreign Policy In Focus.