Author: R J Adams

The BBC, along with other media outlets, has been attempting to whitewash a trade deal (ostensibly between the E.U. and Canada) known as CETA, and bemoaning the fact that after nine years of negotiation one small enclave of Belgium is preventing the ‘Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement’ from becoming a working reality.

Media outlets that represent the people, rather than big business, are lauding the efforts of the Belgium region of Walloon (pop: 3.6 million) in blocking CETA, even though the E.U. Commission is desperate to go ahead with the deal.

Others, like the German nationalistic news Service, DW, print lies to try and demolish opposition to CETA:

It is an extraordinary political spectacle: a region that makes up only 0.7 percent of the European Union population is holding the rest of the half-a-billion people in the bloc hostage…^[1]

Well, that might be true if the “half-a-billion people in the bloc” were in favour of it. According to polls, most of them aren’t.

Or, Tim Worstall writing in Forbes:

Euro-crises have a habit of working this way. Some region, country, states that such and such will never happen and everyone scrambles around for a few days shouting at each other. At which point some deal to build a bridge with EU money, locate a European ministry or some such is announced and the grumbles all go away. At best this is the way that the arguments about Ceta are going to resolve. At worst, of course, everyone might actually obey the law as it is and allow Wallonia, that region of 3.5 million people, to deny the benefits of free trade between Canada and the EU to the other 500 million of the EU and the 35 million of Canada. ^[2]

Again, apparently, we poor folk are missing out on this great deal because a few million European plonkers are holding us to ransom.

There are some who will benefit from these so-called ‘trade agreements’. The well-off business people and corporate executives of this world stand to become much wealthier and more powerful at the expense of us ordinary folk. People like Carolyn Fairbairn, for example.

In an article on its website from June this year (one week prior to the E.U. referendum), the BBC argued the case for CETA by quoting the mouthpiece of the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), Carolyn Fairbairn.

Fairbairn is exactly the right person to ask about CETA, if all you want is gushing praise for the trade agreement. She just happens to be an ex-BBC executive, an ex-ITV (second-largest U.K. TV company) executive, an ex-Lloyds Bank executive, an ex-Financial Services Authority (FSA) executive, is now Director-General of the Confederation of British Industry, and is married to a multi-millionaire property developer – who just happens to be Canadian.

She’s not the ideal personage for the BBC to call on to give unbiased advice to the British public on a highly controversial trade deal with Canada. Also, what she says makes no sense at all. Note the quote attached to the above image:

The Leave campaign has said we should be more like Switzerland, Norway, Canada, or even perhaps Albania, but all these countries say they’d rather be like the UK. ^[3]

How can the countries she mentioned “…be more like the UK.”? The U.K. was still a full member of the E.U. and the referendum a week away when this was said. Is she suggesting Norway and Switzerland would prefer to be full members of the E.U.? No, she’s obviously not suggesting any such thing. This is Fairbairn’s ‘plausible propaganda’ designed to persuade the British people that CETA would be right for them, even if they decide to leave the European Union.

Far-right Tory government ministers, members of the Brexit campaign, were already lauding the agreement as great for Britain if it left the E.U., as the BBC quotes:

According to Conservative MP David Davis, Ceta “would be a perfectly good starting point for our discussions with the Commission”.
Ex-London mayor Boris Johnson [now Foreign Secretary] has also praised the Ceta model.

So why is CETA a bad deal for everyone, except the corporations? ‘War On Want’ explains:

CETA is a major new business deal that was negotiated in secret between the EU and Canada over five years from 2009 to 2014. It stands for the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, and it represents one of the ‘new generation’ of trade treaties on behalf of big business that are set to undermine our democracy and destroy our basic rights…

… CETA is a backdoor for TTIP, the horrific EU-US deal that has generated so much anger and opposition across Europe and the UK, and became a major referendum issue.

Negotiations on CETA started back in 2009, and concluded with a ceremony in Ottawa in September 2014. A number of EU governments were unhappy with the final text agreed by the negotiators, but it was rushed through regardless. No MPs or MEPs were allowed to take part in the talks, which took place in secret, and no one was granted access to the text of the agreement until it was too late. Key elements of our public services have been bargained away without a shred of public debate.

CETA includes the toxic investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism, which allows companies to sue governments over any new law or policy that might reduce their profits in future. In a public consultation held in Europe, over 97% of respondents rejected the introduction of this new power for business. Yet the EU has gone ahead with it anyway, and CETA will introduce ISDS not only for Canadian companies but also for any US firms with offices in Canada (which is most of them).^[4]

The real crux of the matter is in the last line. While this is a Canadian-E.U. agreement (designed to make us all feel more secure about it) it will include any other businesses with offices in Canada, and that means virtually every major corporate conglomerate in existence.

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) failed to pass because public pressure binned it. Waiting in the wings was CETA, a more clandestine approach designed to kid us all into believing it was less toxic than the TTIP. It isn’t. It’s the TTIP cloaked under another name.

We need to send a clear message that the people of Europe want no more of these dirty deals.

And that includes the people of the rest of the world, including the United States, who will soon have the Trans-Pacific Partnership (note the word ‘Trade’ has now been dropped) thrust upon them if Clinton gains control of the White House.

^{[1] “Opinion: The EU’s Walloon CETA disaster” DW, October 21st 2016}

^{[2] “Plucky Little Wallonia Is Still Blocking The Canada – EU Trade Deal, Ceta” Forbes, October 22nd 2016}

^{[3] “Reality Check: Would Canada’s deal with the EU be a good model for the UK?” BBC, June 17th 2016}

^{[4] “What Is CETA?” War On Want, undated}

Is anyone fooled by Hillary Clinton’s about-turn on the Trans Pacific Partnership?

Well don’t be. Clinton’s not only in favour of it, she absolutely dribbles with desire over it. Knowing that she’d never win over the Bernie Sanders supporters while backing the TPP, she conveniently changed her public view and made much of her pretend objections by stating that the final negotiation didn’t live up to her “high standards.”

Anyone who’s studied Clinton and her past indiscretions knows she doesn’t have any high standards. It’s just a ploy to win more votes. Prior to her Democratic nomination, while Secretary of State, she described the TPP as, “the gold standard in trade agreements.” A gold standard cannot be improved on.

In Australia in 2012 these were her words:

So it’s fair to say that our economies are entwined, and we need to keep upping our game both bilaterally and with partners across the region through agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP. Australia is a critical partner. This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field. And when negotiated, this agreement will cover 40 percent of the world’s total trade and build in strong protections for workers and the environment. [Bold added]^[1]

And again in Singapore 2012:

“The so-called TPP will lower barriers, raise standards, and drive long-term growth across the region. It will cover 40 percent of the world’s total trade and establish strong protections for workers and the environment. Better jobs with higher wages and safer working conditions, including for women, migrant workers and others too often in the past excluded from the formal economy will help build Asia’s middle class and rebalance the global economy. Canada and Mexico have already joined the original TPP partners. We continue to consult with Japan. And we are offering to assist with capacity building, so that every country in ASEAN can eventually join. We welcome the interest of any nation willing to meet 21st century standards as embodied in the TPP, including China.” ^[1]

In 2012, some may have been fooled by that. Since then, thanks to Wikileaks, we know enough about the TPP to realise Clinton was spouting the biggest load of bullshit to emanate from an American politician in a long time.

Clinton’s not going to back out on the TPP now. She has too much of herself invested in it. Back in 2011, she authored, “America’s Pacific Century,” which was published in ‘Foreign Policy’. It’s a long, rambling piece, headlined:

The future of politics will be decided in Asia, not Afghanistan or Iraq, and the United States will be right at the center of the action.^[2]

And continues:

As the war in Iraq winds down and America begins to withdraw its forces from Afghanistan, the United States stands at a pivot point. Over the last 10 years, we have allocated immense resources to those two theaters. In the next 10 years, we need to be smart and systematic about where we invest time and energy, so that we put ourselves in the best position to sustain our leadership, secure our interests, and advance our values. One of the most important tasks of American statecraft over the next decade will therefore be to lock in a substantially increased investment — diplomatic, economic, strategic, and otherwise — in the Asia-Pacific region.

Back in 2011 the war in Iraq certainly proved not to be ‘winding down’, and the forces withdrawn from Afghanistan ended up back there (albeit in smaller numbers) and are likely to remain so for a very long time.

The ‘Pivot’ as it’s known by the Obama administration is in reality a turnaround. Having been defeated in the Middle East, Obama’s aim is to switch tacks, let the Middle East foment in its own bloody juices, and pivot the focus of operations towards the Asia-Pacific region, in the hope that that area will prove easier to subjugate.

Later, in “America’s Pacific Century,” Clinton continues:

…our work will proceed along six key lines of action: strengthening bilateral security alliances; deepening our working relationships with emerging powers, including with China; engaging with regional multilateral institutions; expanding trade and investment; forging a broad-based military presence; and advancing democracy and human rights. [bold added]

Two things to note here: first, the “broad-based military presence.” The U.S. already has numerous military bases in the region, including in Japan, the Philippines (though possibly not for much longer if Duterte manages to swing things with China), South Korea, and many in Australia:

^{Click to enlarge}

The conclusion to be drawn from Clinton’s comments is that military muscle is to be strengthened in the area, presumably as a ‘persuader’ to any nation not happy with the increased U.S. presence.

Second, there’s that good old standby excuse for any needed aggression: “advancing democracy and human rights.” America’s previous attempts at such worthwhile ideals could hardly be considered as actions overflowing with the milk of human kindness.

One interesting paragraph in, “America’s Pacific Century,” reads:

President Obama has led a multifaceted and persistent effort to embrace fully our irreplaceable role in the Pacific, spanning the entire U.S. government. It has often been a quiet effort. A lot of our work has not been on the front pages, both because of its nature — long-term investment is less exciting than immediate crises — and because of competing headlines in other parts of the world.

It’s a rather lacklustre attempt to offer reasons for the secrecy surrounding the TPP, but it’s now public knowledge that the reasons were way more nefarious. Deals involving a huge upward shift in corporate power over governments and the people they represent would not have gone down well as headlines. Now, again thanks to Wikileaks, we’re all aware of the truth. The above quote is just another of Clinton’s lies.

And then there’s Russia. America’s land grab of eastern European nations following the fall of the U.S.S.R. – now stuffed to the gills with U.S. military bases and missile sites (all pointing at their next-door-neighbour) – did nothing for the security of Russia, or its citizens. Western media tends to overlook Russian citizens. They’re convinced there’s no-one in Russia but Vladimir Putin and his horse.

A quick glance at any map of the world illustrates the Asia-Pacific nations nicely butting up against Russia’s southern borders. Any military man worth an M4A1 will point out that this, coupled with the U.S. military presence in eastern Europe, forms a classic ‘pincer-movement’ with Mister Putin and his horse positioned in the jaws. Hopefully, it won’t make his nuclear trigger-finger too itchy.

^{Map showing general definition of Asia-Pacific. Dark green refers to the core Asia-Pacific countries, light green refers to regions that may be included.}

In 2000 we were presented with the “Project for the New American Century.” It set out a neat plan for the United States of America to conquer the world, both economically and militarily via “a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity.”

The PNAC was founded by Messrs William Kristol and Robert Kagan. They, and other members, were responsible for planning the invasion of Iraq. Ten of the PNAC’s members wheedled their way into the Bush administration.

Iraq was intended to be a short, sharp, engagement that would rid the country of Saddam Hussein, have the populace bowing in reverence, forever grateful to their bounteous benefactor, America, and serve as a warning to Iran, or any other Middle Eastern nation that might dare to not toe the American line in future.

It was a policy of military invasion, to be followed by a period of forced diplomacy. It failed miserably, and the PNAC was disbanded in 2006.

Five years later in ‘FP’ Hillary Clinton wrote, “America’s Pacific Century,” which might just as well have been entitled, “Hillary’s Project for the New American Century.” It has the hallmarks of the original, merely placing forced diplomacy as a prelude to any ‘necessary’ military aggression. The TPP is vital to the success of the ‘Pivot’. Persuading as many nations as possible to sign up for it will strengthen America’s hand when its military is required for, “advancing democracy and human rights” in those nations who are not prepared to sign – Russia? China? North Korea? The Philippines?

Hillary Clinton has based her whole doctrine as a future president on the ‘Pivot’. The TPP is vital to its success. For her to stand up and say differently is a blatant and downright lie, a manipulation of the electorate to further her own ends, and a flagrant disregard for the “democracy and human rights” to which she pretends to aspire.

^{“What Hillary Clinton really said about TPP and the ‘gold standard'” Politifact, October 13th 2015}

^{[2] “America’s Pacific Century” FP, October 11th 2011}

^{An Iraqi child shrieking in fear and loss, bathed in the blood of her dead parents. Just one of the million innocent victims of the US and NATO crimes in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Libya ~ Lest We Forget}

I don’t often choose to write in the first person, but the shit that’s been pouring from the mouths of western politicians, over Syria in general and Aleppo in particular, needs to be confronted. Don’t think for one moment this means I don’t consider Aleppo, or Syria more generally, anything less than a disaster zone for those innocents trapped there by the Sunni rebels who are using them as human shields. The suffering of those people is beyond diabolical.

According to western politicians, Assad is guilty of war crimes and should be brought to justice. I would like to remind them of Iraq in general, and Fallujah in particular. Fallujah was virtually razed to the ground by U.S. forces using white phosphorus and depleted uranium munitions. This has resulted in the most abominable birth defects – there’s overwhelming evidence of a multitude of them despite the whitewash of a WHO ‘investigation’ that concluded:

“The rates for spontaneous abortion, stillbirths and congenital birth defects found in the study are consistent with or even lower than international estimates. The study provides no clear evidence to suggest an unusually high rate of congenital birth defects in Iraq.”^[1]

That’s very strange considering other investigations, carried out by a number of non-governmental organizations, have found a monumental spike in birth defects following the razing of Fallujah in April 2004 and again in November 2004.

As noted by The Independent newspaper in July 2010:

Dramatic increases in infant mortality, cancer and leukaemia in the Iraqi city of Fallujah, which was bombarded by US Marines in 2004, exceed those reported by survivors of the atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, according to a new study….Dr Chris Busby, a visiting professor at the University of Ulster and one of the authors of the survey of 4,800 individuals in Fallujah, said it is difficult to pin down the exact cause of the cancers and birth defects. He added that “to produce an effect like this, some very major mutagenic exposure must have occurred in 2004 when the attacks happened”.

US Marines first besieged and bombarded Fallujah, 30 miles west of Baghdad, in April 2004 after four employees of the American security company Blackwater were killed and their bodies burned. After an eight-month stand-off, the Marines stormed the city in November using artillery and aerial bombing against rebel positions. US forces later admitted that they had employed white phosphorus as well as other munitions…Dr Busby says that while he cannot identify the type of armaments used by the Marines, the extent of genetic damage suffered by inhabitants suggests the use of uranium in some form. He said: “My guess is that they used a new weapon against buildings to break through walls and kill those inside.” ^[2]

The American military isn’t good at winning the hearts and minds of those it conquers:

“You have to understand the Arab mind,” one company commander told the New York Times, displaying all the self-assurance of Douglas MacArthur discoursing on Orientals in 1945. “The only thing they understand is force — force, pride and saving face.” Far from representing the views of a few underlings, such notions penetrated into the upper echelons of the American command. In their book “Cobra II,” Michael R. Gordon and Gen. Bernard E. Trainor offer this ugly comment from a senior officer: “The only thing these sand niggers understand is force and I’m about to introduce them to it.”^[3]

The latter quote was from a pep-talk given to his troops by a commander (who’s name has been carefully extricated from all reports) just prior to one of the assaults on Fallujah.

The newly-invested British Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, has suggested that Russia may be guilty of a war crime IF it bombed an aid convoy near Aleppo recently. I wonder if he’d be so quick to condemn the U.S. if it’s ever revealed those bombs came from one of the Pentagon’s aircraft? There’s no evidence it was Russia. The American government is quick to lay the blame elsewhere, and British politicians are equally quick to pick it up and run with it. I might remind Boris Johnson that the British military were also involved at Fallujah, as well as the Americans. Better not to be the pot that calls the kettle – especially if the kettle turns out to be a little less grimy than the pot.

Western media would have us all believe the civil war in Syria is an uprising against the regime of Bashar al-Assad by Syrian citizens fed up with the regime’s dictatorial tactics and desperate for democracy. They’ve said similar about Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and almost every other Middle Eastern nation in which the United States, or NATO (same thing) have interfered over the past four decades. It simply isn’t true.

The U.S. government uses the guise of ‘spreading democracy’ to attempt subjugation of nations that refuse to bow to Western political will. In every case since its double-edged intervention in the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s (the deliberate downing of a civilian airliner – Iranian Flight 655 – was another war crime that went unpunished***) it has failed to do so.

Note that the U.S. only picks on nations with substantially less military power than itself. Yet they never win in any conflict. Iraq is a quagmire, as are all the other nations mentioned above. The reason is simple: all U.S. administrations since Gerald Ford (and possibly before that) have failed to take the Muslim religion into account before setting out on some wild military enterprise, supposedly to install democracy in place of dictatorship.

America’s political advisers are expected to have at least a degree of intelligence and common sense, yet totally ignore the blatantly obvious religious fact that the Koran categorises all non-Muslims as infidels. Are Arab Muslims likely to allow infidels into their country, telling them how to run it and how to be democratic? Study what has happened in Iraq, Libya, etc., and the answer is painfully obvious. How many lives has it cost? How many more will be lost, families shattered, children orphaned, before U.S. administrations finally see the obvious?

Still the U.S., together with its NATO puppets, entangles itself in the same old conflicts. The Syrian civil war is the latest venture doomed to failure, but Hell, it’s great for the profits of the U.S. military-industrial complex. Never mind the continuing slaughter of the innocent. We’ll just call it ‘collateral damage’. Think of the profits for the body-bag manufacturers.

Prior to the civil war Syria was predominantly Sunni (74%), with a minority Shia population (14%) and an even smaller contingent of a sect known as Alawites(11%) whose beliefs and traditions are more Christian in style, though they are closer to Shia Islam than Sunni. The ruling family of Assad are Alawites, which has caused continuous intermittent rebellion by the Sunni majority since Bashar’s father, Hafez, took power as president in 1971.

The conflict in Syria is described by Western media as ‘rebels’ versus the government of Bashar al-Assad. This is not strictly true. Certainly, there’s a large Sunni faction, some Shias and even certain Alawites, who want regime change (the latter due mainly to the sons and husbands they’ve lost to the conflict). Assad’s not considered a true Muslim, but ‘ordinary’ Syrians who make up the bulk of the populace i.e. non-‘rebels’ strongly support Assad, as seen in this poll from December 2015:

^[4]

^{Click to enlarge}

This is hardly the impression put out by Western media organizations, and in particular those of the United States. Syria under the Assad regime is a secular country with civil and criminal courts. There are religious courts but these only hear personal disputes, or family matters appertaining to the particular religion of those involved. The present civil war is an attempt by jihadists to overthrow the regime and introduce Sharia law with its accompanying restrictive practises and Islamic court system.

The war began as a series of uprisings and demonstrations which quickly metamorphosed into a more serious conflagration, which Assad failed to quell despite making concessions to the ‘rebels’. At first, various religious factions joined forces, but with so many differing agendas splits resulted in infighting. The result was several groups, mainly Sunnis, fighting their individual battles against Assad’s forces, a situation Islamic State exploited to muscle-in and control.

Assad knew if his regime was toppled Syria would follow Libya, Afghanistan, and Iraq into the mire of failed states with no rule of law and ISIS would take control. He was forced to fight the rebels, who used guerrilla tactics with the populace as human shields. Inevitably, there would be heavy casualties, and there were. Fortunately, he had backing from alliances forged years ago with Russia and Iran, otherwise it’s unlikely he would have survived. Without Russia, in particular, the United States would have gone in and taken out Assad, as they did with Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Gaddafi in Libya. The result would have been catastrophic for the Syrian people, just as it has been in America’s other ‘liberated’ nations.

Whatever you may think of Arab dictators it would seem that only strong-handed leadership can keep a nation together when powerful religious factions are constantly vying to pull it apart. In Iraq under Hussein, Sunni and Shia lived in harmony, inter-married, and had mixed families. In Libya under Gaddafi there was free healthcare, education, and subsidised housing and transport.

Regime change in Syria will not solve any problems. It’s time western governments realised that fact and stopped using the farce of ‘spreading democracy’ as a means of advancing their own hidden agendas. It doesn’t work and only results in misery and suffering for many thousands of people.

Even as I write this John Kerry, with his puppet Boris Johnson at his side, is threatening sanctions against Syria and Russia if they don’t come to heel. Kerry is calling it, “the largest of humanitarian disasters,” and “crimes against humanity.”

Hypocrisy is alive and well and John Kerry is its spokesperson.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton has just stated she’s in favour of a no-fly zone over Syria. Presumably this means she’s prepared to shoot down Russian aircraft, an act that could likely result in a nuclear WW3.

We are in the grip of mad, power-crazed, people. American arrogance leads it to believe it can take on Russia and win. The only losers will be us all.

***^{They called it an “accident.” The story put out by the U.S. government was that on July 3rd 1988 the American cruiser, USS Vincennes patrolling the Persian Gulf and in international waters, shot down an Iranian airliner, an Airbus 300 with 290 passengers and crew aboard. It was flying outside of the designated commercial aircraft corridor and appeared to be in descent on an “attack profile.” The ship’s captain, Will Rogers III, identified the aircraft as an Iranian F-14 fighter and gave the order to open fire.}

In point of fact, however, the American version of events consisted mostly of untruths. The Vincennes was actually sailing inside Iranian territorial waters, thereby violating international law. Transiting the Gulf from Bandar Abbas, Iran, to Dubai on a regularly scheduled flight, the Airbus was flying well within its assigned flight path. Most important, rather than descending, the aircraft was gaining altitude. In short, the assertion that Iran Air 655 had been closing on the Vincennes and thereby posing a threat was outright wrong…Vice-President George H W Bush made his own position [over the incident] clear: He wasn’t about to send flowers to any memorial service. “I will never apologize for the United States – I don’t care what the facts are,” he remarked, “I’m not an apologize-for-America kinda guy.” ^[5]

^{The most likely explanation is that the aircraft was deliberately targeted in an attempt to ‘persuade’ Iran to end the war with Iraq. Three weeks later, Khomeini agreed to a ceasefire.}

^{[1] “How the World Health Organisation covered up Iraq’s nuclear nightmare” Guardian, October 13th 2013}

^{[2] “Toxic legacy of US assault on Fallujah ‘worse than Hiroshima'” Independent, July 24th 2010}

^{[3] “What’s an Iraqi Life Worth?” Washington Post, July 9th 2006}

^{[4] “Bashar Al-Assad Has More Popular Support than the Western-Backed “Opposition”: Poll”, Global Research, December 11th 2015}

^{[5] Excerpt from, “America’s War for the Greater Middle East – A Military History,” Pages 105-106, Andrew J. Bacevich}