PressTV: Bankers, Corporations, and U.S. Foreign Policy

Full Video Here

An analyst says that the criminal war tactics by the US based on lies to sieze other country's resources and the clampdown on US citizen's rights is demanded by US elite bankers and corporations.


Press TV has interviewed Caleb Maupin, International Action Center, New York about the means exercised to achieve the Western imperialist agenda and how this relates hand in hand with controlling banker and US corporation influence over the US government and the US judicial system. What follows is an approximate transcript of the interview.

Press TV: Even prior to this memo (George W. Bush memo approving use of torture) surfacing everyone knows that Washington led everyone to war based on a lie that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. So, why are George W. Bush and his accomplices still free in your perspective?

Maupin: The first thing we need to keep in mind about the war in Iraq was that it was just the latest episode in a continuing effort by the US to go in and overthrow governments that defy them and don't do what the bankers on Wall Street would like them to do.

And it continued… Right after the election of Barak Obama the government of Honduras was overthrown in a coup d'tat that was backed by the CIA. The events in Libya where the government of Muammar Gaddafi was overthrown by Western forces supported with NATO bombs is the same kind of thing.

So, continually there is an effort, whenever some government stands up to the will of the bankers and the corporations, the response of Washington DC and Wall Street is to bomb and destroy.

They justify this imperialism essentially; and war for profits… they justify that always with talk of democracy; they're always doing it because they care so much about democracy and freedom.

But then, it's pretty apparent they don't really believe in those ideals because they're torturing people as this memo has shown and in addition, the governments they support around the world who do obey corporations are hardly democratic forces at all.

The government that replaced the Honduran democratically elected government of Manuel Zelaya, the government that replaced it was a military dictatorship.

In Libya, the forces that have replaced Gaddafi's government are going around massacring people so badly that even Doctors Without Borders will not associate with them because they are engaging in such horrendous acts of torture.

The idea that the US just out of the goodness of its heart cares, and you know, invades countries because it just cares so much is such a falsehood. The US, the military, the Pentagon, they all work for the bankers and the corporations and their end is to conquer; to bring profits to the banks; to bring profits to Wall Street and to keep the rest of the world enslaved so that they can continue making profits. That's what that's about.

And so whenever we hear them demonizing some government abroad we need to be suspicious because anytime they label a government as undemocratic or they label the government as terrorists or supporting terrorism, we need to remember it's coming from the mouths of the greatest terrorists in the world - The US corporations and the bankers, they're the greatest terrorists in the world. Whenever they accuse someone of being undemocratic, they're the most undemocratic forces in the world.

Press TV: What you're saying is that it was a continuation - the war in Iraq a continuation and what we have seen since that time for example the involvement as you said in Honduras or Libya or perhaps even now as we speak, in Syria, is a continuation of that process.

But the question is where are the checks and balances internationally? Is it that the US can just get away with whatever it wants? Where is the international checks and balances then?

Maupin: The international check and balance that can be established is the rising global movement. Occupy Wall Street has made it clear it supports the people all around the world that are struggling against the bankers and the corporations and the growing alliance between people in every country that are defying imperialists whether it's in Venezuela; whether it's in Cuba, Bolivia, Iran, Syria wherever people are struggling and defying imperialists there needs to be an alliance because the main enemy of humanity is on Wall Street.

The bankers and the corporations are the main enemy of humanity and if we're going to restrain it's going to take a global movement - a united struggle against these bankers and these corporations.

That's the glorious thing; people need to be in the streets and they are increasingly in the streets demanding that this end. And the Wall Street corporations that continue these wars, they are the same enemy of working class people in the US who are having their jobs shipped over someone else who will work for lower wages; the same corporations that are foreclosing on their houses and causing mass evictions and home foreclosures throughout the US - they are the same enemies. It's the same enemy.

A global alliance between workers in the US and working class people abroad who are defying the will of the banks and the corporations, that's the check and balance that needs to be created.

Press TV: One would think that in these very tough economic times at least if we look at this from the financial aspect and the cost these wars have had on the American economy itself that there would be more Americans demanding not only compensation for the costs that have been inflicted on the tax payers, but in general wanting someone to answer to them for destroying the society itself - the economy.

I know that you are part of the Occupy movement, but in general have we seen… we are not really seeing the mass protests the major numbers that one would expect from the American people at this point in time. What's your take?

Maupin: The wrecking of the US economy - this is something that the US corporations and bankers, which own the US government are very good at. When they overthrew the socialist governments of Eastern Europe and put them in there they replaced the socialist governments with governments with higher rates of sex trafficking; the life expectancies went down…

Every time they've overthrown a government and done this they have never created peace and prosperity; it's always led to mass suffering for people all over the world.

The idea that these people in the US who send the NYPD out to run at us with orange nets; to pepper spray people; to break people's ribs; to step on people; to grab people - they do that when people just demonstrate for the crime of holding a sign in the street.

You know, to think that this government is a symbol of democracy is outrageous. Prior to the sanctions that were put on Iraq, Iraq had one of the higher life expectancies in the Middle East because they had seized the oil - the oil in Iraq did not belong to the Wall Street bankers and the corporations and as a result it went to provide for the economy in Iraq.

Well, now those profits are on Wall Street and those profits are in the hands of Wall Street bankers and corporations and the people in Iraq are in misery; there is not a single place in this world where the bankers and the corporations have intervened, have overthrown a government, have killed people - and they do kill people massively, and the result has been good for the people.

The result has always been the life expectancy of the people going down and misery; and the profits being sucked out of that country and going to the bankers and the corporations on Wall Street and that is the result of what US imperialism and what the bankers and corporations have.

And they're doing it in the US - they're destroying the economy; they are creating a low wage system and as a result there are millions and millions of youth in this country who don't have a future and their only choice is to pour out in the streets and demand justice.

The Treyvon Martin case coming up on May 10th there is going to be mass demonstrations because that is when the grand jury is going to decide. The US corporations and the bankers are so determined to keep racism - this ugly tool they've used to divide the working class and play worker against worker; they can't even convict a man who shot someone through the chest; they can't even charge him with a crime - that's how important racism is in maintaining their system and keeping their order and their power in the US.

This whole system is based in profits and exploitation and nowhere on the Earth, nowhere, can you show me a single place where the US has gone in, intervened and helped the people, the people have always have always ended up in a worse situation; the economies have gotten worse, but the profits have gone up.

The bankers and the corporations, which rule this government, are the worse mass murderers in this world. If we had a just society they would be in prison right now fro crimes against humanity because they have committed crimes in front of the entire world and gotten away with it.

PressTV: "OWS Aligns With People's Struggle Against Capitalism"

Watch Video Here

Although the United States continually accuses other countries of violating human rights, Washington itself is widely considered as one of the biggest violators of human rights in the world.


Press TV has talked with Caleb Maupin from the International Action Center in New York to discuss the matter further.

The program also offers the opinions of two other guests: human rights and international lawyer Paul Wolf from Washington and Vice Chair of the Institute for Policy Studies Saul Landau from Berkeley.

The following is a rough transcript of the interview.

Press TV: For the first time ever the US came under question at the Human rights council at Geneva last year. Discrimination against Muslims and police brutality were cited as two of the top main concerns. Why this decline, overall; and then especially in these two areas do you think?

Maupin: Well, there is a number of factors involved with this situation. One of which is that the United States is ruled by a small elite, who have the money and the wealth and the power in the US, less than one percent most likely, but they are commonly called the one percent among the Occupy Wall Street Movement and they seeing their power threatened, as the people are pouring into the streets and demanding justice and so as a result they have been forced to reveal themselves in a way and reveal the brutality that they wage.

The second reason is the hypocrisy involved. The US goes around the world, invading people’s countries, burning people’s holy books, shooting people, murdering people, overthrowing governments; all in the name of defending human rights.

But if you want to see the human rights the US is talking about, you can look in Libya, where NATO bombs have destroyed the country and people are now in misery, you can look at Afghanistan where the people are suffering under horrific occupation and oppression. You can also look at the New York City, where the police murder people and get away with it, where demonstrators are clubbed and pepper sprayed when they tried to exercise their free speech and you can look in the US which has one of the highest prison populations on the planet.

This whole notion that one percent controlled government in the US, which is a tool of the bankers and the corporations, is an entity that has the right to speak about human rights and defend it internationally is false.

The US is one of the greatest violators of human rights in the world and it should be regarded as such and I think that it is a great thing that many people are realizing this and the people are standing up to this one percent controlled government and not letting it say it represents human rights, when in reality it represents the repression and the further enslavement of the human beings.

Press TV: It was interesting the way that the US democracy was described by former Vice President Al Gore that it had been “hacked”, what do you think he means by that?

Maupin: Well, I do not know what Al Gore means by democracy because when Al Gore was in office, he was just another continuer of the policies we are seeing now. He carried out imperialistic intervention in Serbia and elsewhere.

But I will say this, you know, one of the most striking things about this massacre that went on in Afghanistan is [that] this is the future that the US has to offer [to] the next generation. It does not have jobs for the next generation of youth, it does not have education, education is being cut, but the military recruitment is there and they do have the opportunity for young people to be sent to other countries abroad to be put in the situations and to be trained to be murderers and to be killers like this has happened.

I mean this is a continual policy of repressing people and the only option left for young people is not be educated, not to have a future but instead to join the ranks of an army being sent around the world to make sure other people do not rise up against the same conditions that are being faced by working people across the US.

It is very frustrating and very shocking and the fact that young people, you know, it is so crazy that all our lives in the US we were taught that the US is a great country because there is democracy and there is freedom and people are allowed to express themselves. But a generation right now tried to actually use that freedom and they poured into the streets and they are seeing what this freedom actually means if you ever try to use it.

The one percent government that runs the US has never been a democracy. It has always been a dictatorship by the super rich, who controls the banks, the factories, the media, the school system and they have utilized all of the wealth of this world in order to make more and more money for themselves.

And now people are revolting and what Occupy Wall Street, you know what we are starting to understand is, the people in Afghanistan [who are] fighting against the United States and fighting to liberate their country, the people in Libya [who are] fighting against the NATO occupiers, they are our allies, they are allies in a global class war against these bankers and these corporations and we need the working class in the US not just the radical youth but all of the working class in the US, the people who were being laid off, the people who were having their homes foreclosed, we all need to join in a global struggle against these bankers and these corporations.

These ultimately the bankers and the one percent that the Occupy Wall Street is fighting against, are not just the enemies of the people here in the US; they are the enemies of the people all over the world.

It is the US and the corporations that are causing poverty throughout the world and it is the US and the bankers and the corporations that are threatening wars that created and backed the state of Israel and which is repressing and brutalizing the Palestinian people.

And ultimately if we want to see change, there needs to be a global alliance between workers and oppressed people in every corner of the globe, standing up to this one percent, engaging in heroic actions like Occupy Wall Street is engaged in where take over buildings, we refused to let system continue as usual, we confront the police, we confront the state and we ultimately call out and say, we are the 99 percent; not just the 99 percent in the US but the 99 percent of humanity against the small ruling elite, who does nothing but owns while the rest of us produce all of the wealth of this world.

Press TV: Caleb Maupin, our guest there, Saul Landau, talked about the Patriot Act, of course you are familiar with the NDAA bill, he also talked about the authorizing the arrest without just cause, and then you have this Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act, which restricts gathering and protests at special public places, what are we looking at here? These are examples of violations of the first amendment. What happened to the first amendment? What is happening with the Constitution?

Maupin: Well, it is interesting that all of the things you described are being used to allegedly protect people from terror. But let’s think about who the US has considered to be terrorists in the past. Nelson Mandela [former South African president], when he waged a struggle against the apartheid government in South Africa, was called a terrorist by the US government. The provisional Irish Republican Army, as they fought to free their country from British Empire, was also called terrorists. The Maoist rebels in the Nepal, as they fought to bring down an absolute monarchy, were also called terrorists by the US government, and still are.

So, if you look at it overall, the US government is not anyone who should be protecting us from terrorism. In fact the US is engaging in terrorism all over the world right now, whether it is Israel, whether it is in Africa, whether it is in anywhere. The US is engaging in terrorism. So, the idea that they would protect us from terrorism is very scary.

They are not trying to protect the people from terror; they are trying to protect their system from the wrath of the people as they boil in anger at its results which are largely economic at this point. People are suffering in mass economically, and I do not think [that] there is any popular support for these policies. I think the popular support is only amongst the halls of power, where they are they bracing.

This idea that you can’t protest in any “official building.” What is that? What is an official building? The law is so vaguely defined. I mean it would just make a federal offense out of things that are exercising free speech. The National Defense Authorization Act [NDAA] says they can detain anybody. Anyone on suspicion of being a terrorist, they do not even have to prove it.

All kinds of legislation is being used to make sure that the government has the ability to do anything it can, to keep itself in power, amidst the rage of the people. And if all the polls that are coming out right now show people are extremely dissatisfied with this system and extremely dissatisfied with the fact that there is a one percent with all the wealth in its hands and all the power and all the resources, while the people have nothing.

And ultimately, you know; the polls are also showing that the people are coming to an understanding that the word Socialism, which has been presented as the opposite of Capitalism and has been demonized in the US for a long time, is not such a bad word and that the idea that we could hold in common, all these resources which we have produced, yet the one percent owns; you know that is not such a bad thing and many people are turning away from the Capitalism and turning against the Capitalist system in the US and [are] looking for a more compassionate and more human-based and a more truly democratic alternative.

I am sure, that really scares the ruling elite and especially, it especially scares the ruling elite that this Occupy Wall Street Movement is not aligning with them and not saying, we want to make their system better and we just want to help them do better in their pursuit of oppressing and repressing the people of the world, but it is aligning with the people of the world in their struggle for justice. This is a beautiful thing.

Libya: Attacks Rise Against Imperialist-Backed Regime

By Abayomi Azikiwe
Editor, Pan-African News Wire
Published Feb 5, 2012 10:27 PM

A series of attacks have been launched against the U.S.- and NATO-installed National Transitional Council in Libya. The most significant events occurred on Jan. 23 when local forces still loyal to the former government of slain leader Col. Moammar Gadhafi retook the city of Bani Walid, located 120 miles southeast of Tripoli.

During the battles to reclaim the city, four people were reportedly killed and 20 others injured. Reports indicate that heavy weaponry was used by several hundred Libyan loyalists, including 106 mm anti-tank launchers.

The liberation of Bani Walid took place after a gun battle with the NTC rebels that lasted only a few hours. Immediately, green flags were hoisted. These flags are a symbol of the Jamahiriya government that was driven from power by a seven-month bombing campaign carried out by the U.S.-NATO forces.

NTC soldiers patrolling Bani Walid had recently arrested supporters of the former government, prompting outrage among the population. The city had been one of the last to fall during the war against Libya, which lasted for eight months and resulted in the wholesale destruction of the country’s infrastructure and the theft of its national wealth.

After holding out for many months against the U.S.-NATO forces and the NTC rebels, the local loyalist forces agreed to allow the Western-backed gunmen to enter the city. However, tensions have remained extremely high.

Just last November, gun fights erupted when NTC rebels entered the city in an attempt to arrest pro-Gadhafi supporters. On Jan. 23, loyalist forces attacked an NTC militia garrison, killing several guards before moving to occupy the center of the city.

Reports say it may be very difficult for the NTC to exercise authority over Bani Walid. Sentiments against the Western-backed “rebels” have not subsided.

Journalist Taha Zargoun wrote: “Taking back control of the town will be challenging because it has natural defenses. Anyone approaching from the north has to descend into a deep valley and then climb up the other side, giving defenders an advantage.” (Reuters, Jan. 23)

Bani Walid liberation
part of broader unrest

In various regions of Libya the NTC has been rapidly losing any semblance of control. Other attacks by loyalist forces have taken place in the eastern city of Benghazi, the base of the counterrevolution, and in Tripoli, the capital.

In Benghazi, pro-Gadhafi fighters mounted offensives against NTC rebels, killing at least three. In the capital of Tripoli, guerrilla units loyal to the former government launched attacks against NTC personnel in several neighborhoods across the city.

Overall dissatisfaction with the imperialist-backed regime is increasing daily. Even elements that supported the counterrevolution have rapidly grown disillusioned with the NTC regime, which has failed to rein in the militia groups that roam areas of the capital and other cities, committing atrocities against the people.

The Associated Press wrote on Jan. 23: “The bold attacks are the latest breakdown in security, three months after Gadhafi’s capture and killing. Protests have surged in recent weeks, with people demanding that the interim leaders deliver on promises of transparency and compensation for those injured in the civil war.”

There have also been reports of attacks launched by loyalist forces in the western Nafusa mountains. This has prompted the NTC rebel regime to heighten security in Misrata, setting up checkpoints in order to secure entrance into the city.

After the fall of Tripoli in August, many loyalist units took refuge in Bani Walid and other areas in the west of the country. Reports of clashes have been consistent from the area.

Imperialist media ignored
human rights violations

Since the beginning of the rebellion against the Gadhafi government last February, there have been gross human rights violations against people in Libya. Foreign nationals, Black Libyans and loyalist forces were subjected to harassment, beatings, illegal imprisonment, torture and deaths at the hands of the NTC rebels and their imperialist backers.

During the course of last year’s bombing campaign, 26,000 sorties and 10,000 air strikes were carried out between March 19 and Oct. 20. Estimates of deaths during this period range from 50,000 to 100,000.

At least 7,000 people remain imprisoned inside the country, including the son and heir-apparent to Gadhafi, Seif al-Islam. He was captured by the NTC in the south of the country late last year and has been held incommunicado since then.

Seif al-Islam reportedly had a hand severed and is not allowed to seek legal counsel. The International Criminal Court, which had indicted Gadhafi and Seif al-Islam for alleged war crimes during the bombing of the country, has now said that the son can be tried on Libyan soil under the purported laws of the NTC rebels.

A January report released by several human rights organizations says there are still widespread abuses, unjustified imprisonment and torture being conducted by the NTC rebel regime. The document, entitled “Report of the Independent Civil Society Fact-finding Mission to Libya,” reveals that there are victims of NATO and NTC war crimes in numerous areas throughout the country, including Tripoli, Sibrata, Khoms, ZIlten, Misrata, Tawergha and Sirte.

The authors of the report include the Arab Organization for Human Rights, the Palestinian Center for Human Rights and the International Legal Assistance Consortium. The document further confirms the deliberate targeting of civilians during the bombing campaign between March and October 2011.

Farirai Chubvu wrote of the findings: “The report exposes the human rights and democratic pretexts employed by the U.S., France, Britain and their NATO accomplices to carry out a colonial-style war of conquest. It makes clear that U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, imposing a ‘no-fly zone’ and arms embargo on Libya supposedly to protect civilians from repressive actions by Moammar Gadhafi, was in fact used to carry out a ruthless air war waged in coordination with ‘rebel’ forces on the ground.” (The Herald Online, Jan. 27)

Imperialist states cannot be relied upon to protect the basic human rights of peoples within countries where they are carrying out wars. When President Barack Obama boasted during his State of the Union address recently that the government of Gadhafi had been overthrown, no mention was ever made of the horrendous crimes committed by the U.S. and NATO against the people of Libya.

Anti-war, peace and social justice organizations in the U.S. and other Western countries must continue to speak out and organize against imperialist wars being waged against oppressed peoples. Despite their false claims of concern for human rights and civil rights, it is the Western states that are the main purveyors of violations of fundamental rights throughout the world.

Feb. 4 anti-war actions called to stop imperialist threats to Iran

By John Catalinotto
Published Jan 21, 2012 4:29 PM

A broad spectrum of U.S.-based anti-imperialist and anti-war organizations agreed on a Jan. 17 conference call to hold coordinated protests across the country on Saturday, Feb. 4. The demands will be: “No war, no sanctions, no intervention, no assassinations against Iran.”

The ad-hoc group that took part in the call decided that although there are only two weeks to organize, it will invite anti-war forces around the world to join in, if possible, so that this emergency action could develop into a global day of action.

All agreed on the need to stop U.S. imperialism and/or Israel from launching a military attack on Iran. There was also a consensus that the new sanctions President Barack Obama signed into law on Dec. 31 — with the goal of breaking the Iranian central bank — were themselves an act of war aimed at the Iranian people. The political activists on the call raised the danger of a wider war should fighting break out in or around Iran.

While the organizations involved had varied assessments of the Iranian government, they all saw any intervention from U.S. imperialism in the Southwest Asian country as a threat to the entire region and to peace. Some of the people on the call who are originally from Iran and who were in touch with family and friends there conveyed the Iranian people’s anger at the recent assassination of a young scientist.

There was agreement to make “no assassinations” one of the demands to show solidarity with the Iranian population as well as to condemn the U.S. and its allies for criminal activities against Iran and its people.

As of Jan. 19, the organizations that called the actions or endorsed later included the United National Antiwar Coalition, the International Action Center, SI! Solidarity with Iran, Refugee Apostolic Catholic Church, Workers World Party, World Can’t Wait, American Iranian Friendship Committee, Answer Coalition, Antiwar.com, Peace of the Action, ComeHomeAmerica.us, St. Pete for Peace, Women Against Military Madness, Defenders for Freedom, Justice & Equality-Virginia, WESPAC Foundation, Peace Action Maine, Occupy Myrtle Beach, Minnesota Peace Action Coalition, Twin Cities Peace Campaign and Bail Out the People Movement.

Individual endorsers include authors David Swanson, “When the World Outlawed War,” and Phil Wilayto, “In Defense of Iran: Notes from a U.S. Peace Delegation’s Journey through the Islamic Republic”; and U.N. Human Rights Award winner Ramsey Clark, a former U.S. attorney general.

The list is expected to grow steadily as word spreads. Right now people can follow developments on the Facebook link: No War On Iran: National Day of Action Feb 4, www.facebook.com/events/214341975322807/.

There will also be updates, giving times and places of demonstrations, at the International Action Center website: www.iacenter.org.

Catalinotto represented Workers World Party on the Jan. 17 conference call.

Resist U.S. Imperialist War Threats On Iran

By Sara Flounders
Published Jan 18, 2012 8:48 PM

There is growing apprehension that through miscalculation, deliberate provocation or a staged false flag operation, a U.S. war with Iran is imminent.

The dangerous combination of top U.S. officials’ public threats, the Pentagon’s massive military deployment, continued drone flights and industrial sabotage against Iran provides an ominous warning. The corporate media have been more than willing to cheer industrial sabotage, computer viruses and targeted assassinations. War maneuvers with Israel scheduled for mid-January were suddenly postponed Jan. 15 until May or later.

The U.S. Congress overwhelmingly voted to include binding provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act, and President Obama signed the legislation Dec. 31 ordering Iran’s economic strangulation. These NDAA provisions demand that every other country in the world joins this economic blockade of Iran or face U.S. sanctions themselves. This itself is an act of war.

Iran has directly charged the CIA for the Jan. 11 assassination of physicist Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, which has outraged Iranians. Roshan is the fourth scientist killed in five targeted assassination in two years.

Whether or not a war will actually erupt, it is essential to look at the powerful forces that lay the groundwork for such a conflagration.

A U.S. war would kill hundreds of thousands of Iranians and create regionwide destabilization. It would cause a wild, speculative hike in oil and gas prices, devastating fragile economies of the poorest countries and unhinging the increasingly shaky eurozone.

Revolutionary Marxists like Fidel Castro, political leaders in China and Russia, and even a hardened Israeli general have joined many political commentators to warn that a U.S. or U.S.-supported Israeli attack on Iran could quickly become a far wider war.

While defending its sovereign right to develop energy self-sufficiency, Tehran has made every effort to deflect U.S. threats and charges. Iran has submitted to years of intrusive inspections of its research and industrial facilities to confirm its compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

But Washington insists on stopping Iran’s development — and not only its nuclear energy development to assure its future as oil production declines. For decades Iran was forced to import refined oil. Washington has tried to stop Iran from importing parts to build oil refineries, as it has tried to stop all Iran’s development since the 1979 revolution.

The myth of stimulus from war

David Broder, Washington Post political correspondent for 40 years and news show pundit, described in an Oct. 31, 2010, article how Obama could deal with his weakened situation when the Republicans swept Congress. He argued that to fix the economy and regain popularity, the solution is obvious and unavoidable: “War with Iran.”

Broder had more than 400 appearances on “Meet the Press.” He even won a Pulitzer Prize. Broder could be counted on to reflect political thinking and planning in Washington. Only the war machine can pull the U.S. out of economic stagnation, Broder argued.

“Look back at FDR and the Great Depression,” wrote Broder. “What finally resolved that economic crisis? World War II. [A showdown with the mullahs] will help [Obama] politically because the opposition party will be urging him on. And as tensions rise and we accelerate preparations for war, the economy will improve.”

Upon Broder’s death in March, Obama called him “the most respected and incisive political commentator of his generation.” (New York Times, March 9)

Broder’s statement shows an absolutely criminal mindset. It also shows a dangerous illusion. Broder calmly proposed the murder of tens of thousands of people, the devastation of entire cities, the destruction of a whole culture as a temporary economic fix to win a U.S. election.

Others commentators just as coldly argued with Broder that war with Iran would not be large enough, because all the weapons needed already exist and are in place. So no surge of military orders would follow. A larger war would be needed to give a big enough push!

In 1939 reviving shuttered U.S. steel, rubber and textile clothing plants with government orders for tanks, ships, jeeps, helmets, uniforms and life vests for sale to Europe was a big stimulus. The entry of the U.S. into World War II in 1941 provided an enormous surge of productive capacity that pulled the U.S. economy out of a 10-year economic depression. What worked as an economic stimulus 70 years ago, before the existence of the gargantuan, bloated, high-tech military-industrial complex, is long past.

Today the U.S. has a military machine and a military budget larger than that of the rest of the world combined, exceeding $1 trillion a year in stated and hidden costs, even without another war. It is guaranteed to grow at a rate of 5 percent to 10 percent a year. This is built into the Pentagon’s budget projections even without cost overruns.

World won’t bow to U.S. dictates

Washington’s plans to easily conquer Afghanistan and Iraq and set up stable puppet regimes were frustrated. The U.S. plan for economic war on Iran has also exposed U.S. weaknesses.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner launched a tour of East Asian nations in early January to convince south Korea, China, India and Japan to cut their massive Iranian oil imports and abide by the sanctions.

China and India — both major economies — refused directly. China buys a third of Iran’s oil exports.

The Obama administration said that the U.S. would offer countries that applied for a temporary waiver to continue oil purchases from Iran while they made other arrangements. An Indian cabinet minister said India will continue to do business with Iran. South Korea said it would apply for a U.S. waiver because it planned to increase oil purchases from Iran.

Japanese officials, when meeting with Geithner, seemed to agree. But after his departure Foreign Minister Koichiro Gemba backtracked, saying, “The United States would like to impose sanctions. We believe it is necessary to be extremely circumspect about this matter.” (AFP, Jan. 13)

Russia announced its refusal to comply with sanctions. So did NATO member Turkey. The European Union insisted on a six-month delay, due to fears of the economic consequences to debt-ridden Italy, Spain and Greece. The Greek government said it needs at least a year.

Saudi Arabia’s crude oil contains more sulfur than lighter Iranian oil and requires substantially higher refining costs. In a time of global capitalist recession, this added cost is no easy sell.

Even outright U.S. collaborators are refusing Washington’s demands. Pakistan, for example, refused to abandon a pipeline to transport Iranian natural gas into Pakistan and in the future even into India.

All of this would be good news. But the danger is that U.S. corporate power, seeing on every side its declining ability to ram through its dictates, is increasingly driven to military solutions.

This is exacerbated by U.S. setbacks in Iraq and Afghanistan that have weakened the U.S. superpower’s dominance of Southwest Asia relative to Iran. The more the U.S. loses its grip on the region, the more desperate imperialism may become to risk all in a mad adventure to recoup its past position.

Every voice must be raised at this urgent hour against sanctions and war.

Deirdre Griswold: The Death of Kim Jong Il and Solidarity with People's Korea

Workers World Editorial: They Hate Truth

From: Workers World

Published Dec 23, 2011 8:26 PM

They — the Pentagon, the administration, the U.S. ruling class — fear and hate the truth. How else can you explain their passion for persecuting Pvt. Bradley Manning, who has already spent 570-plus days of his 24 years in military prisons, most of them isolated from any contact with his many friends and supporters, and most of that time in isolation that amounts to torture.

For six days in mid-December, Manning has been in an Article 32 hearing that will determine if he is to stand trial. He is accused of telling the truth, specifically of releasing the truth to the public. This particular truth includes the exposure of U.S. helicopters killing Iraqi civilians, reporters even, seen dramatically in a video made from a U.S. helicopter. This incident was one tiny part of the unspeakable war crimes the Bush administration, the Pentagon, indeed, the entire U.S. ruling class — what today we call the 1% — unleashed upon the Iraqi people.

During the hearing, Vietnam ­anti-war whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg was expelled for getting too close to Manning, and Iraq anti-war ­ex-lieutenant Dan Choi was wrestled to the ground. That’s further proof the Pentagon hates those who bear the truth.

In this case the truth is that the Pentagon, which has imprisoned Manning and is trying to put him on trial, is the real criminal — the war criminal. With the full backing of the U.S. ruling class, it has waged wars of aggression in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya based on lies intended to deceive the people, lies that the massive imperialist propaganda machinery — as powerful and well-financed as the Pentagon itself — has spread, repeated and spread again.

The government has up to now proven nothing against Manning. It has essentially tortured this courageous private. If he really did what they accuse him of, then he is a 21st-century cyber-hero, who has dug out the truth and offered it to the world. Now we must make the best use of it.

Free Bradley Manning!

Put the generals on trial!

NDAA Means War on Bill of Rights

By Sara Flounders
Published Dec 23, 2011 8:47 PM

Dangerous provisions inserted into the National Defense Authorization Act for 2012 (NDAA-2012) have created great alarm among civil liberties organizations, Muslim organizations, groups that defend anti-war activists and many activists of the Occupy Wall Street movement who have recently been targeted across the country.

The wording in the defense bill has created alarm because it is in explicit violation of basic rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights and long considered untouchable, even in a time of rapidly growing political repression.

This article will examine the NDAA, investigate its relation to U.S. military expansion, look at the history of the Bill of Rights, and see how this can help point the way forward toward expanding rights and defeating repression.

What’s in the NDAA?

The controversial provisions in the NDAA grant the U.S. military authority to hold in secret and indefinite detention people deemed a threat to national security without recourse to counsel or a lawyer and without charges presented in a court of law or the right to a trial. Such police-state tactics have already been used against thousands of Muslim immigrants in the U.S. and around the world as part of the so-called “war on terror” since Sept. 11, 2001.

Across the U.S., press conferences, rallies and petition campaigns were quickly organized by a whole series of organizations on Dec 15. Ironically, passage of NDAA by a final conference committee representing both houses of Congress coincided with the 220th anniversary of the passage of the Bill of Rights on Dec. 15, 1791.

The bill’s provisions are an explicit violation of what is known as “habeus corpus,” the guarantee of the right to a hearing before a judge. They also violate the guarantee that the U.S. military will be kept out of all internal domestic areas. This is called “posse comitatus,” meaning the U.S. military cannot act on U.S. soil against U.S. citizens.

A statement released by the United National Anti-War Coalition sighted recent ominous national trends, including massive spying, entrapment and phony plots in the Muslim community, recent raids on homes of anti-war activists by federal agents and subpoenas to appear before federal grand juries, and the nationally coordinated, often violent police evictions of the Occupy movement around the country.

The statement also protested the refusal of the Chicago city government and the federal government to allow for peaceful protests when NATO and the G-8 countries come to Chicago in mid-May 2012 to hold summit meetings.

The Center for Constitutional Rights, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Coalition for the Protection of Civil Freedoms, the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, the International Action Center, the National Coalition to Stop FBI Repression, Occupy Wall Street, Muslim Peace Coalition and many other groups released statements and participated in organized protests and internet petition campaigns calling on President Barack Obama to veto the bill. This unified response is an essential first step in what is needed.

A veto is unlikely because the Obama administration requested the inclusion of this provision in the military budget bill, and has been actively involved in efforts to further restrict basic rights.

Unfortunately, many courageous civil rights organizations in attacking these reactionary provisions have made no mention or criticism of the NDAA itself. But highlighting this vital connection will help provide a perspective on how to fight back.

Military breeds repression

It is no accident that this assault on basic political rights long considered beyond the reach of government attack is part of the bill that funds the giant military machine. The military is the nut of the problem. This new unprecedented attack on civil rights at home cannot be seen in isolation to the ever-expanding role of the U.S. military on a global scale.

The NDAA is the annual bill that funds the bloated military. The U.S. military budget is already larger than the combined miltary budget of the rest of the world. The 2012 bill authorizes $554 billion for the Pentagon’s base budget and $115.5 billion for continuing the current wars and occupations. This appropriations bill funds 1,000 U.S. military bases in more than 150 countries around the world.

Other hundreds of billions of military expenditures hidden in the U.S. budget bring the war machine’s total cost to more than $1 trillion. This year’s NDAA further extends restrictions on the transfer of detainees out of Guantanamo, and it contains new threats and stricter sanctions on Iran.

The demonization and criminalization, spying and entrapment of the Muslim community, especially since Sept. 11, 2001, has been used to justify aggressive new wars of conquest and expanding military influence. Increasing the budget for police and prisons is the domestic reflection of the growing weight of the military.

The U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq represents a significant setback for U.S. strategic plans. But as this NDAA confirms, the U.S. military is hardly closing down. U.S. wars and the threat of military action across the globe, invasions, subversion, sabotage, increasing drone surveillance, deadly surprise assaults, kidnapping, secret rendition and targeted assassinations are all treated as acts of defense and national security.

The Pentagon serves the interests of the corporate ruling class. It secures global markets, loots natural resources and subjugates the workers of each country to the capitalist owners of all production. Its mission is to destroy any opposition to this domination from governments and popular rebellions.

The bill signals that no concessions are on the drawing boards, only further repression.

Bill of Rights & class struggle

Many appeals to President Obama to veto this defense bill because of the new repressive provisions have glorified and idealized what the Bill of Rights is, what it stands for and how rights are secured and maintained.

The Bill of Rights was never a sacred document of grand wisdom arrived at by the “founding fathers,” as presented in popular myth and school history books. Nor was it just an academic debate between federalists and anti-federalists.

The Bill of Rights was from the very beginning a reflection of the early class struggle in the U.S. It was not part of the original Constitution drafted in 1787. That document was designed to protect the propertied classes, balance their competing interests and centralize the authority of the state.

These ruling-class elements were meeting in haste after a broad uprising in 1786 throughout New England of indebted small farmers against bankers and merchants known as Shay’s Rebellion.

When the Constitution was originally drafted, any proposal to include any individual rights was overwhelmingly voted down. Land seizures, food riots, debt protests and enormous social ferment made it clear that a Constitution written by slave owners, merchants and land speculators would not pass without some rights guaranteed to significant section of the masses.

This was especially true because the masses were armed and in motion. The top 1% of 1787 — slave owners, plantation owners, wealthy merchants — made this belated and grudging concession after four years of intense political struggle in many of the newly minted states. They gave in because they were anxious to quickly organize a centralized federal state to deal with the growing assertion of grievances and rights by poor farmers facing ruin.

The first 10 amendments to the Constitution are called the Bill of Rights. They include freedom of speech, assembly, press, religion; freedom from torture or cruel and unusual punishment; freedom from warrant-less searches, excessive bail, seizures or imprisonment; plus the right to trial by jury and protection from a standing army. From the beginning they were a contradiction to the Constitution that protected property.

Despite its progressive side, it is important to recognize that the Bill of Rights did not mean rights for all people. Most people in the South were kidnapped African slaves who could be bought, sold, branded, beaten or killed without any protection. Indigenous peoples were targeted for expropriation, removal or extermination. Women were considered the property of their husbands and were granted no rights or protections. Thus the amendments guaranteed rights to a small minority of white men who owned property and were the only ones allowed to vote or assured of having rights.

Every step forward in rights took enormous and often bloody struggles. The struggle for the abolition of slavery only began to be resolved by the Civil War. And 100 years later the monumental Civil Rights Movement struggled for decades for the right to vote and win formal equality.

Even when the rights to freedom of assembly, speech and trial by jury were assured, they did not exist for working people. It took strikes, shut-downs, plant takeovers to win the right to unionize. It took 80 years of marches and mobilizations for women to even gain the right to participate in political life.

It is important to remember this history of struggle to expand rights in order to understand how to push this fight forward today.

OWS & fighting to expand rights

Defending the right to freedom of speech, assembly and the press is important in the class struggle today — in order to have a voice to fight for the right to a job, the right to health care, the right to an education, the right to housing, the right to a safe and clean environment, and the right to oppose endless wars. Given the fabulous ability of technology to provide for all, these basic rights to a full life must be asserted, demanded and won.

But given the crisis of capitalism, all these basic human rights run counter to corporate survival.

Occupy Wall Street’s great contribution in this period of contracting capitalism is its focus on the 1% who have benefited from all government bailouts and policies at the expense of the 99%. This popular formulation is a leap forward in class-consciousness on a national scale. Occupy Wall Street has also found creative new forms of mass participation and inclusion. Though imperfect, they are a big step forward.

For these very reasons, the large legal and overwhelmingly peaceful protest assemblies that erupted across the country were threatening to U.S. corporate power, the police and the military, who want only fear and compliance and are driven to shut down all forms of activism.

On a national scale through the Department of Homeland Security, every major OWS encampment was targeted with mass arrests. HS coordinated local police attacks. Even Democratic Party forces, which had originally embraced OWS as an antidote to the Tea Party, complied with police crack-downs.

But the past three months of mass struggles since Sept. 17 confirm once again that the best way to push back reactionary provisions in the NDAA is to raise the level of resistance. Defend the courageous young OWS activists who have opened new political space, build solidarity with the Muslim community against the broad-scale attacks, and challenge racist police practices of stop and frisk. Unity, solidarity and resistance point the way forward.

Workers World Statement: Imperialists Murder Gadhafi

Published Oct 21, 2011 12:36 PM

From: Workers World
News spread around the world on Oct. 20-21 that NATO planes had struck a car caravan leaving Sirte in Libya, wounding Moammar Gadhafi, and that the Libyan leader was captured alive and subsequently killed. The details of his death are sketchy and may be purposely distorted or obscured by his killers. This main fact stands out: It took the intervention of the imperialist air forces — including a U.S. Predator drone and a French warplane — to end the life of this African leader.

Thus the assassination of Gadhafi was like the rest of the so-called uprising in Libya: a complete creation of the imperialist powers in NATO. As we have stated in this column before, the “rebels” — the Transitional National Council leaders, the monarchists from Benghasi and whatever other forces joined the rag-tag anti-government crusade in Libya — could not have won one battle without the air power, reconnaissance, logistics, funding, planning and direct intervention of NATO.

That means that especially France, Britain and Italy, with full U.S. logistical support, carried out a war — using meager Libyan puppet forces — in an attempt to recolonize Libya, just as these imperialists have attempted to recolonize Iraq and Afghanistan. As of yet none of these attempts have completely succeeded in subjugating the people, who are still resisting heroically in each location. True, the imperialists have brought misery wherever they sunk their claws, but nowhere is their rule secure.

Those who deceived themselves into believing this was an honest popular uprising in Libya — like those in neighboring Egypt or Tunisia — have to feel humiliated listening to the triumphant speeches today of NATO heads of government Nicolas Sarkozy, David Cameron, Silvio Berlusconi and Barack Obama. The words of the imperialist leaders ranting against the Gadhafi they murdered is proof enough that the Libyan leader died trying to fight for his oil-rich country’s independence from these very same predatory world powers.

The even more important lesson, however, is that the imperialist states and their leaders have no compunction about using force, breaking international laws and simply carrying out murders of government leaders. They are war criminals. They deserve no respect. They deserve instead to be put on trial.

In the past weeks hundreds of thousands of young people have been occupying the squares or demonstrating in the main cities of the countries headed by these imperialists. This latest murder should strengthen their determination to rid the world of the capitalist system, which not only robs them of their future at home but brings pain and misery to much of humanity.

Long live the struggle to liberate Libya, and the world, from imperialism and the banks and corporations that own it!

WW Editorial: The Vetoes This Time!

Published Oct 17, 2011 8:23 PM

From: Workers World

While demonstrations against austerity were going on in so many places, an unusual thing happened at the United Nations on Oct. 4. Both Russia and China cast vetoes against a resolution introduced by the governments of four European imperialist countries — Britain, France, Germany and Portugal — that would have opened the door to economic sanctions on Syria.

Only nine of the 15 members of the Security Council voted for the measure. Brazil, India, South Africa and Lebanon all abstained. The U.S. was the main force behind the resolution but did not formally sponsor it for fear that would stiffen opposition to the measure. Nevertheless, this effort to justify sanctions on Syria became “a diplomatic failure for the West,” in the words of the New York Times. (Oct. 5)

Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., said she was “outraged” over the vetoes.

Back in the day when there was a Soviet Union, vetoes by both sides were much more common. Since then, however, it has been the U.S. that has exercised its veto most frequently — voting five times since 2004 against Security Council resolutions that mildly criticized Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians, for example.

The U.S., Britain and France hold the record for double and even triple vetoes, according to Professor Stephen Zunes of the University of San Francisco. Zunes says there have been 23 double vetoes by the U.S. and Britain and 13 triple vetoes by the U.S., Britain and France, all imperialist countries with huge economic interests in Africa. Most of these vetoes, he pointed out, were in regard to sanctions and related matters involving South Africa, Namibia or Rhodesia in the 1970s and 1980s. (IPS, Oct. 5) The imperialist vetoes were an attempt to deny support for the national liberation struggles in these horribly repressive colonial settler-states.

So Rice’s “outrage” over this double veto by Russia and China is hypocritical, to say the least.

The U.S. ruling class is once again using the issue of “human rights” as a cover for its schemes for regime change in the oil-rich Middle East and North Africa.

Just last March, Washington was able to get a resolution through the Security Council that supposedly was to save lives in Libya. U.S. Ambassador Rice said creating “no-fly zones” over that country was to “protect Libyan civilians.”

The countries that vetoed the current resolution on Syria had only abstained on that vote, which allowed it to pass. That resolution was then used as justification by the U.S. and NATO to launch a full-scale air war against the Libyan government, freeze billions of dollars of its assets, and lavish money on the mercenary army that they call the “rebels.”

After nine months of devastating aerial bombardment to assist their mercenaries’ ground offensives, NATO still has not been able to overcome the Libyan people’s resistance.

In casting their vetoes this time, both China and Russia, determined not to repeat their earlier mistake, referred to how the vote on Libya had been used as justification for war.

What does all this mean for the Syrian people?

The Secretary General of the National Committee for the Unity of Syrian Communists, Qadri Jamil, led a delegation of Syrian progressives to Moscow on Oct. 10 to thank Russia for its veto preventing foreign interference in Syrian affairs.

Jamil said, “Noninterference opens the road for peaceful ways of resolving the crisis and carrying out reforms by Syrian means and gives the people’s movement an opportunity to get what they want.” (Ria Novosti, Oct. 6)

Also in the delegation was Ali Haidar, leader of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party. “A lot has been said about Syria, but it does not reflect the real situation. We operate in all provinces of our country and we know what is going on there,” he said. He denied that the double veto of the U.N. resolution helped the regime of President Bashar al-Assad. “The veto of the Security Council resolution is a shield for the people’s movement,” Haidar said.

Whatever influence these groups may have in Syria, this is a far superior position to that taken 10 years ago by the Iraqi Communist Party when the U.S. threatened invasion. That party failed to oppose the imperialist intervention that overthrew Saddam Hussein, only to impose a neocolonial regime on that country.

The "Iran Plot" - Psywar for a New U.S. Aggression?

Published Oct 13, 2011 8:45 PM

From: Workers World

Washington’s slanderous campaign against Iran for an alleged assassination plot lacks evidence and fails every test of logic. Many people have raised questions as to its truth. But there’s an even more important question to ask: Why is the U.S. government desperate to use an unbelievable pretext to begin a campaign of sanctions and possible war against Iran?

Remember that U.S. imperialism has been openly hunting and killing its alleged enemies around the world, breaking international laws to do so. It uses drone airplanes to fire rockets at cars and houses. It kills admittedly innocent people along with those it calls “terrorists.”

These, and not any unproven and illogical charges against Tehran, are the real crimes against international law.

The U.S. government, with or without its NATO allies, has also in the past 13 years unleashed four wars against sovereign countries: Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. Its troops still occupy the first three countries. In each case, for each country, there was a lie. A phony "massacre." In Iraq, the phantom "weapons of mass destruction.” This is accompanied by coordinated demonization of the leaders. And then the brutal bombing campaign begins, and an invasion.

The Pentagon and/or CIA also carry out drone attacks against targets in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. They kill nationals of those countries and, in a recent case, even a U.S. citizen. All this is supposedly justified by nothing but the government’s own statements based on reports from the same CIA and military intelligence organizations.

The charges of an Iranian-inspired assassination plot against a Saudi diplomat -- which Tehran emphatically denies -- come from this same U.S. rogue government, which makes military strikes and invasions all over the globe and regularly lies to justify its aggression.

So we repeat: The real question is why is the U.S. government now raising a campaign against Iran? Why is this happening soon after the Iranian government made a conciliatory move by releasing two U.S. citizens supposed to be just hikers?

Does someone in the U.S. establishment want to keep the confrontation with Iran burning? Is it even possible that the U.S. regime is preparing for yet another aggressive war?

For those in the U.S. who struggle against war, as well as those now fighting for jobs in the occupations from Wall Street to the main plazas of U.S. cities large and small, it is important to see these unfounded charges against Iran for what they are: an attempt by a totally discredited U.S. government to find a new scapegoat. There is no reason that an accusation from this government should be accepted as having any resemblance to the truth.

Stay alert. Be ready to struggle against another aggression. And stay in the streets against Wall Street and Washington.

An Anti-Imperialist, Marxist Perspective: Why U.S. Wants Regime Change in Syria

Published Oct 14, 2011 10:59 PM

Following are excerpts from a talk given by Joyce Chediac at a Workers World Party forum in Detroit on Oct. 1.

The U.S. government claims it supports the huge social explosion rocking the Arab world and northern Africa. A closer look shows that it is trying to take advantage of these struggles to consolidate its stranglehold there.

U.S. “support” of movements opposed to Arab governments is selective. The government of Ali Abdullah Saleh in Yemen killed 100 people last week. It was a massacre, but no U.S. administration official called Saleh “a monster murdering his own people.” There was no move in the United Nations for a no-fly zone. In fact, U.S. drones regularly bomb Yemen, a U.S. client regime located on strategic waterways. Instead, in his U.N. speech on Sept. 21 Obama made the mildest of comments and called for “seeking a path that allows for a peaceful transition” in Yemen.

The White House, Congress and the Pentagon are going after the few Arab governments with some independence from imperialism: Libya, and now Syria.

In Syria there is a great deal at stake for the workers and rural poor as there is throughout the Middle East. Syria is in a strategic anti-imperialist and anti-Zionist alliance with Iran, with Hezbollah in Lebanon, and with Hamas in Gaza. This alliance is crucial in holding back the predatory Zionist state [of Israel] from taking over the whole area. Washington would like to break up this alliance and move against them all.

Yet some progressives in the Middle East are opposed to the Syrian government, much as some were opposed to Gadhafi. Why is this so?

Marxist political perspective needed

Governments like those in Syria are called “bourgeois nationalist” by Marxists. They are nationalist because they seek to develop their countries free from imperialist domination. They are bourgeois because they are ruled by an exploiting class — capitalists. Marxists support these governments against imperialism because they are manifestations of self-determination of the oppressed. This does not mean that Marxists support every policy of these governments.

Marxists also recognize that these regimes have a dual character. They are bourgeois nationalist because they seek to push out the imperialists so they can better exploit their workers. But they have common interest with their workers when imperialism threatens the country’s sovereignty. These governments cannot consistently fight imperialism, as the working class can.

For example, Syria is a “front line state” with a border with Israel. This fact affects every aspect of Syria’s history, has made it an object of constant imperialist and Zionist pressure, and links the fate of the Syrian people to the Palestinian struggle.

Syria’s nationalization of a U.S. oil pipeline precipitated the 1967 war, with Israel attacking and occupying Syria’s Golan Heights, the Palestinian West Bank and Gaza Strip, and Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula. The Golan Heights has since been annexed by Israel.

While Syria plays a regionally progressive role right now, this was not always the case. In 1976, the Syrian government intervened in Lebanon’s civil war on the side of Lebanon’s fascists, who were armed by Israel, against a revolutionary Palestinian-Lebanese alliance. The Syrian capitalists feared that a revolutionary Lebanon might lead to their overthrow by Syrians dominated by the Arab Socialist Baath Party. The current head of state in Syria is Bashir Assad.

Relentless pressure from the U.S. and Israel, and Israel’s refusal to return the Golan Heights, has Syria’s rulers back towards an anti-imperialist stance.

Syria, like other bourgeois nationalist governments, has neither broken with the capitalist world market, nor has the perspective to do so. Instead, it seeks a better deal in this market, which is completely dominated by Western banks.

During economic downturns, nationalist governments like Syria are forced by Wall Street to make economic concessions which attack the workers and establish a pro-imperialist elite, a comprador bourgeoisie, which undermines the government’s independence from imperialism and isolates it from the workers.

In 2006, Syria adopted an International Monetary Fund plan calling for austerity measures, a wage freeze, opening the economy to foreign banks, and privatizing government-run industries. For workers this has meant unemployment, inflation and deterioration in social conditions. These policies have benefited a group of elite businessmen close to the Assad family.

Nature of imperialist intervention

“The Syrian state once brought electricity to every town, but … can no longer afford the social contract of taking care of people’s needs.” (New York Times, April 30) The social contract among religious minorities has been “We will protect you but stay out of politics.” The government apparatus has been run by the same family, the Assad family, for 40 years. Those who disagreed suffered repression.

Many Syrians are fed up with the Assad government, and for good reason. But imperialism has not imposed sanctions on Syria because the government there has impoverished the workers and because few have a voice in the government.

U.S. imperialism hates Syria for hosting leaders of the Palestinian resistance; for refusing to give up its claims to the Golan Heights; for refusing to sign a peace treaty with Israel; for refusing to end its relationship with Hezbollah, the Lebanese resistance movement and with Iran; and for refusing to be part of the attack on Iraq in 2003.

In short, imperialism is sanctioning the Syrian government and increasing pressure on it not for the bad things it has done, but for the good things.

Imperialism is a thoroughly reactionary and oppressive system. When the imperialists come to “help,” it is to help themselves. Imperialist intervention is always meant to benefit the imperialists, whose interests are diametrically opposed to those of workers.

Just look at what NATO’s “help” for the people of Libya has meant: The destruction of the civilian infrastructure and economy; cancer-causing radioactive residue from depleted uranium weapons; and using Libya to get its predatory Africom military command on African soil.

A U.S. and NATO intervention in Syria would be the worst thing for all the oppres­sed people in the Middle East and must be vehemently opposed. A win for imperialism abroad emboldens the capitalists in their attacks on workers at home.

Skulls & Hypocrisy - German Imperialism in Africa

By G. Dunkel
Published Oct 14, 2011 10:17 PM

As a gesture of “reconciliation,” the German imperialist government sent 20 skulls back to Namibia in early October. They had been removed from the bodies of Herero and Nama warriors killed by German soldiers who were occupying their country — then called South West Africa by Europeans — in the early 20th century.

The skulls had been taken to Germany more than a hundred years ago for racist experiments.

When the Herero people rose up in anger over these beheadings and attacks on their herds and lands, the German army began a campaign of genocide against them. In three years, 90,000 people were reduced to 15,000, who were then driven into the Namib desert. The German army even poisoned the water holes and wells, using a tactic that went back to the Middle Ages when Jews were accused and persecuted for something that Germans had done.

Gen. Lothar von Trotha, speaking as the Great General of the German Kaiser, issued his infamous Extermination Order on Oct. 2, 1904: “The Herero people must however leave the land. If the people do not do this I will force them with cannon. Within German borders every Herero, armed or not, with or without cattle, will be shot. I will no longer accept women and children, I will drive them back to their people or I will shoot them. These are my words to the Herero people.”

While the Namibian people welcomed the return of their ancestors’ bones, they were angered by the refusal of Germany, which has paid substantial reparations to the racist, Zionist state of Israel, to pay reparations to Namibia.

The kind of genocide unleashed in the 1940s against the Jews and Romani in Europe had its beginning 40 years earlier in Africa.

White farmers, descendants of German settlers who still speak German, and some racist white Boers from South Africa still farm the land seized from the Hereros more than a hundred years ago.

University professor Hoze Riruako, a senior adviser to the paramount chief of the Herero, warned that their patience was running out.

“If something is not done, we cannot guarantee that you will not see the same kind of land grabs that you see in Zimbabwe,” he said. (Associated Press, Oct. 4)

Namibian President Hifikepunye Pohamba decried the colonial-era abuses, but did not mention reparations when he addressed 1,000 people gathered at the Heroes’ Acre shrine outside Windhoek, the capital.

“German imperial troops committed horrendous atrocities” against Namibians, he said. (AFP, Oct. 4)

“Through their unselfish sacrifices, our ancestors laid a strong foundation for the modern liberation struggle,” leading to independence from South Africa in 1990.

“Their spirits were never broken and while their mortal remains were removed from Namibia amidst the ruins of war, they returned now to an independent, peaceful and stable Namibia.”

Namibia is a potentially very prosperous country but with an extremely high degree of economic inequality inherited from its colonial past. For Germany to pretend to strive for reconciliation without reparations is nothing more than a hypocritical attempt to hide its racist past in Africa.

Target Syria

By Ghali Hassan

07 September, 2011

Counter Currents

The United States is watching the violence in Syria "with horror”, said White House Press Secretary, Jay Carney recently. The “horror”, of course, is the result of ongoing U.S. interference in Syria's internal affairs aimed at destabilising Syria.

The U.S.-sponsored armed insurrection in Syria is a carbon copy of the U.S.-sponsored armed insurrection in Libya. It is designed to remove a nationalist government and replaced it with a puppet regime subservient to U.S.-Israel dictates, willing to serve U.S.-Israel Zionist interests. The imposition of sanctions by the U.S. and the European Union (EU) against Syria is part of a concerted propaganda campaign to demonise President Bashar al-Assad and his government.

Like Libya, Syria is not a U.S.-controlled client state and therefore Syria is subjected to U.S.-Western destabilisation policy. The Syrian Government is a nationalist government led by the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party. Syria remains one of only a few independent Arab nations that have no “peace” treaty with, and have refused to recognise, the fascist state of Israel.

While the Syrian Government has somehow succumbed to U.S.-Western threats in recent time, for decades, the Syrian Government has supported legitimate Palestinian causes and stood against U.S.-Israel Zionist expansion in Palestine and in Lebanon. Syria is a frontline country (bordering Israel) that lies strategically between Iraq and Israel, making it a prime candidate for U.S.-Israel destabilisation policy. A “regime change” in Syria will see the U.S. and Israel in total control of the Middle East through a network of despotic and weak rulers. Palestinians will lose their only support and Iran's relation in the region will be curtailed.

It is time for al-Assad to “get out of the way”, said U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in flagrant violation of Syria sovereignty. Her message is aimed at the pro-U.S. despotic regimes, including Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait, to toe the U.S. line of isolating Syria. As always, the Saudis led the pack and recalled their ambassador in Damascus and allowed leaders of the insurrection access to their media outlets.

On September 2nd, Hillary Clinton urged other governments (U.S. allies) to impose more sanctions against Syria to force President al-Assad to leave power. “The violence must stop, and [President al-Assad] needs to step aside”.

“Just as we have done in Libya, we are also encouraging the Syrian opposition to set forth their own roadmap for a tolerant, inclusive, and democratic path forward, one that can bring together all Syrians, Christians, and [Muslims]“. You wonder how American politicians get away with this kind of hypocrisy.

“U.S. imperialism and all the old regimes tied to it in the region are trying desperately to manage and contain the unfolding mass upheaval into channels that do not threaten imperialist domination of the region”, writes Sara Flounders of International Action Centre .

With the mainstream capitalist media in full swing distorting facts on the ground and demonising the Syrian Government, the prelude to war on Syria has already begun. In fact, none of the war crimes against Libya by U.S.-NATO army would have been possible without the one that preceded them; “crimes against peace”, fabricated and disseminated by propaganda organs like the BBC, Al-Jazeera, CNN and racist journalists and propagandists.

Libya as a Template

The pretext of “humanitarian” intervention with deadly bombs and missiles to “protect civilians” and justify U.S.-NATO military aggression against Libya has been exposed as an ugly lie. [1]. Thousands of innocent Libyan civilians were murdered by U.S.-NATO aerial bombings, missiles and U.S.-NATO-backed armed gangs.

Only fools buy into Western propaganda of “concern” for the human rights of dark-skinned people in Libya and elsewhere. If that were the motivation, American politicians and their Western allies would be at war with themselves for what they are doing to innocent civilians in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine. They are guilty of war crimes and should be put on trial. Moreover, where was U.S.-NATO army in 2009 when Israeli criminals killed more than 1,400 defenceless Palestinians, most of them women and children in the besieged Gaza Camp? They armed Israel to commit crimes.

Both, the U.S-NATO military aggression against Libya and the ongoing interference in Syrian affairs is part of an established propaganda campaign to manipulate the public and more importantly provides a diversion away from the deepening economic and social crises in the U.S. and Europe.

As we all know, in March 2011 the U.S. and its allies imposed sanctions against Libya, depriving Libyans of adequate supplies of food, water and medicines. Immediately after, the U.S.-NATO army began a campaign of terrorising the Libyan population using massive air power. In addition, U.S.-NATO military leaders continue to guide and provide air cover to the armed gangs (“rebels”) to create chaos and mayhem across Libya.

Curtis Doebbler, a renowned international human rights lawyer explains: “This was accomplished by the spurious actions of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, who issued special passes to the former Libyan diplomats after their government had withdrawn their credentials. Bypassing the UN General Assembly's Credentials Committee and well-established protocol, the UN secretary-general for the first time in the world body's history personally favoured one side in what was by now a civil war.

“The secretary-general apparently in pocket, the Libyan government's voice silenced, the UN could move to vote on a series of resolutions that would finally result in the authorisation of the West to use force against Libya.”[2].

The ‘United” Nations (UN), the “International Criminal Court” (ICC) and the mainstream media, including the outrageous Al-Jazeera , DemocracyNow and several Internet propaganda organs such as ZNet Communication and the fascist Juan Cole's “Informed Comment” did their best to justify U.S.-NATO military aggression and cover-up the most barbaric crimes, even by Nazis' standards, against an entirely defenceless small nation of six million people. A peaceful and tolerant nation with the highest score on the UN's Human Development Index (HDI) of all African countries has been deliberately destroyed in a barbaric fashion. The mainstream media and war propagandists are guilty of war crimes.

In an extremely rare departure from its usual anti-Arabs and pro-U.S. propaganda, the Guardian of London comments:

“If stopping the killing had been the real aim, NATO states would have backed a ceasefire and a negotiated settlement, rather than repeatedly vetoing both. Instead, after having lost serious strategic ground in the Arab revolutions, the Libyan war offered the US, Britain and France a chance to put themselves at the heart of the process while bringing to heel an unreliable state with the largest oil reserves in Africa”. (Seamus Milne, the Guardian , 24 August 2011).

Colonel Muammar al-Qadhafi was willing to negotiate a peaceful solution, but after more than four decades of dealing with al-Qadhafi, U.S.-NATO leaders rejected any peaceful negotiation. The control of Libya was the goal and peace did not meet that goal.

The overwhelming majority of the Libyan population are against the violence unleashed by the armed gangs and NATO bombings which is the only thing that sustains the gangs' violence. U.S.-NATO bombings of Libya “are in derogation of international law, actions that are criminal in terms of their consequences: the killings of children, the killing of people in their own homes, and this has been well documented”, said Michel Chossudovsky of Global Research in Montréal. Colonel al-Qadhafi enjoys 70 per cent of popular support across Libya.

In Libya, unlike in Tunisia, Egypt and Bahrain, there are no popular peaceful uprisings; it is a Western-backed armed insurrection. The so-called Transitional National Council (TNC), the Western-backed “Libyan rebels”, is a collection of expatriate criminals, C.I.A. operatives (“al-Qaeda”), xenophobic and racist hoodlums, and religious extremists. They are not peaceful ordinary Libyans struggling for democracy and human rights. They are U.S.-NATO ground forces.

According to the Guardian (25 August 2011):

“British and French special forces along with special forces from Qatar and some eastern European states are on the ground in eastern Libya, calling in air strikes and helping co-ordinate [armed gang] units as they prepare to assault Sirte, the last coastal town still in the hands of pro-Muammar Gaddafi forces”.

The armed gangs were financed, trained and armed by the U.S. and U.S. allies. Once they succeed, the U.S. will use the gangs as a façade of “democratic” government to control the country. There is hard evidence of mass killings of non-combatants, detainees and the wounded by the U.S.-NATO backed armed gangs.

For six months Libya was subjected to a barbaric U.S.-NATO military siege. U.S.-NATO aggression has been responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity. According to NATO's own record, over 21,000 air missions have been flown over Libya, including 8,000 combat sorties by U.S.-NATO warplanes destroying hospital, schools, homes, water supply and communication. Thousands of innocent civilians have been killed. The country's civilian's infrastructure, including hospitals, schools, water supply plants and roads have been destroyed and ruined. On 09 August 2011, a criminal attack by the U.S.-NATO army killed 85 innocent Libyan civilians, including 33 children, 32 women and 20 men.

As the attacks on the Libyan capital Tripoli – with a population of 2 million – approached, the number of U.S. air attacks on Libyan air defences, ground forces and other targets has nearly doubled during the 12 days up to August 20, compared with air attacks in the first 132 days. Eric Schmitt and Steven Lee Myers of the New York Times observed:

“Through Saturday [20 August 2011], NATO and its allies had flown 7,459 strike missions, or sorties, attacking thousands of targets, from individual rocket launchers to major military headquarters. The cumulative effect not only destroyed Libya's military infrastructure but also greatly diminished the ability of Colonel Qaddafi's commanders to control forces, leaving even committed fighting units unable to move, resupply or coordinate operations”. ( NYT , 21 August 2011). Indeed, it was the heaviest bombardment to date. Once the way was cleared, the armed gangs stormed the Capital, inflicting mass atrocities against the civilian population.

A Libyan eyewitness told Kim Sengupta of the Independent (24 June 2011): “The [armed gangs] are saying they are fighting government troops here, but all those getting hurt are ordinary people, the only buildings being damaged are those of local people. There has also been looting by the rebels, they have gone into houses to search for people and taken away things. Why are they doing this?” In another piece in the Independent (27 June 2011), Sengupta exposes another criminal character of the Western-backed armed gangs. She writes, “the mounting number of deaths of men from sub-Saharan Africa at the hands of the rebels, lynchings in many cases, raises disturbing questions about the opposition administration, the Transitional National Council (TNC) taking over as Libya's government, and about Western backing for it”.

The U.S. and its allies will back any group of criminals as long as they serve their imperialist interests. It is important to remember that the so-called “Independent” is one of the most anti-Arab propaganda mouthpieces of all the racist British newspapers. As the Independent on Sunday editorial reveals: “This newspaper supported NATO military intervention, and Britain's part in it, when it began in March, but it was a choice between hard and complex options – and so it remains”. ( Independent on Sunday , 28 August 2011).

The aggression against Libya was in flagrant violation of international law and UN Security Council Resolutions, including Resolutions 1973 adopted in March to “use all means necessary to protect Libyan civilians”. There was no legal mandate to attack Libya and start a war. The sovereign Government of Libya committed no crimes.

It is clear that the aim of U.S.-NATO powers is to divide Libyans in order to seize control of Libya's financial assets and oil reserves and strengthening imperialism's grip on Libya and set the stage of the re-colonisation of Africa. It is a broad daylight robbery.

"In 1950, Libyans saw their country deliberately divided by Britain and France, and [the] seeds of division planted among them”, writes the renowned Canadian Middle East scholar, Henri Pierre Habib. After more than four decades of “independence”, the old seeds of division have germinated.

Meanwhile, U.S. politicians are blessed by what they are doing in Libya (violent aggression) and see it as a template to implement around the world. “It is a good indication of the kind of partnership and alliances that we need to have for the future if we are going to deal with the threats that we confront in today's world,” said U.S. Defence Secretary, Leon E. Panetta. In other words, the aggression against Libya will be used as a template to commit future aggression against other nations, such as Syria.

Syria Could be Next

The destabilisation campaign against Syria has been in the making for several years. The Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003 was part of campaign to destabilize Syria and demonize President al-Assad. In 2005, the U.S. and its allies accused the Syrian Government of the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. As revealed by Kurt Nimmo: “[i]n late 2005, Richard Perle, at the time described as the Prince of Darkness, attended a meeting at the home of Farid Ghadry, the head of the Syrian Reform Party. Ghadry had met with Dick Cheney to strategize about regime change in Syria. He told the Wall Street Journal that Perle's pal Ahmad Chalabi ‘paved the way in Iraq for what we want to do in Syria'”. The aim is to topple the current Syrian Government and replace it with a pro-U.S. and pro-Israel dictatorship. [3].

The campaign intensified in early February 2011 and during the popular uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt. In all cases, the U.S. and its allies very quickly intervened to shape and control the uprisings for their own imperialist interests. Democracy and human rights are irrelevant to Western imperialist powers. In fact, they despise anything to do with democracy and human rights. The U.S. arms and supports a number of brutal dictatorial regimes throughout the world with a criminal record on human rights.

From the outset, the Syrian rebellion was a U.S.-sponsored armed uprising against the Syrian Government. You wonder why the French and American ambassadors to Syrian travelled to the City of Hama to show solidarity with the armed-insurrection while for decades their own governments have refused to show the slightest solidarity with the Palestinians under Israeli fascist repression.

According to Lebanese newspapers, shipments of high quality arms to the “rebels” (armed gangs) through Jordan and northern Lebanon have been intercepted by Lebanese army intelligence. According to Army investigators, ties between the smugglers and Lebanese political parties allied with Saudi Arabia and the U.S. have been uncovered. The revelations provide evidence that the insurrection is a U.S.-backed insurrection aimed at toppling the government of Syria.

Furthermore, the Washington Post reported (18 April 2011) that, the U.S. (through its allies in the region) is secretly financing and arming the opposition to topple President al-Assad. “The U.S. money for Syrian opposition groups, including a satellite TV channel to disseminate false propaganda, began flowing under President George W. Bush and has continued under President Obama, even as his administration sought to build relations with President al- Assad”. Hence, the U.S.-sponsored armed resurrection has been in the making for some time, just waiting for the right moment.

According to Israel's Intelligence news DEBKA (15 August 2011): “Large caches of weapons including anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles, mortar bombs and heavy machine guns will be sent via ground to criminal gangs in major Syrian cities witnessing unrest. On Saturday 03 September 2011, armed gangs killed six Syrian soldiers and three civilians in an ambush in central Syria. A further 17 people were wounded as gunmen ambushed the bus near Hama ( BBC News , 03 September 2011).

Furthermore, Al-Akhbar reported that Lebanese Army investigators have uncovered a connection between the smugglers of weapons to the Syrian opposition and the 14 March alliance of former Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri, who is backed by the United States, Israel and Saudi Arabia. “The central idea was to foment unrest in a well circumscribed area and to proclaim the establishment of an Islamic emirate that would serve as a platform for the dismemberment of the country”, writes Thierry Meyssan, French intellectual and founder of Voltaire Network .

The so-called opposition groups and the media were financed by NGOs and the C.I.A. through USAID, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), and Freedom House. NED and NGOs are now used by the CIA as the preferred way to overthrow legitimate governments. Meanwhile, the majority of Syrians from all political persuasions oppose any outside interference, including foreign military intervention, and President al-Assad remains popular. According to a CNN Arabic poll, conducted in 2009, President al-Assad is one of the most popular leaders in the Arab world.

As in Libya, the truth has been turned on its head in Syria. The mainstream media distorted events on the ground in Syria to propagate a U.S.-sponsored armed-insurrection as a “popular uprising” that needs “humanitarian intervention” with deadly bombs and missiles. The media continue to fabricate endless news of endorsing new war of aggression against Syria and downplaying the violence against the government while amplifying the size of the anti-government protests and sensationalizing the death of protesters. Moreover, President al-Assad's commitment to reforms through a National Dialogue has no space in the mainstream capitalist media.

As Pierre Piccinin observes:

“This portrayal of Syria in full scale revolution and of a Baath Party on the brink do not correspond in any way whatsoever to the reality of the situation; that the government holds control and what is left of the protests have in effect splintered and become considerably marginalised”.

Indeed, the security situation right now is much better and the Government of President al-Assad is on a solid ground. As mentioned earlier, the propaganda campaign was designed as a prelude to war.

Finally, like all countries, Syria may be not perfect, but it is up to the Syrian people to decide what kind of reforms they need without foreign interference in their nation's affairs. Outside pressure on the U.S. government and its allies has to be mobilised to try and prevent Syria becoming a target for another U.S.-NATO military aggression.

Footnotes

[1] Maximilian Forte, The Top ten Myths on the War against Libya, CounterPunch , 31 August 2011.

[2] Curtis Doebbler, Libya: Who wins? Al-Ahram Weekly , 2011, 1042.

[3] Kurt Nimmo, Cables Reveal State Department, CIA, NGOs Fomented Syrian Unrest , Infowars.com , 18 April 2011.

Ghali Hassan is an independent political analyst living in Australia.

Ron Paul brags how he "stood behind reagan" -- Real Peacenik, huh?

Ron Paul looooved Ronald Reagan! His new ad tells us so.

Ronald Reagan funded the Contras in Nicaragua who murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.

Ronald Reagan funded the Mujahadeen to overthrow democracy in Afghanistan, and massacred people who dared offer literacy courses.

Ronald Reagan invaded Grenada and killed hundreds of civilians.

Ronald Reagan launched a war against organized labor.

Ronald Reagan joked about Nuclear War in public.

Ronald Reagan bombed Libya, years before Obama.

Ronald Reagan supplied Chemical and Biological weapons to Iraq to use against Iran.

Ronald Reagan sold missiles to Iran to use against Iraq at the same time.

YOU THINK RON PAUL IS "ANTI-WAR" WHEN HE WORSHIPS REAGAN? ARE YOU NUTS!

Ron Paul may pretends he's a 1960s peace activist, but he's not. He's a "libetarian."

Libertarians talk against wars, but what they hate the most is social security, medicare, food stamps, student loans, labor unions, and all other things that get in the way of the rich, Rand's "great men", from riding roughshod over the rest of humanity, who they dub "the mob."

As I said two years ago:



WE DON'T NEED 1776! WE NEED 1917!

P.S.

Just in case your still not convinced that the Ron Paul movement is made up of fascist thugs:

Obama Threatens U.S. Intervention in Syria

By Sara Flounders
Published Aug 25, 2011 10:35 PM

President Barack Obama on Aug. 18 demanded that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad step down, saying that his days are numbered. The governments of Britain, France and Germany joined in this demand.

This threat is blatant imperialist interference in Syria’s internal affairs. More than that, it is an open threat to again intervene militarily in the region, just as the U.S. and its European allies have done already in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Somalia.

Two weeks earlier, Russian NATO envoy Dmitry Rogozin told the media that NATO was planning a military campaign to overthrow the Assad government. In an interview with the Russian daily Izvestia, Rogozin added that the Western imperialist military alliance also may have plans to attack Iran. (Xinhua, Aug. 5)

When imperialism states its intention to bring down a government or movement, as the U.S. is doing now to Syria, it is cowardly to stand on the same side as the imperialists who seek to dominate the world, or even to be neutral. This has been an ABC in class-conscious workers’ movements for 150 years, since Karl Marx. Whatever one’s assessment of the government under attack, imperialist intervention, whether through sanctions or armed attack, must be opposed.

Obama’s double standard

The Obama administration has called on the governments of Libya and Syria to resign, as though they were the only ones using force against a portion of their population.

Look across the Atlantic to Washington’s closest ally. The British government just sent 16,000 police against the rebellious people of London and other cities. After hasty trials, some people were sentenced to four years in prison for sending messages with their Blackberries. Even before the recent rebellions there, the police had killed 333 civilians in England and Wales over the last 13 years. (Report of the Independent Police Complaints Commission, reported in The Guardian, Dec. 3, 2010)

In May police of the Spanish state fired rubber bullets at people camped out in Plaza de Catalunya in Barcelona protesting an austerity budget. The Greek government has repressed many strikes and demonstrations in the past year. Washington cheers on the state power in all three allied capitals for punishing legitimate rebellions.

Even more blatant is the repression in Bahrain, a country of half a million people that hosts the U.S. Fifth Fleet. There was not a word of criticism from Washington when the monarchy killed dozens of protesters and arrested and tortured hundreds more, or when Saudi troops invaded the island to help put down the uprising.

The threat to Syria is connected to the social explosion shaking the Arab world. U.S. imperialism and all the old regimes tied to it in the region are trying desperately to manage and contain this still unfolding mass upheaval into channels that do not threaten imperialist domination.

The U.S. and its collaborators are also trying to divide and undermine the two main wings of the forces resisting imperialist domination — the Islamic forces and the secular nationalist forces — which together overthrew U.S.-backed dictators in Egypt and Tunisia. There is now a concerted effort to turn these same political forces against the two regimes in the region that have opposed U.S. domination in the past Libya and Syria.

U.S. diplomatic cables revealed by Wikileaks showed that the U.S. campaign to overthrow Assad began years ago under President George W. Bush. (“U.S. secretly backed Syrian opposition groups,” Washington Post, April 18)

Now Obama’s open declaration against Assad makes it no longer necessary to see secret cables to know where U.S. imperialism stands.

Flounders is co-director of the International Action Center. For more on Syria see: www.iacenter.org/nafricamideast/syria050611.