Part 2 of this two-essay series looks at the political players and trends that have influenced Philippine President Benigno Aquino III to adopt an inflexible stance on claims to disputed Spratly islands, which have been wrongly taken up by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) outside of its legal jurisdiction. This analysis introduces influential opinion leaders in the social-activist wing of the Catholic Church, particularly the Jesuit Order and the charismatic movement, some of them linked with the UN-sanctioned interventions against Indonesia and Yugoslavia. A cynical distortion of core Christian teachings in service to worldly ambitions stands in sharp contrast to the commitment to peace, nonviolence and dialogue championed by the heroine of the People Power movement, Corazon Aquino, the saintly mother of a prodigal son.
Category: Head Stories
“The Doomsday Forum”: Senior Military, Nuclear Weapons Officials Convene… America’s “$1 Trillion Nuclear Weapons Plan”: Take out Russia, Iran and North Korea? On June 21, 250 top military brass, military planners, corporate military-industrial ”defense” contractors, top officials and scientists from the nuclear weapons laboratories as well as prominent academics gathered at the Crowne Plaza Hotel in Albuquerque, New Mexico to discuss, debate and promote the Pentagon’s One Trillion Dollar Nuclear Weapons program. Russia is allegedly “threatening the Western World”. The objective is to develop the pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons (i.e. nuclear war as a means of self-defense).
NATO Summit Closes By Condemning Russia: US Soldiers and Weapons to Russia’s Border The issues that were discussed at this year’s NATO Summit were mainly preparations for a possible war against Russia. The two-day Summit in Warsaw Poland ended on Saturday July 9th, with a 139-part “Warsaw Summit Communiqué” which used the word “terrorism” 17 times, “jihad” and “jihadist” and “jihadism” 0 (zero) times, and “Russia” 58 times — never favorably, and often with overt hostility. It also referred to “Ukraine” 34 times, and “Syria” 10 times. Ukraine, during a February 2014 coup (it has been referred to as having been a “coup” both by the leader of the private CIA firm Stratfor, and by the Establishment writer on international relations John Mearsheimer, among others) switched, immediately after the coup, from having been neutral between NATO and Russia, to being suddenly and consistently intensely hostile to Russia, and immediately applied to join NATO; Syria still remains strongly allied with Russia.
Screen Shot 2016-07-09 at 5.55.59 AM
The Ukrainian government was referred to 100% favorably, and the Syrian government was referred to 100% unfavorably.
In other words: the Communiqué is 100% hostile toward Russia and its ally Syria, and is far more concerned about Russia than it is about terrorism — and not at all concerned about jihadism and jihadists.
The Communiqué is clear about “the crisis in and around Ukraine being, in current circumstances, the first topic on our agenda.” All of its references to that matter are based upon the assumption that this problem is due entirely to Russian “aggression” and that all violations of the Minsk agreements on the Ukrainian conflict are by the pro-Russian separatists, none of the violations are on the Ukrainian government side.
The presumption is that the Ukrainian government side never commits aggression, and that the separatist side is never defending itself against Ukrainian aggression. The Communiqué says, regarding the Special Monitoring Mission that is overseeing implementation of the Minsk agreements:
Impediments to the SMM’s work, which continue to occur overwhelmingly in areas under the control of the Russian-backed militants, represent a violation of the Minsk Agreements and seriously hamper the monitoring function of the SMM.”
The SMM operates in, and issues daily reports from, the separatist region (Donbass, consisting of two parts: Luhansk and Donetsk), and therefore it’s natural that almost all of those reports concern that region, not Ukraine. However, for example, the report dated 7 July 2016 does note that,
“Civilians expressed their anger at continued shelling while other civilians expressed their frustration over water cuts. The SMM facilitated and monitored adherence to the ceasefire to enable repairs to essential infrastructure.”
Though this report was, indeed, as NATO phrases the matter, “in areas under the control of the Russian-backed militants” (i.e., of people who live in the region that rejects the coup-imposed Ukrainian government), the “violation of the Minsk agreements” there consisted actually of shelling that was fired from the Ukrainian government forces, into “areas under the control of the Russian-backed militants.”
Similarly, the Communiqué blames the war in Syria upon the Russian-allied side, which in that case happens to be the Syrian government. For example, it says:
“We call on the Syrian regime to fully comply with the provisions of all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs), and to immediately take steps for a genuine political transition in accordance with UNSCR 2254 and the 30 June 2012 Geneva Communiqué.”
That conflict is between jihadists who are trying to overthrow the Syrian government, and the Syrian government. NATO blames the conflict entirely upon the Syrian government.
The Communiqué describes at some length the sharp increase in soldiers and weapons that NATO is pouring onto and near Russia’s borders, especially in Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Romania. The reason that’s given for this surrounding Russia with hostile forces is:
…the ongoing illegal and illegitimate annexation of Crimea, which we do not and will not recognise and which we call on Russia to reverse; the violation of sovereign borders by force; the deliberate destabilisation of eastern Ukraine;
large-scale snap exercises contrary to the spirit of the Vienna Document, and provocative military activities near NATO borders, including in the Baltic and Black Sea regions and the Eastern Mediterranean; its irresponsible and aggressive nuclear rhetoric, military concept and underlying posture;
and its repeated violations of NATO Allied airspace. In addition, Russia’s military intervention, significant military presence and support for the regime in Syria, and its use of its military presence in the Black Sea to project power into the Eastern Mediterranean have posed further risks and challenges for the security of Allies and others.
No mention is made in the Communiqué of the event that sparked all of this, which was Washington’s Ukrainian coup, which Washington had been preparing starting no later than 1 March 2013 in its Ukrainian Embassy to overthrow the democratically elected President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych.
When NATO demands, regarding Crimea’s return to Russia shortly after the coup, “we do not and will not recognise and … we call on Russia to reverse”; when NATO demands Russia to abandon the 90+% of Crimeans who wanted to rejoin as being part of Russia — when NATO demands Russia to consign these people to the now failed state of Ukraine (which hates them and wants them dead) — NATO is placing itself in the position of a continuing escalation toward nuclear war against Russia, unless NATO itself disbands or else cancels its demand.
NATO is now in a position where they will either cancel their demand, or else continue their escalation and surrounding-of-Russia to the point where Russia will have no alternative but to unleash (without warning) all-out nuclear war against NATO countries, and against all nations, such as Ukraine, that hate Russians so much that they are trying to join NATO — the anti-Russia club of nations.
Russia is not going to do what NATO demands. The question now is: which side will start the nuclear war — attack first. In any case, the war (assuming that NATO neither retracts its demand nor disbands, and so war results) will probably be over within less than an hour.
There won’t be any winners, but the side that strikes first will be destroyed less than will the side that merely retaliates. And, in that sense, there will be a ‘winner’, even to an all-out nuclear war.
Regardless, though, Vladimir Putin’s responsibility is only to the Russian people, no matter how unacceptable the two choices are that NATO has offered him.
He has tried many times to discuss the matter with Barack Obama, who always refuses to discuss it with him. Obama’s refusal speaks clearer than any mere words, either from him or from (his agent) NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander, possibly could.
Investigative historian
Vladimir Putin has finally taken the kid gloves off! The Russian president was meeting with foreign journalists at the conclusion of the Saint Petersburg International Economic Forum on June 17th, when he left no one in any doubt that the world is headed down a course which could lead to nuclear war. Putin railed against the journalists for their “tall tales” in blindly repeating lies and misinformation provided to them by the United States on its anti-ballistic missile systems being constructed in Eastern Europe. He pointed out that since the Iran nuclear deal, the claim the system is to protect against Iranian missiles has been exposed as a lie.
The nighttime attack that killed 20 foreigners in the Gulshan diplomatic district of Dhaka, Bangladesh was not simply a random terror attack since it had all the features of a meticulously prepared military-style operation against a selective target and for specific causes. The attackers identified themselves as ISIS supporters, but their demands to police negotiators included release of members of the local Jamaat-al-Mujaheedin (JM), a widespread and well-connected militant outfit that advocates an Islamic state to replace Bangladesh’s secular party system imposed by the Indian intervention that ended its union with Pakistan.
As the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) reports, a money-laundering alarm was triggered at AmBank in Malaysia, a bank part-owned by one of Australia’s “big four” banks, ANZ. What had triggered the alarm? Money had poured into the personal account of one of the bank’s customers, a certain Mr. X, in truly staggering amounts.Hundreds of millions of dollars were paid into the account of Mr. X by a Saudi prince described as “mysterious”, and two British Virgin Island companies characterized as “shadowy”. Overall, more than $1.05 billion landed in Mr. X’s private account in a little over two years. This was bound to raise eyebrows, considering Mr. X’s official salary only amounts to approx. $100,000 per year. Not a bad salary to be sure, but even if he were to save half of it every year, it would take him 210,000 years to save up $1.05 billion, not just two.
“Perception Management” was pioneered in the 1980’s under the Reagan administration in order to avoid the public opposition to future wars that was seen during the Vietnam War. The United States Department of Defense defines perception management as: Actions to convey and/or deny selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives, and objective reasoning as well as to intelligence systems and leaders at all to influence official estimates, ultimately resulting in foreign behaviors and official actions favorable to the originator’s objectives. In various ways, perception management combines truth projection, operations, security, cover and deception, and psychological operations.
Haaretz Confirms: Britain Has Been Operating As An Israeli Puppet Within The EU With Brexit, Israel Loses a Major Asset in the European Union,” Haaretz reports. “Britain helped moderate and balance EU decisions about the peace process, blunt criticism and even harness the member states against anti-Israel moves at the UN; voices sympathetic to the Palestinian cause could now become more dominant.” The Israelis have started to recognize that the Jewish State: “has lost a significant asset in the European Union…, Britain leaving would not serve Israeli interests, especially on the Palestinian issue.” But why was Britain an Israeli asset? How was Britain reduced to act as an Israeli colony? Simple. British foreign affairs are dominated by the Jewish Lobby.
… In a nutshell; the option to a united Eurasia is chaos. And there’s no question the Empire of Chaos will stop trying to sow chaos. … President Vladimir Putin stresses Russia’s «all-embracing and strategic partnership» with China, one can hear the proverbial howls of anger emanating from the neocon/neoliberalcon axis in the Beltway. As he met Chinese president Xi Jinping in Beijng this past Saturday, Putin even allowed himself an understatement; «To say we have a strategic cooperation is not enough anymore. This is why we have started talking about a comprehensive partnership and strategic collaboration. Comprehensive means that we work virtually on all major avenues; strategic means that we attach enormous inter-government importance to this work». Why understatement? Because this really ventures way beyond a stream of business deals.
Besides the Brexit rejection of U.S.-style neoliberal economics, some European voices are protesting, finally, the U.S.-led, anti-Russian propaganda campaign that has justified an expensive new Cold War. A significant crack has been unexpectedly opened in the wall of Europe’s disciplined obedience to the United States. I’m not only referring to the possible long-term consequences for U.S.-European relations in the wake of Britain’s decision to leave the European Union, but the unlikely blow against Washington’s information war on Moscow delivered by Germany’s foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, who a week ago shockingly accused the North Atlantic Treaty Organization of “war-mongering” against Russia.