Zbigniew Brzezinski, one time National Security advisor to US President Jimmy Carter and the man behind the US financing of the mujahideen in Afghanistan and arming them against the Soviet invasion back in 1979, has recently gone on record as saying that growing political awareness among the public is making it hard for the powers that be to realise their plan for a military strike in Syria. This statement by the man who now acts as Obama’s foreign advisor sounds very much like an admission that our glorious leaders have been in the habit of peddling us lies and propaganda in order to get their way…surely not?!!
The following story can be found on the StoryLeaks website
BRZEZINSKI: ‘GLOBAL POLITICAL AWAKENING’ MAKING SYRIAN WAR DIFFICULT
by Mikael Thalen
August 29th, 2013
Updated 08/29/2013 at 2:47 pm
During a short interview with Germany’s DW News last Monday, former US National Security Adviser and Trilateral Commission co-founder Zbigniew Brzezinski commented on the growing inefficiency of war due to the increased political knowledge of the public.
“Given the contemporary reality of what I have called in my writings ‘Global Political Awakening,’ a policy of force based primarily on Western and in some cases former colonial powers does not seem to me a very promising avenue to an eventual solution to the regional problem,” said Brzezinski, referring to the situation in Syria.
Despite Brzezinski’s noted long-term relationship with Obama which included a top foreign policy adviser position, Brzezinski denied any specific knowledge of his plans regarding Syria, saying that if the administration has a strategy, it’s a “very well-kept secret.”
Obama’s Middle Eastern strategy has been a mere continuation of the policies seen under Bush, exemplified by former four star general and NATO commander Wesley Clark’s admission of the Bush-era Pentagon plan to overthrow several countries including Libya and Syria.
Although Brzezinski at times attempts to appear opposed to military interventionism, President Obama’s actions in Syria, which include the support of admitted Al Qaeda fighters, closely mirrors several of Brzezinski’s previous policies, most notably the opposition to the Soviet Union in 1979, where decisions made by Brzezinski led to the creation of Al Qaeda through the CIA funding of the Afghan Mujaheddin.
Brzezinski’s call of warning to the “global political awakening” has only intensified in recent years. Last year during a speech in Poland, Brzezinski noted that it has become “increasingly difficult to suppress” and control the “persistent and highly motivated populist resistance of politically awakened and historically resentful peoples.” Brzezinski also blamed the accessibility of “radio, television and the Internet” for the “universal awakening of mass political consciousness.”
“[The] major world powers, new and old, also face a novel reality: while the lethality of their military might is greater than ever, their capacity to impose control over the politically awakened masses of the world is at a historic low. To put it bluntly: in earlier times, it was easier to control one million people than to physically kill one million people; today, it is infinitely easier to kill one million people than to control one million people,” said Brzezinski during a 2010 Council on Foreign Relations speech in Montreal.
Despite attempts by both the Republican and Democratic leadership to gain support for a war in Syria, a new Reuters poll revealed that only 9 percent of Americans support military intervention in Syria. If the United States intervenes, it will be the least popular war in American history.
The massive and growing evidence forced out by the alternative media, which points to a US backed chemical attack by Al Qaeda led rebel forces to be blamed on Assad, has only accelerated the inevitable downfall of the corporate press that is now only trusted by 23 percent of the public.
The alternative media news website, Infowars, run by the now infamous and outspoken Alex Jones has been very influential when it comes to giving space for counter arguments against Obama’s now desperate attempts to convince the people of America and the wider world that a military strike against Syria is the right thing to do. The latest story to be aired by Infowars is pretty scary.
June 8th 1972, Trang Bang village, South Vietnam. Villagers fleeing after napalm attack.
Watching yesterday’s press conference with Obama at the close of the G20 Summit in St Petersburgh I was struck by just how frighteningly good he is at persuasion. Unlike the wooden performance of Cameron who often sounds like he’s reciting a speech written for him off by heart, Obama’s conversational style sounds spontaneous and unrehearsed. He’s a superb actor with a presence designed to disarm and he masterfully kept the Syrian focus on an emotional and moral agenda, refusing to engage with more material questions about tactics or outcomes.
I wonder why it is, then, that while he’s stomping around up there on the moral high ground so beloved by American Presidents and other Western leaders, that no journalist thought to take advantage of his exposed position to take a determined shot at him by bringing up the question of US military use of napalm and Agent Orange in Vietnam? Why, when he so righteously emphasises the atrocity of Syrian children attacked by chemical weapons, did no-one remind him of the countless Vietnamese children running for their lives from their napalmed villages with their skin hanging off? Why did no-one have the courage to remind him of the many Vietnamese children born in the last forty years horribly disfigured because of their parents’ exposure to Agent Orange? And why did no-one ask him why those parents are still trying to get compensation through US courts, not from the US military who sprayed the stuff all over their country, but from the US companies that manufactured it?
Napalm is nasty stuff. U.S. troops used it from about 1965 to 1972 in the Vietnam War; napalm is a mixture of plastic polystyrene, hydrocarbon benzene, and gasoline. This mixture creates a jelly-like substance that, when ignited, sticks to practically anything and burns up to ten minutes. The effects of napalm on the human body are unbearably painful and almost always cause death among its victims. “Napalm is the most terrible pain you can ever imagine” said Kim Phúc, a survivor from a napalm bombing. “Water boils at 212°F. Napalm generates temperatures 1,500°F to 2,200°F.” Kim Phúc sustained third degree burns to portions of her body. She was one of the only survivors of such extreme measures
Napalm was first used in flamethrowers for U.S. ground troops; they burned down sections of forest and bushes in hopes of eliminating any enemy guerrilla fighters. Later on in the war B-52 Bombers began dropping napalm bombs and other incendiary explosives. Air raids that used napalm were much more devastating than flamethrowers; a single bomb was capable of destroying areas up to 2,500 square yards. Throughout the duration of the war, 1965 – 1973, eight million tons of bombs were dropped over Vietnam; this was more than three times the amount used in WWII.
Agent Orange, on the other hand, is more like the sarin claimed to have been used in Syria. It’s a toxic chemical herbicide that was used from about 1965 – 1970 in the Vietnam War. It was one of the main mixtures used during Operation Ranch Hand. Operation Ranch Hand was intended to deprive Vietnamese farmers and guerilla fighters of clean food and water in hopes they would relocate to areas more heavily controlled by the U.S. By the end of the operation over twenty million gallons of herbicides and defoliants were sprayed over forests and fields.
Agent Orange is fifty times more concentrated than normal agricultural herbicides; this extreme intensity completely destroyed all plants in the area. Agent Orange not only had devastating effects on agriculture but also on people and animals. The Vietnam Red Cross recorded over 4.8 million deaths and 400,000 children born with birth defects due to exposure to Agent Orange.
The use of Agent Orange was later determined to be in violation of the Geneva Contract yet no-one launched a military strike at the US as a result of this violation. The would-be punishers remain unpunished for their crime.
The US lost the long ‘never ending’ war in Vietnam. There has been no victory in Iraq or Afghanistan. The ‘threat’ to American interests is not in doing nothing in Syria. When you count the cost to Americans in lives lost and billions wasted on losing them, the real threat to ordinary Americans lies in yet another futile flexing of their military muscle in the Middle East.
With each passing day, as I read and see more and more injustice and cruelty from this feeble excuse of a government, I wonder just what the hell is going on here?
Here’s a selection of video interviews by the amazing Artist Taxi Driver to make my point for me. The last one made me so angry and frankly, ashamed to be British and it reminded me of a documentary I saw online recently exposing the truth about the British monarchy. Its called Royal Babylon and I’ve included that too. Prepare to be shocked if you’re the kind of person who thinks the Queen is just a sweet old lady and Winston Churchill etc were ‘great’ British leaders…this is definitely NOT the version of British history that Michael Gove wants to ram down our kid’s throats.
The best thing about blogging for me is the feedback I get from readers’ comments and it was one such comment that inspired me to write this post. A few days ago I received an informative comment from aussieh in response to a post about the Grant Thornton Report (http://wp.me/p3mYc5-5J ) which made my blood run cold. In this comment aussieh drew my attention to this
The US/EU Free Trade Agreement, which David Cameron identified as a priority in his chairing of the G8 this year, was given the go-ahead by US President Obama and EU President Barroso in January. One of the key aims of this Free Trade Agreement is to give international corporations legal rights to access governments’ public services budgets…
This framework means that publicly funded English health services will be obliged to tender out contracts. Large transnational corporations will have a competitive advantage in the bidding process…
Legal rights to access our public services budgets? What does that mean? And why would our Prime Minister if, as he’s endlessly claiming, he always stands up for ‘the national interest’, want to make it a priority to open up our public services to multinational corporations who have NO interest in how we organise our affairs other than how they can ruthlessly exploit it to maximise their share price. We know that and unless he’s totally brain dead, he must know that too. Its not as if they don’t have loads of form for it. We all saw what happened to that sweatshop in Bangladesh recently. Who exactly is calling the shots here? And just how did it happen to get this way in the first place?
I definitely needed to find out more about this…
While searching on Google Scholar I found an academic article by Upendra D Acharya from Gonzaga University School of Law in Washington. The article, published in the Boston College Law Review on 23rd May this year, told me everything I needed to know to understand why our public services are in danger of being eaten up by multinational sharks. Its title is “Globalization and Hegemony Shift: Are States Merely Agents of Corporate Capitalism?” and is freely accessible through Law Journals at Digital Commons. I’ll summarise it below but if you want to read it for yourself the link is here,
Acharya sums up the state of affairs as it now stands today by saying,
“corporate capitalism has converted globalization into a profit-making venture. All states…have begun to behave as agents of corporate capitalism. We are now in a new world order of hegemony shift from states to corporate capitalism. In this new world order, states are functioning as a conduit for corporate capitalism. The theory of global governance has been based on market and technology, particularly since the 1990s. Due to corporate capitalism-induced, market-driven globalization, we are beginning to enter an era of post-human society with a decline or an absence of aspirational and emotional human elements. States have become soft power and corporate capitalism has become hard power in the system of international law and order. The notion of peace and the conduct of war have become the primary business of corporations while states facilitate and sacrifice their resources and citizens for the interests of corporate capitalism.”
‘Sacrifice their resources and citizens for the interests of global capitalism’? Well, Cameron certainly seems to be doing that. But how did we get into this mess?
According to Wikipedia, the “Peace of Westphalia was a series of peace treaties signed between May and October 1648 in Osnabrück and Münster. These treaties ended the Thirty Years’ War (1618–1648) in the Holy Roman Empire, and the Eighty Years’ War (1568–1648) between Spain and the Dutch Republic, with Spain formally recognizing the independence of the Dutch Republic.” This was the beginning of a new political era in Europe because it was then that the idea of the sovereign or nation state was born.
It was hoped that by establishing clear borders between the different countries, each with their own ruler and forbidding interference into another nation’s affairs that the almost constant wars that had been fought over territory prior to these agreements would end.
In effect this was the first international law.
As technology advanced in Britain and Europe and along with it industry and trade, these powerful states were able to impose their values on weaker countries disrupting their value systems so they could exploit their natural resources. Colonial rule was imposed bringing Western law with it, but denying these colonised countries the equal right to sovereignty enjoyed by their colonisers. Business benefited from this massive looting – the Dutch East India Company, for instance, made a huge fortune from the spice trade for two centuries, setting up ports as trading bases and taking over surrounding land.
All this was considered to be legal by the looters because they made the laws that worked in their favour and imposed them on the weak states, by force if necessary.
According to Acharya the next big landmark in the development of international law was the Congress of Vienna. Wikipedia tells us that the “Congress of Vienna was a conference of ambassadors of European states chaired by Austrian statesman Klemens Wenzel von Metternich, and held in Vienna from September 1814 to June 1815. This objective resulted in the redrawing of the continent’s political map, establishing the boundaries of France, the Duchy of Warsaw, the Netherlands, the states of theRhine, the German Kingdom of Saxony, and various Italian territories, and the creation of spheres of influence through which Austria, Britain, France and Russia brokered local and regional problems.”
Once again, this conference for the powerful came after a long period of wars notably the French Revolutionary Wars and the Napoleonic Wars. Obviously, the Peace of Westphalia hadn’t stopped those with power from fighting over territory and when all the killing stopped they had to sit down yet again and talk to come to some agreement about borders and lay down a few more rules. Can you see a pattern emerging here?
Seventy years later in 1885 the glorious leaders of Europe were at it again at the Berlin Conference, aka the Congo Conference. This time they were dividing up Africa between them, like a bunch of elite schoolboys arguing over a stolen cake. Once again they were laying down the rule of law to regulate the colonisation of a continent rich in natural resources with not a single African citizen present! As Wikipedia puts it the conference was “called for by Portugal and organized by Otto von Bismarck, first Chancellor of Germany, its outcome, the General Act of the Berlin Conference, can be seen as the formalization of the Scramble for Africa. The conference ushered in a period of heightened colonial activity by European powers, while simultaneously eliminating most existing forms of African autonomy and self-governance.” Unbelievable!
Now we know where racism comes from. It makes me ashamed to be white.
Following the First World War the powers that be set up the League of Nations. This arose out of the Paris Peace Conference that put an end to the war and was a forerunner to the United Nations. Wikipedia says that ” Its primary goals, as stated in its Covenant, included preventing wars through collective security and disarmament, and settling international disputes through negotiation and arbitration.Other issues in this and related treaties included labour conditions, just treatment of native inhabitants, human and drug trafficking, arms trade, global health, prisoners of war, and protection of minorities in Europe. At its greatest extent from 28 September 1934 to 23 February 1935, it had 58 members.”
So here we can see the further globalisation of international law and its interesting that issues like labour conditions, health and just treatment of ‘natives’ were included. Had our great leaders suddenly become philanthropic? Or was their collective elitist mind concentrating on the recent Russian Revolution and the greater tendency to protest by the unwashed masses under their thumb?
As far as the colonies were concerned these were to become sovereign states in their own right – eventually – after a long drawn out process of first becoming Mandates which effectively meant they were still made to accept theirs master’s laws. Sometimes called ‘moral colonialism’ the mandate system was built on the arrogant assumption that there was a natural hierarchy of nations and the self-styled superior ones such as Britain and France and the USA had a moral duty to guide the ‘backward’ states in becoming independent. Unsurprisingly, there was no mention by this bunch of thieving warlords of returning looted goods to their rightful owners.
After a mere 20 years the masters of war were at it again after Hitler invaded Poland and all hell broke loose, this time with the greater destructive force of new technologies of killing beyond the wildest dreams of the princes who made the fragile Peace of Westphalia. The shock of not one, but two atom bombs dropped on Japan causing horrific destruction at the mere flick of a switch ended the madness and gave birth to the United Nations.
According to Wikipedia the UN “has six principal organs: the General Assembly, the Security Council (for deciding certain resolutions for peace and security); the Economic and Social Council (for assisting in promoting international economic and social cooperation and development); the Secretariat (for providing studies, information, and facilities needed by the UN); the International Court of Justice (the primary judicial organ); and the United Nations Trusteeship Council (which is currently inactive). Other prominent UN System agencies include the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Food Programme (WFP) and United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF).”
You can imagine how much more complicated international law must have got by now from its humble origins in 1685. And you can add to this a few other international legal players such as the IMF and the World Bank and the one at the very heart of the Free Trade Agreement that David Cameron tells us is so very important for our economic survival, the World Trade Organisation.
“The World Trade Organization (WTO) is an organization that intends to supervise and liberalize international trade. The organization officially commenced on 1 January 1995 under the Marrakech Agreement, replacing the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which commenced in 1948. The organization deals with regulation of trade between participating countries; it provides a framework for negotiating and formalizing trade agreements, and a dispute resolution process aimed at enforcing participants’ adherence to WTO agreements, which are signed by representatives of member governments and ratified by their parliaments. Most of the issues that the WTO focuses on derive from previous trade negotiations, especially from the Uruguay Round (1986–1994).”
There isn’t enough time or space to go into the convoluted regulations and rules imposed internationally by the WTO but the bit that matters to the NHS is the one that opens up nations’ public services to so-called free trade agreements, the GATS. The basic WTO principle of ‘most favoured nation’ (MFN) applies to GATS as well. Its a bit like the ‘ any qualified provider’ rule in the Health Bill and regulates who should be given contracts. And with the recent news that US health giant HSA have got in on the NHS act we can see already the kind of puppet masters pulling the Coalition’s strings. The members of the WTO agree to accord MFN status to each other and MFN is one of the cornerstones of WTO trade law.
However, UN Members may introduce temporary exemptions to this rule. The overall goal of GATS is to remove barriers to trade but members are free to choose which sectors are to be progressively “liberalised”, i.e. marketised and privatised, which mode of supply would apply to a particular sector, and to what extent liberalisation will occur over a given period of time.
But once they decide which service to include, Members’ commitments are governed by a “ratchet effect”, meaning that commitments are one-way and are not to be wound back once entered into. The reason for this rule is supposed to be to create a stable trading climate. However, Article XXI does allow Members to withdraw commitments, and so far two members have exercised this option (USA and EU). In November 2008, Bolivia notified that it will withdraw its health services commitments.
So. if Bolivia can do it why can’t we?!!!
Acharya mentioned that globalisation and the rise of corporate capitalism really took after at the end of the Cold War when George Bush senior announced the dawn of a New World Order. In reality he was announcing the fact that multinational corporations and their private vested interests were taking over through the immense lobbying power they have to influence national governments. Democracy was given a death sentence.
Since Thatcher and Reagan neoliberal governments have danced to the privatise -everything – that – moves tune of these corporate giants. We, the people, have fought against it all over the world and lost more and more ground as many of our so-called representatives are bought off in return for keeping us uninformed, docile and poor enough to accept ever lower wages to work for these leviathans who pay as little tax as possible in return.
These giants want to make profit from everything we need for our basic survival from water supplies to crops and will also profit from the sickness they create by taking over our health services. They engineer wars and sell arms to both sides then profit from the destruction through rebuilding contracts. They are the Masters of War since many armies are now private. You must have noticed how all through history the evolution of this world domination has depended on war.
How much longer are we going to take this?
Join Left Unity at the People’s Assembly
This Saturday’s People’s Assembly will be the largest gathering of the left that this country has seen for decades. Thousands of anti-cuts activists, trades unionists and campaigners struggling to defend the welfare state will meet at Westminster Central Hall in London. They will be planning a united campaign to turn back the tide of austerity that is sweeping over us. Workshops predominate throughout the day, where we can get down to detail on strategy and tactics in a range of crucial areas from housing to immigration, to climate change and beyond. Speakers include local campaigners as well as those well-known nationally such as Owen Jones, Ken Loach, Diane Abbott and a number of trades union leaders: all coming together to oppose this government’s attacks.
The agenda for the day can be found at thepeoplesassembly.org.uk. So many people are now attending this event that the road outside Westminster Central Hall will be closed and marquees set up to provide space for more meetings. There will be at least fifteen separate sessions on all aspects of the struggles we face.
Left Unity Broadsheet
Left Unity will be there in force to deliver the message that we need both a national united anti-cuts campaign and a new party of the left. It is becoming clearer every day: Labour can’t be trusted to defend the welfare state. We are producing 3,000 copies of a special broadsheet for the day announcing our plans for the new party, explaining why it is necessary and encouraging people to join.
We will be meeting outside the venue from 8am and the distribution of our broadsheet is being organised by Terry Conway – please contact Terry at firstname.lastname@example.org if you can help us on the day. Even an hour of your time would be helpful! And we want people to participate in the important debate taking place and have a Left Unity input where appropriate.
Producing the broadsheet is expensive – it will be handed out for free. If you can make a small donation to the costs of its production then please do so via the website or send a cheque made out to Left Unity to us at 5 Caledonian Road, London N1 9DX.
Last Saturday saw the first meeting of our new National Coordinating Group. It met in Doncaster and there will be a full report with minutes in next week’s newsletter.
The Left Unity team
I haven’t blogged about international issues yet because there seems to be so much going on here in Britain I just haven’t had the time. But this doesn’t mean I’m not interested. When it comes to Syria I’m downright appalled at the holocaust that is taking place. But I’m also confused by all the conflicting media reports and the stuff you can read on line. Its hard to know who’s telling the truth and after two and a half years just which factions are involved and who’s supplying who with arms etc. What started out, ostensibly, as peaceful protest has deteriorated into a free for all. One thing that is clear though is that as in every conflict its the innocent and vulnerable who suffer, who are forced to flee their homes in search of safety.
“Hello All, Got this off Global research today spread far and wide please, Alan.
Subject: SYRIA: FAO ATTORNEY GENERAL, FOREIGN SECRETARY, HOME SECRETARY & COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 13:06:30 +0100
The former French Minister of Foreign Affairs has publicly made a statement that the British Government intended to overthrow the Syrian government for political reasons, long before there was civil unrest (fomented by the British) in Syria. “…Britain had been preparing gunmen to invade Syria two years before the crisis there flared up in 2011…”
I attach the video of his public statement. Clearly his statement has very grave and serious legal implications. We would like written confirmation that the U.K government will make a Full statement in the House of Commons over why the UK government has clearly misled the U.K people and the International Community. We expect that statement would include an announcement of a public inquiry.
We would also expect the U.K government to publicly provide a written assurance that the U.K government will under no circumstances, now supply, to anyone, any weapons that could be used in Syria. In addition following a public inquiry it is expected that the U.K will need to provide substantial reparations for the serious harm already caused to Syrian people, by the U.K government.The written response by email, of the U.K government, is required as a matter of urgency.
Babs Tucker. Parliament Square Peace Campaign www.brianhaw.tv
The video is from a French news programme, and is therefore in French.
For those of you who’s French is a bit rusty, like me, here’s a short synopsis of the interview with ex-French Foreign Minister, Roland Dumas:-
“BRITAIN PREPARED FOR WAR
The former French foreign minister confirms the British, along with Israel always wanted war with Syria, all along and he said no. Former French Foreign Minister Roland Dumas said that Britain had been preparing gunmen to invade Syria two years before the crisis there flared up in 2011. During a TV show, Dumas said
”I was in Britain two years ago, and I met British officials, some my friends…they admitted that they were up to something in Syria. They even asked me to join them in my capacity as a foreign minister, but I declined,” he added. He indicated that the plan of striking Syria had been prepared in advance long before the 2011 events, adding that the goal was to overthrow the Syrian government that considers Israel an enemy.”
Brian Haw died in 2011 aged 62 and Barbara Tucker and others have continued protesting against war in Parliament Square 24 hours a day. Brian kept up the fight from 2nd June 2001. On 16th January last year the Metropolitan Police confiscated their tents, the only shelter they had, and they’ve been without shelter ever since.
After his death Conservative MP Peter Bottomley proposed an Early Day Motion for a memorial service but there was a sting in the tail as well when he says he :-
“believes it could be appropriate for a memorial service in Westminster to mark his passing; and also hopes that to mark his life the unsightly camp of hangers-on in Parliament Square ends and a plaque be set in the pavement.”
Sounds a bit like a bribe to me. Funny too, how not long after the Met went in and took their tents.
As I said above, information about Syria has been confusing and often contradictory. Its hard to know which accounts to trust. But for me the fact that Brian and Barbara have been protesting solidly day and night for twelve years in all weathers gives them the kind of credibility sadly lacking in our so-called ‘right honourable’ rulers in their warm,comfortable offices just down the road in Westminster.
Will they respond to Barbara’s email? Will we finally hear truth from their lips for once?
On past performance, sadly, I’d say the answer is a resounding “No”.