Does IS Spell the End of Western Colonialism in Western Asia?

The Challenge of the Islamic State and U.S. Policy

by Karl Meyer and Kathy Kelly - VCNV.org

What to do about the political mess in the Middle East and the rise of the Islamic State and related political movements?

Shortly after the end of World War II, the Western powers and the whole world began to recognize that the age of explicit colonial domination was over, and dozens of colonies were let go of and took political independence.

It is now past time for the United States and other world powers to recognize that the age of neo-colonial military, political and economic domination, especially in the Islamic Middle East, is decisively coming to a close.

Attempts to maintain it by military force have been disastrous for ordinary people trying to survive in the affected countries. There are powerful cultural currents and political forces in motion in the Middle East that simply will not tolerate military and political domination. There are thousands of people prepared to die rather than accept it.

U.S. policy will find no military fix for this reality.

Stopping Communism by military imposition of subservient government did not work in Vietnam, even with the presence of a half million U.S. troops at one period, the sacrifice of millions of Vietnamese lives, the direct death of about 58,000 U.S. soldiers, and hundreds of thousands of U.S. physical and mental casualties, still ongoing today.

Creating a stable, democratic, friendly government in Iraq has not worked even with the presence of at least a hundred thousand U.S. paid personnel at one period, the cost of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi casualties and deaths, the loss of about 4,400 U.S. troops to direct death, and many more thousands to physical and mental casualties, ongoing today and for many more years to come. The U.S. military attack and occupation has led to fratricidal civil war, economic disaster and misery for millions of ordinary Iraqis trying to survive.

The results in Afghanistan are proving very similar: dysfunctional government, massive corruption, civil war, economic disruption, and misery for millions of ordinary people, at a cost of thousands of deaths, and uncounted thousands of Afghan, U.S., European, and allied casualties, that will continue to manifest symptoms for decades to come.

The U.S./European military intervention in the Libyan revolt left Libya in an unresolved condition of dysfunctional government and civil war.

The Western response to the rebellion in Syria, encouraging and fostering civil war, at the cost of death or misery for millions of Syrian refugees, has only made the situation worse for most Syrians.

We need to think, above all else, about the terrible costs of each of these military interventions for ordinary people trying to live, raise families and survive in each of these countries.

These awful failures of U.S. and European military intervention have led to immense cultural resentment among millions of serious and thoughtful people in Islamic countries of the Middle East. The evolution and emergence of the Islamic State and other militant movements is one challenging response to these realities of economic and political chaos.

Now the United States is engaging in another military intervention, bombing targets in areas of Islamic State control, and trying to persuade surrounding Arab states and Turkey to enter the fray by putting their troops at risk on the ground. The expectation that this will work out better than the interventions cited above seems to us another huge mistake, one that will be equally disastrous for ordinary people caught in the middle.

It is time for the U.S. and Europe to recognize that civil wars in the Middle East will be resolved by the emergence of the most powerful and best organized local movements, in spite of what the U.S. Government agencies, on the one hand, or worldwide humanitarian communities, on the other hand, might prefer.

They may also lead to the rearrangement of national boundaries in the Middle East that were arbitrarily set by European colonial powers a hundred years ago at the end of World War I. This has already occurred with Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, and other eastern European countries.

What U.S. Policies Might Foster Political Stability and Economic Recovery in Areas of Conflict?

1) The U.S. should end its current provocative drive toward military alliances and missile deployments encircling the boundaries of Russia and China. The U.S. should accept pluralism of economic and political power in the contemporary world. Present policies are provoking a return to Cold War with Russia, and a tendency to begin a Cold War with China This is a lose/lose proposition for all countries involved.

2) By turning toward a reset of policy toward cooperating with Russia, China and other influential countries within the framework of the United Nations, the United States could foster international mediation and political pressure from a broad consensus of countries to resolve the civil wars in Syria and other countries by negotiation, devolution of power, and other political solutions. It might also reset its relationship toward friendly cooperation with Iran in the Middle East and resolve the threat of nuclear weapons proliferation in Iran, North Korea and any other potential nuclear weapons states. There is no essentially inherent reason why the U.S. needs to continue a hostile relationship with Iran.

3) The U.S. should offer reparations to ordinary people harmed by U.S. military interventions, and generous medical and economic aid and technical expertise wherever it may be helpful in other countries, and thus build a reservoir of international goodwill and positive influence.

4) It’s time to embrace a post-neo-colonial period of international cooperation through diplomatic institutions, international organizations, and non-governmental initiatives.

Waters Calls for Release of Shaker Aamer from Guantánamo

Pink Floyd’s Roger Waters Calls for the Release of Shaker Aamer from Guantánamo

by Andy Worthington

29.12.14

My friends, I’ve been offline for the last week, away from home with my family during this holiday period, staying in a house without wi-fi access.

Apologies if you missed me, but I was also exhausted and run-down after the relentless work involved in the We Stand With Shaker campaign I launched with a colleague, Joanne MacInnes, on November 24, so I felt it was acceptable to have a short break.

The campaign we established was for Shaker Aamer, the last British resident in Guantánamo, calling in particular for David Cameron, the British Prime Minister, to drop the government’s official position — that the final decision about his fate rests in the hands of the Obama administration — and to demand his release and his return to the UK.

Andy Worthington, Joanne MacInnes of We Stand With Shaker 
with music legend Roger Waters at the launch of campaign outside 
Houses of Parliament, Nov. 24, 2014 (Photo: Stefano Massimo).

This is required of the PM under the government’s obligations to Mr. Aamer, a legal British resident who had been given indefinite leave to remain in the UK with his British wife and British children before his kidnap in Afghanistan (where he had traveled with his family to undertake humanitarian aid projects) and his rendition to Guantánamo in February 2002.

Mr. Aamer was cleared for release from Guantánamo under President Bush in 2007, and again under President Obama in 2009. In addition, the British government has been requesting his return since 2007. His continued imprisonment is, therefore, completely unacceptable — and inexplicable too, unless one accepts, as I think is necessary, that both the US and the UK governments, at the urging of their security services, would prefer to send him back to Saudi Arabia, the country of his birth, where he would be prevented from talking about what — as the foremost campaigner for the prisoners’ rights within Guantánamo — he knows about various crimes committed by his captors in the “war on terror.”

The We Stand With Shaker campaign has attracted significant support from celebrities and MPs, as well as from the Daily Mail, which featured our open letter to David Cameron and our Human Rights Day video featuring Juliet Stevenson and David Morrissey in the week before Christmas.

Over the Christmas period the Daily Mail ran a story suggesting that Mr. Aamer will be released in the new year, which, of course, everyone involved in the campaign hopes is true. The article was entitled, “Last British inmate at Guantanamo set to be freed in the new year in fresh push by Obama to empty prison,” but although it was being treated as though it came via a Pentagon press release, it was a lot more vague than that on close inspection.

In the opening paragraph we learned that Mr. Aamer “could by freed in the new year,” but then, after the seemingly unequivocal statement, “Clive Stafford Smith, Mr Aamer’s lawyer, told the newspaper that he believes his client will be returned to Britain,” we discovered that he actually said, “I cannot believe they will not include Shaker, as it would be totally irrational. It’s very hard for them to come up with an explanation as to why this hasn’t been done.”

I’m sure I’ll be looking more closely at this claim in the days to come, but for now I wanted to make sure that I didn’t overlook another important article about Shaker Aamer that was published in the Daily Mail just before Christmas, written by Roger Waters, the chief songwriter of Pink Floyd, who is a supporter of my work and of the We Stand With Shaker campaign, having attended the launch in London — opposite the Houses of Parliament — on November 24.

Roger wrote some very kind words about me in his article, and I’d like to return the favor, commending him for his commitment to resisting injustice — in Palestine as well as at Guantánamo and more widely in the “war on terror.” Unfortunately, far too many people in the worlds of art and entertainment — actors, writers, artists as well as musicians — fail to take a stand against injustice, despite their ability to reach large numbers of people. I am proud to count Roger as an exception, and as a friend — and also to thank all the other actors, writers and musicians who have declared their support for the We Stand With Shaker campaign, signing our open letter to David Cameron and standing with the giant inflatable figure of Shaker Aamer that is at the heart of our campaign.

My Pink Floyd hit and this tragedy

By Roger Waters, Daily Mail, 

December 23, 2014

The revelations about the Americans’ torture of terror suspects have rightly caused outrage across the world.

The U.S. government has owned up to the shadow of institutionalised brutality that has hung over ‘The Land Of The Free’ since the inception of the War On Terror after 9/11.

The sense of disquiet should extend to the political establishment in Britain, given the mounting evidence that our own intelligence and security agencies may have colluded with the CIA in rendition, torture and a disregard for international human rights law including the Geneva Conventions.

Nothing illustrates our own national disgrace more graphically than the case of Shaker Aamer, a 46-year-old family man from London, who has now been held for almost 13 years in the notorious detention camp at Guantánamo Bay, having been seized by the U.S. military in Afghanistan in November 2001.

During Mr Aamer’s long spell of incarceration, he has never been put on trial or even had any charges levelled against him.

He has been subjected to systematic torture, humiliation and degradation, deprived not just of his liberty, but of all rights normally afforded to those in custody yet to be proven guilty of any crime.

The time has surely come for a judge-led inquiry to find out the true extent of Britain’s role in the barbaric treatment of Mr Aamer.

Yesterday, the Daily Mail reported on the growing pressure on David Cameron from nine human rights groups for just such an inquiry into the CIA’s torture of prisoners, including Mr Aamer.

No human being should be subjected to such monstrous and prolonged treatment — 13 years, with no evidence produced to suggest a crime!

It is little wonder that one recent medical report stated Mr Aamer is now suffering from a host of serious health problems, including failing eyesight, kidney damage and depression.

This is, after all, a man who has been incarcerated for so long without trial that he has never even seen his youngest child, a 12-year-old son.

His experience is a scandalous affront to justice, making a complete mockery of respect for the law and due legal process.

Even cold-blooded murderers rarely serve as lengthy a sentence as Mr Aamer has had to endure, and, if they do, they will at least have been convicted in a court by a jury of their peers.

I have a deep personal involvement in the campaign to release Mr Aamer, ever since his case was brought to my attention by the renowned defence advocate Clive Stafford Smith.

With a spirit of selfless determination, Clive runs the organisation Reprieve, which campaigns for the rights, among many others, of British prisoners held overseas. Appalled by Mr Aamer’s plight, Clive had contacted him and lent him his support.

That is how I became involved. In one letter to Clive from Guantánamo, Mr Aamer began with the opening lyrics of one of my songs, ‘Hey You’, from the 1979 Pink Floyd album ‘The Wall’. Mr Aamer said the lyrics captured his experience in Guantánamo. These lyrics run:

Hey you! Out there in the cold
Getting lonely, getting old. Can you feel me
Hey you! Standing in the aisles
With itchy feet and fading smiles. Can you feel me
Hey you! Don’t help them to bury the light
Don’t give in without a fight.

Clive was able to pass Mr Aamer’s letter on to me, and I was profoundly touched that ‘Hey You’ had had such a resonance with him. Other parts of his letter reinforced how much this man was suffering. He explained that for most of the time, he had to stay in his tiny cell and was denied access to a computer, books, journals or even stationery.

He was occasionally allowed to write a letter, but even this was difficult because the pens provided by the guards were wobbly and soft, like a ballpoint with the plastic outer casing removed.

Apparently, this was a security precaution to stop the detainees attacking their guards — an obviously ridiculous measure, given that the guards outnumbered the prisoners ten to one and were armed with M16 rifles.

On a more uplifting note, in his letter Mr Aamer paid tribute to an American Christian pastor who had been in touch with him and had spoken of his work to build an understanding between Christianity and Islam.

This highlighted Shaker’s attachment to the idea of understanding between peoples and faiths, to the idea of reconciliation and peace, and his fundamental opposition to extremism.

But then, his entire story seemed to undermine the American claims that he was a dangerous extremist embedded with Al-Qaeda and bent on the destruction of Western civilisation.

Born in Saudi Arabia and trained as a nurse, he came to Britain in the mid-1990s, married a British woman and started a family.

In 2001, he moved with his family to Afghanistan, where he began work for a humanitarian charity. This fact is disputed by the Americans, who claim he became an Al-Qaeda fighter.

Really? Where is the evidence?

Shaker has never been allowed to defend himself in a court of law. In effect, he has been held purely on the whim of the U.S. authorities.

This abuse of power exhibits all the hallmarks of despotism. Either we believe in freedom to live under the law, including the law of Habeas Corpus, or we don’t. Either we, the so‑called enlightened West, are law-abiding or we are a tyranny.

Strangely, the U.S. government, the ‘tyranny’ that guards the rest of us from Shaker Aamer, now appears all the more culpable with the extraordinary news that the British Government has repeatedly called upon them to release him.

The failure to heed this request must raise suspicions that American and British intelligence are worried that, if Mr Aamer is set free, he might reveal the shocking complicity of British intelligence in the savage interrogation of prisoners at Guantánamo, and at secret rendition sites elsewhere in the world.

Last month, I attended a gathering in Parliament Square in support of a movement to free Shaker Aamer. Among the others present was the campaigning journalist Andy Worthington. Andy, to his eternal credit, has devoted much of his recent working life to exposing the horrors of Guantánamo.

I was proud to be there, standing as I did alongside other Brits who still care about the law, about standards, about justice, about fair play.

Thanks to the recent Senate report into CIA torture, the public mood has changed, maybe even dramatically, in the past few days.

It is possible people are coming to see that justice is important and that the British legal principles dating back to Magna Carta in 1215 enshrine the rights of the individual and are to be defended at all costs.

Detention and incarceration without trial have absolutely no place in the legal system which we, the British people, are all rightfully proud to call our own.

Andy Worthington is a freelance investigative journalist, activist, author, photographer and film-maker. He is the co-founder of the “Close Guantánamo” campaign, the director of “We Stand With Shaker,” calling for the immediate release from Guantánamo of Shaker Aamer, the last British resident in the prison, and the author of The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison (published by Pluto Press, distributed by Macmillan in the US, and available from Amazon — click on the following for the US and the UK) and of two other books: Stonehenge: Celebration and Subversion and The Battle of the Beanfield. He is also the co-director (with Polly Nash) of the documentary film, “Outside the Law: Stories from Guantánamo” (available on DVD here — or here for the US).

To receive new articles in your inbox, please subscribe to Andy’s RSS feed — and he can also be found on Facebook (and here), Twitter, Flickr and YouTube. Also see the six-part definitive Guantánamo prisoner list, and “The Complete Guantánamo Files,” an ongoing, 70-part, million-word series drawing on files released by WikiLeaks in April 2011. Also see the definitive Guantánamo habeas list, the full military commissions list, and the chronological list of all Andy’s articles.

Please also consider joining the “Close Guantánamo” campaign, and, if you appreciate Andy’s work, feel free to make a donation.

How Farmer Attitudes and Practice Can Help Save BC Salmon Stocks

Tide May Be Turning on Farms Destroying Salmon Habitat

by Rafe Mair - Common Sense Canadian

I come today in praise of the Vancouver Sun and trust that events don’t prove that I should’ve approached the mainstream media with my usual skepticism. First, let me tell you a story from my early life which you may have heard and, if so, please bear with me.

Coho spawn in the darndest places

When I was a young lad, my friend Denis and I used to bicycle down to the Musqueam Indian reserve and fish two tiny creeks, one which we called Tin Can Creek, more properly known as Musqueam Creek.

With shiner lines, a tiny hook and a bit of worm, we would catch small cutthroat trout and, as with all young boys, rejoice at every second.

At Tin Can Creek, one day, a First Nations lad with a gaff came along, bent down over the edge and scooped out a fish which must’ve run 5 or 6 pounds at least. We were thunderstruck! If we’d known there were fish that size in the creek, it might’ve scared us out of fishing it!

Moments later, and a bit further upstream, the lad did the same thing.

This taught me a lesson of a lifetime. These were coho salmon and this tiny creek contained their spawning ground. For those unschooled in these matters, the coho salmon is the second largest of the seven Pacific salmon* which inhabit our waters, and in my opinion is the most beautiful; certainly it’s very sought after as a sports fish and considered a delicacy by those who like eating fish.

It must be noted that thanks to the careful stewardship of the Musqueam Nation, this run has survived and prospered – a rarity indeed in Greater Vancouver.

As I grew older and got more involved in fishing and later in governments dealing with fishing, I learned that the coho is unique in that it doesn’t spawn in great numbers in rivers and lakes but in small runs in tiny streams and even ditches all up and down our coast.

I learned too that the reason the coho was an endangered species in the Salish Sea area was loss of habitat due to agricultural practices and land development.

Farmers try to make a amends for habitat destruction

A front page article of Monday, December 29 in the Vancouver Sun tells how the paper’s “Minding The Farm” series – probing fish-bearing creeks on farms and activities by landowners which have damaged habitat – prompted some farmers to attempt habitat “remediation” on their properties.

One does not, unfortunately, gain the impression that the farmers are very enthusiastic about this program. To them, the creeks are no doubt a nuisance and very much get in the way of their normal farming activities. This is compounded, I’m sure, by the fact that some drainage ditches have even become spawning grounds.

The major culprit is waste. When this seeps into the creeks, it kills the fish, as simple as that.

 

Fish an “inconvenience” to farmers

Since I first learned of the problem it was obvious that farmers weren’t about to take a few fish in a creek seriously. They were no different than real estate developers who would report that there were only a “few fish” in the creek and therefore needn’t concern anyone.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has been extremely slow off the mark over the years and has hesitated to charge anyone. (This longtime observer smells political interference). One fisheries officer, quoted in the article, showed his frustration by asking:

"What does it take to get charged? You really have to try hard."

 

One stream at a time

The question is one of overall public good. While it doesn’t seem a huge sacrifice to allow a handful of fish to be killed in a stream, to accommodate agriculture or a new suburb, the aggregate of such losses is unacceptable. Therefore, the solution is a step-by-step, small stream by small stream business – hard to implement, even harder to enforce.

We quickly run into the phrases “remedial measures” and the weasel word of all, “mitigation”. I do not regard a culvert or a re-created stream as either remedial or mitigating. Nor do fish biologists.

The basic decision the public must make is whether it’s worth it to save these small runs of fish. The Vancouver Sun believes that it is worth it and I agree with them.

 

A moral question

This question can’t be measured in dollars and cents – at least it ought not to be. One can always find a monetary reason to destroy things. The issue is, of course, monetary in the sense that progeny of these runs do supply sports and commercial fisherman, thus generating revenue – and it does cost money to preserve streams.

But can we, in all conscience, permit the destruction of salmon runs, however big or small, for any reason? Once we decide to destroy things for money, it is a slippery slope and we become cynics, for, as Oscar Wilde observed:

A cynic is someone who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.

The Pacific Salmon is what identifies British Columbia the world over. I don’t think it goes too far to say that it is sacred – the soul of our province.

It gets down to this: If British Columbians won’t protect and enhance the symbol of what our lovely home is all about, who will?


*Chinook, Coho, Chum, Sockeye, Pink, Rainbow (Steelhead) and Cutthroat.

Rafe Mair, LL.B, LL.D (Hon) a B.C. MLA 1975 to 1981, was Minister of Environment from late 1978 through 1979. In 1981 he left politics for Talk Radio becoming recognized as one of B.C.'s pre-eminent journalists. An avid fly fisherman, he took a special interest in Atlantic salmon farms and private power projects as environmental calamities and became a powerful voice in opposition to them. Rafe continues to make regular appearances on radio and television, writes regularly for thetyee.ca, and writes a regular blog at rafeonline.com.

More articles by Rafe Mair

"A Masterpiece of Controlled Deception": CBC Looking Back and Moving Forward

Year End Interviews Part III - Foreign Minister John Baird’s lies about Russia

by Jim Miles - The Miles Report

WOW - After listening to the Stephen Harper interview with Peter Mansbridge and now having listened to Canada's Foreign Minister John Baird interview with Evan Solomon (CBC), it is apparent that they both have their talking points down pat. They could have exchanged places and the comments would have come out pretty much the same.

At the same time, the same could be said for Mansbridge and Solomon: if they were exchanged the questioning would have remained at about the same level as well. It makes me wonder if the questions were all vetted beforehand, or if the government, as owners of CBC decreed that this is the way it would go and that this the language you must use. Or, as I indicated in my previous report, all these scenarios are correct.

This third interview (after Breedlove and Harper)(1), is so full of calumny, propaganda, canards, double standards, dissimulations, narrow minded thinking, and outright lies that it can only stand as a masterpiece of controlled deception. That references both the interviewers and the interviewees, wherein the mainstream media (MSM) appears to be in bed with - or perhaps more appropriately, in bondage with - the government.

There are some generalities that run through the interview. John Baird goes from talking about the “civilized world” to the “democratic world” and finally to “our friends and allies,” a nice devolution each time approaching the truth more closely. He is also good at the parenting role, using “Listen,” on many occasions, as well as using the word “Obviously” in most of his arguments as if those not knowing what he was going to say were by implication all ignorant and lacked any political knowledge.

But those are small bits compared to the ignorance of both the questions and the responses that shaped around three topics: Russia/Ukraine; North Korea; and ISIS. I won’t spend any time on North Korea as it is truly a tempest in a teapot (albeit good domestic political fodder for the sycophantic followers), and none on ISIS as it has been covered generally with the Breedlove interview(2). Most of this report is on Russia and its problems as that is where the greatest MSM deviousness arises, and where the answers are mostly pure propaganda.

After having watched this interview I watched an alternate site’s report on Russia and its problems that highlighted that much of what Solomon and Baird were saying was simply - sorry gentlemen - pure crap. So this might be a rather long report, but again, for those wanting to know what is really happening in the world outside the neo-Conservative’s spin doctoring, it will be worth the read, as well as following up on several references provided if my voice is not enough for you.

Russia

The first question from Solomon is a pretty obvious one, “The Russian economy, the rubles collapsed, the price of oil collapsed, they are facing serious economic problems. What do you make of what Putin is saying?”

Apart from the significant errors in the question, the answer goes pretty much according to the talking points,

Listen to me, we believe he’s made a big mistake in invading and annexing Crimea and materially supporting the separatists in eastern Ukraine. We want him to take a different path that’s why the civilized world has come together to push back, and we’re doing it through economic sanctions. We’re obviously> hoping that he’ll reverse course and allow people in Ukraine to live in freedom. [italics added]

I’ll deal with Solomon’s errors shortly, but first Baird’s answer. For Crimea, there was no invasion, his security forces were already there - I know, subtle difference but no invasion was required. As for the annexation, it was voted overwhelmingly in favour by the citizens of Crimea. Under military duress, the neocons would argue, but it could also be argued under military protection from the neo-Nazis who assumed power in a coup d’etat and proved themselves willing to murder and physically attack opponents. As well, an intelligent person would also be able to compare that referendum with the votes in Afghanistan and Iraq that were undertaken under full military occupation by the U.S. and considered to be democratic.

As for the civilized world, well if the U.S., Canada, and the EU are all that are considered civilized, then this might be a correct statement. But our civility is strongly correlated to the actions of the our militaries which recently have included the illegal invasion of Iraq, and the quasi-legal “no fly zone” military attacks on Libya. This civility also includes the over 800 U. S.military bases of different kinds scattered throughout the majority of the world’s countries. Civilization is looking pretty thin...and of course denies civility to the Chinese, Indians, Latin Americas, and anyone in Africa.

Solomon’s next two questions followed up on the same theme. First he asked, “Why ratchet up sanctions now while he’s already on the point of collapse?” followed by “Is there fear, though, if he’s backed into an economic corner because of the sanctions, because of the price of oil and the collapse of their economy...what happens when he’s backed in...more violent, less predictable, is this the right moment?”

After the second question, Baird answered,

"...we can’t accommodate evil but we’ve got to confront it and that’s why the civilized world is speaking with one voice - strongly - and Canada, the United States, the European Union, are all seeking to get the Russian Federation to take a different course...Listen, my job is to stand up for Canada’s interests and promote Canadian values and when those interests and values are challenged to such an extent where one man in the Kremlin thinks he can redraw the borders of Europe through military force, that’s just not….in 2014, and I think cowering away from confronting that type of evil is just the wrong way to go.

Okay fair enough the civilized world seems to have shrunk a bit now, and of course they want Russia to take a different course and bow down to the Washington consensus political/financial hegemony. So far no one has redrawn the boundaries of Europe other than - here I go again - the neo-Nazi skinheads who attacked the Donbas region in order to get rid of its ethnic Russian population. As for Canadian values, they increasingly represent the neo-conservative Republican values witnessed in the U.S.

And Solomon is persistent as if he has not yet received the answer he is looking for, or still has some scripted questions he needs to get out, asking, “How long can Putin hold out if the economy retanks, if the ruble collapses, interest rates go up, people are already cashing the ruble to buy cars because they need some kind of stable commodity, how long can Putin hold on for?” Wow, Solomon, either your ignorance is overwhelming me here, or your orders from your producers are simply full of propaganda - or both.

The response to the latter mentions the inaccuracy of U.S. economic estimates (nice dodge) but “Listen…” Baird thinks Harper is doing a great job as Canada is “punching above our weight in this effort to stand up for the architecture of our international security system….”

Ahhhh….the international security system! I think I already described that - the military bases spread around the world, the control of most global finances through the IMF/World Bank/NATO/ and the declining usage of the U.S. fiat currency as the global reserve currency thanks to its petrodollar status - maintained in part by the attacks in Iraq (oil, gold, oil and pipelines), Libya (oil, gold, water), Mali (oil, gold, uranium), Ukraine (gold, oil/gas, pipelines) and the list goes on.

More anti-Putin rhetoric drivels out of Solomon’s mouth when asking about the “serious provocations by the Russians [re air force flights]. What does that signal when they’re provoking NATO like this.?” Again, highly biased language as Russia is almost encircled by military bases, has constant U.S. surveillance, and NATO - against the agreement of the U.S. after the unification of Germany - has itself encroached its territory right up to the Russian border, along with missiles that can serve as a first line of attack as per the Paul Wolfowitz first strike doctrine.

The response is as to be expected including values and democracy, but also with the gem that “Putin started all this.” WHAT? Obviously, neither Solomon nor Baird seem to be aware of the billions of dollars that the U.S. spent in western Ukraine in order to turn the government towards the EU, making full use of the Maidan protests to force out the elected Ukrainian government and replacing it with a government overseen by neo-Nazis supported by many U.S. diplomats, including Assistant Secretary of State, Victoria “F**k the EU” Nuland. The latter - the EU being - which is actually happening due to the misplaced sanctions, but more on that later.

The Russian financial nuclear option

Outside the MSM, there is much information available on any and all topics, some of it very good, some of it very dodgy. One source that I have referenced many times, and have found cross references to support it, is Alasdair MacLeod, a financial critic based in Scotland. Interestingly enough, after listening to Solomon’s interview today, I then listened to an interview with MacLeod, thinking it would take my mind off the idiocy of it all, but the entire MacLeod interview dealt with Russia and its economic position.

This is where my critique is more about Solomon’s knowledge base than it is about the more or less expected neocon rhetoric from Baird, although he too shares in this lack of knowledge, or its dissimulation and denial. From this and other alternate sites to the MSM, the western position is mostly propaganda and lies. These alternate sites and readings rise mainly from western critics who have worked inside the system for most of their lives, they know what it is like in the belly of the financial beast.

So what is really happening with the economy vis a vis Russia? The ruble is down, yes, but after last week’s interest rate increase, it stabilized and went back up 13 per cent in two days, and is up more than thierty per cent. So interest rates are high - that is exactly what is required in order to support the ruble, and without the significant debt loads that the west has, does not have the same impact. If (and when) the west has any interest rate increase it will have a serious negative impact on the overall economy as the western economy is based primarily on over-leveraged debt that will cascade into default if rates go too high. They are near zero now, or negative in some cases, so any increase will have storm clouds gathering.

As well, the decline in the ruble is from two possible causes: the oligarchs selling their ruble holdings; and/or the manipulations of people like George Soros, or the USFed shorting the Forex markets and forcing the ruble down. The ruble itself is not that cause of its own demise. Because Russia has two strengths the U.S. does not have: their debt to GDP ratio is very low; and their holdings of foreign exchange is very high, mostly US$ and US Treasuries. As for the question how long can they hold out for, the real news answer would be, ‘for a very long time.’ With the ruble down, Russia can use its Forex money to buy and support the ruble, which at the same time would weaken the US$. Alternately it can buy - but wait, first another Russian strength: yes the price of oil is down, but Russia sells in US$, thus increasing its foreign exchange reserves or alternately it can buy….But first, who is the drop in the price of oil affecting most?

If there really was a secret deal to break Russia with the price of oil then “Everything has backfired if it really was a plan to put pressure on Putin...pretty well wiping out the shale industry [in England], over in America as well.” The shale industry is 20 per cent high yield junk bonds tied into the financial markets which are supported only by the massive money printing by the Fed, the Japanese, and the EU. That debt load makes many businesses and the markets “Really dangerous,” partly as “Emerging markets are getting absolutely hammered,” with “huge amounts of foreign exchange currency debt denominated in dollars,” creating “a global crisis in the making” should those junk bonds and currencies fail. As per MacLeod,

We all think it is Russia’s problem, but it’s not a Russian problem at all, it’s everyone else’s problem. If they really wanted to screw the west they could turn around and say, “Right, we’re going on a gold standard." It would take them out of the foreign exchange markets. It would create absolute panic in the gold market amongst the shorts, because they know very well that the Russian government would be in there buying gold very, very aggressively to add to its reserves, at the very least.

Under these circumstances, the Russians would make sure that even though the ruble would be fully convertible into gold it would be in nobody’s interest to convert their rubles into gold...they could do that very, very quickly….They’re doing that already with seventeen per cent interest rates! They’re already on that course.


If they do that, in the west, we’re dead. It is a financial nuclear weapon.(3)

Or, as per Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Treasury Secretary, "No American markets make sense," and "all the cards are in Putin's hands." Those cards according to Roberts incude: buying up all rubles when it is at its lowest, and then demanding oil payments in rubles from others; not paying off loans when it is time to turn them over, simply delay them; buy all the gold contracts placed on the Comex in New York; turn off the gas. (4)

Enter the Chinese

There is a part of the “civilized world” that Baird left out and that Solomon did not question - China (among many others). China, along with Russia and India, is purchasing huge amounts of gold from western coffers (Canada essentially has none of its own). They are intending to make the renminbi fully convertible sometime in the near future - the more pressure from the U.S. the sooner that day will arrive. Combined with a gold backing and a possible/probable gold supported basket of currencies, the US$ would simply die.

Combine this with the New Silk Road (5) that China is in the process of building (rail, roads, cyber links, pipelines) and the decline of the west financially is pretty much guaranteed, without the U.S. resorting to nuclear war, it’s last and final solution.

Ironically, since the PNAC neocon statements about a ‘new world order’, followed up by the events of 9/11, and the U.S. geopolitical strategies to isolate, contain and then deconstruct the power of Russia and China, “now that it’s coming to a head it is producing the exact opposite results.” (3)

Now who is in fine financial shape? The west is hugely indebted, Russia is not. The west has a huge imbalance of payments, Russia and China hold huge foreign exchange amounts. Russia and China are buying huge amounts of that ancient relic, gold, that is valued by the vast majority of people on earth, as a guardian of wealth against declining and failing currencies - as they all do eventually. Sanctions are affecting mainly Europe as Russia turns towards the east and other regions for the technology and materials that it might be missing, only helping to strengthen the SCO and the New Silk Road.

The combination of the MSM and the politicians of the west in denying, avoiding, dissimulating this information is amazing to watch. Both Peter Mansbridge and Evan Solomon are doing their best to make Putin and Russia the ‘evil other’ in spite of all the information to the contrary that it is the west - through its attempts at global hegemony, full spectrum dominance militarily, financial dominance - that is creating the problems around the world today.

I am sometimes staggered and amazed by the complicity of the MSM, and its willingness to subvert its intelligence and knowledge to be the servant of the state and its propaganda - unless, most unlikely, they are simply ignorant of it all. And hopefully there will be no more year end interviews with all the calumny, propaganda, canards, double standards, dissimulations, narrow minded thinking, and outright lies that are evident in these two interviews.


(1) and (2) - Year End Interviews Part II - Conservative Canards http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2014/12/19/natos-general-breedlove-on-the-long-war/

(3) END GAME: Putin May End Ruble Crisis By Taking Russia Onto the GOLD STANDARD.
http://www.silverdoctors.com/end-game-putin-may-end-ruble-crisis-by-taking-russia-onto-the-gold-standard/#more-49438

(4) Is Ruble Collapse Act of War-Paul Craig Roberts. http://usawatchdog.com/is-ruble-collapse-act-of-war-paul-craig-roberts/

(5) Empire of Chaos. Pepe Escobar. http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/12/19/empire-of-chaos/

An open letter of apology to the new Russian ambassador, Alexander Darchiev

by Jim Miles - The Miles Report

Thursday, Dec 25, 2014
Miles Report No. 55 - An open letter of apology to the new Russian ambassador, Alexander Darchiev

Dear Mr. Darchiev,

On my behalf only, I would like to apologize for the attitude and behaviours of Evan Solomon when you were interviewed by him recently. I am both insulted and amazed by his interview, which has taken CBC mainstream media (MSM) news interview/reporting standards to a new low. There are many words I could use to describe his actions: doltish, insolent, obdurate, obstinate, ignorant, conceited, rude, asinine. Take your pick, they all fit equally well.

I apologize that you had to put up with this kind of behaviour as part of your introduction to Canada and I sincerely hope that your vision of Canada and its everyday people will not be overly tarnished by the rudeness and bias of one MSM lackey. At the same time, I would also like to congratulate you on your calmness throughout the interview - as if you expected such an attack - and the clear answers that you provided. They just did not happen to be the “correct” answer that Solomon was digging for - probably an abject apology for going against the Washington consensus, and saying we will deconstruct the Russian Federation as you wish.

As this is an open letter of apology, I would like to review what occurred during the interview and highlight its many problems, with comments directed for Evan Solomon's attention as well - not that his producers will ever let this get through to him....

It all started with a very shallow greeting that included comments about Mr Putin’s “aggressive words” without specifying the reference. Solomon immediately turned then to what I have found to be his baseline ignorance - wilful or otherwise - of the overall Russian situation:

New sanctions...another blow to a country already struggling with a sliding and collapsing economy. With oil prices tumbling, with the ruble at a record low, can Russia turn its economy around and will more sanctions force it to change its position on Crimea - or - is more diplomacy the solution?
Mr. Darchiev, you did not seem at all surprised by this question, probably having heard it before from reviewing other interviews and being apprised of the situation before arriving in Canada. Sure oil prices are tumbling, thanks to Canada’s allies, the theocratic monarchy of Saudi Arabia, with adverse affects on Russia, but also on Scotland, Norway, the U.S., Venezuela and other oil producing states. As one of your later comments suggested, “They are counterproductive because they could not meet the intended goal.”

As for the ruble being at record lows, that could be for several reasons. First, U.S. oligarchs like George Soros could be simply shorting the foreign exchange markets to drive it down. Or it could the U.S. Fed and its allied banks doing the same thing, and as the ruble weakens it is readily understandable that the Russian oligarchs will also start selling out to avoid losses. One could also ask Solomon if he is aware that the ruble has rebounded 32 per cent and the Russian stock market 41 per cent as of this writing.

Then, considering the economic turnaround, I believe that Solomon should talk to Qin Gang, China’s Foreign Ministry Spokesman, or China’s President, Xi Jinping. At the same time he should also ask you in particular about your foreign exchange reserves (large) and your debt to GDP ratio (small), and for added measure, ask about the gold you are buying with the US$ you earn when you sell your resources to the EU. But no, that would mean he would have to change the topic!

As is typical of Solomon, he continued his opening rant,

You arrive at a time of very low relationships between Canada and Russia. As you know, the last time Stephen Harper encountered Vladimir Putin he said, “I guess I’ll shake your hand but get out of Crimea” [sic - sorry, Evan the word was Ukraine]. Let me ask you, is there any possibility that Russia will leave Crimea?”
Your reply, Mr. Darchiev, was clear and concise, “Crimea is Russia once and forever.” As you continued your response, Solomon interrupted you several times, trying to keep the conversation on his chosen agenda. Finally he interrupted with another comment adding this time that Canada and a few others view this as “an illegal annexation of Crimea.”

Again your response, concerning the people’s will, the UN Charter, and a referendum result of ninety-six per cent, was interrupted several times, before he broke clear through adding that “...both you and I know [do we?]” that the referendum was “forced upon them by the tanks in the streets and so this is not considered as a legitimate referendum.”

Really!? Once could go well back in U.S. history from Vietnam through Chile, Iran under the Shah, Guatemala, Afghanistan, Iraq, and other countries where our wonderful democratic neighbours and our current geopolitical leader have used direct force and covert force with “tanks in the streets” - and more - to hold elections to serve their own purposes. Or, perhaps one could look at those tanks as protecting the Crimeans from the murder and assaults that the neo-Nazi skinheads in Kiev were unleashing on the Ukrainian population.

Rather calmly, Mr Darchiev, you responded that there are other areas of disagreement, reminding Solomon (if he ever knew) that “There was a Russian sponsored resolution condemning heroization of Naziism in which Canada voted ‘nein’ in a small company of other countries.”

Without missing a beat, Solomon came right back to his talking points, “Let me just focus on Crimea because that seems to be the hot spot.” Oh come on, there are many hot spots in the world, many ignored by the MSM, and others decidedly biased to the Washington consensus. It was here that Solomon doubled down on his insults by referring to his interview with Canada’s Foreign Minister, John Baird. Are we to assume, Evan, that the new ambassador has not been apprised of Baird’s stupid comments already? Anyway, and even though I have reported on this earlier (see here) here is the ‘evil’ quote again:

We can’t accommodate evil. We’ve got to confront it and that’s why the civilized world [!!!] is speaking with one voice - strongly - Canada, the United States, the European Union, are seeking to get the Russian Federation to take a different course. One man in the Kremlin thinks he can redraw the border of Europe through military force, that’s just not 2014, and I think cowering away from confronting that type of evil is just the wrong way to go.
Solomon then reinforced the ‘evil’ idea saying, “Straight up comparison between what Mr Putin has done in your country and ‘evil’.” So what is your point Evan? Do you really think Mr. Darchiev will stand up and admit that your narrow-minded sycophantic idea of Russian evil is valid? It really should have any audience wondering who controls you, or if you are really a FOX News/O’Reilly kind of interviewer - how did you ever get this far on CBC?

And once again, when you tried to respond, Mr Darchiev, Solomon rudely cut you off, his pattern of “interviewing” you throughout the dialogue. Solomon came up with the ridiculous statement, “I recognize there are issues there but can we focus on Crimea, you keep trying to change the topic of conversation….”

A dazzling piece of social ignorance. Evan, you had received your answer, “Crimea is Russia forever,” but you cannot let that stand and move on to other areas of concern - say perhaps the ‘glorification of Naziism’ that is occurring in western Ukraine. You are obviously searching for an answer you are not going to get, or you are so stubbornly and wilfully ignorant that your own emotions are mired in the rut of Russia being our evil enemy - in which case there will never be a good answer for you, while you get to beat your war drum to the same beat - over and over - and over again.

The ‘dialogue’ continued, sort of, with your attempts, Mr. Darchiev, to add some reality to the discussion, but Solomon kept interrupting and over talking you (yeah, like a real conversation, eh, Evan?).

Finally, Solomon broke through your attempts to speak and went on another reiteration of his tired untrue themes,

I understand that but you realize that Canada and the rest of the world [does that include China? India? Brazil? South Africa? Ecuador? - sorry I interrupted your message, do go on…] they see Russia as outside of international norms [you know, not like Israel bombing and invading Gaza, or the U.S. unilaterally invading Iraq on falsified data, or - oops, sorry Evan, there I go again interrupting you, please continue -] because of the Ukraine and now what is happening in Luhansk, the eastern part of Ukraine [it is called the Donbass, Evan, for those who might be geographically challenged - dang, another interruption, please, let’s move forward to your best repetitions]. It has caused sanctions to be imposed and deepening sanctions, this at a time when the price of oil has collapsed [Saudi’s versus the U.S. shale oil? versus Canada’s tar sands?] when your ruble has collapsed, your economy now is in freefall, there is no growth, your economy is fast going the other way. Why provoke this kind of response with the annexation of Crimea and what’s happening with eastern Ukraine. This has been the question the West has asked of your country. What’s the answer?
Mr. Darchiev, again my apologies for having to put up with this persistent stupidity.

Evan, you have already received your answer, your supposed question is just stupefied ignorance that Russia is able to stand up against the imperial hegemon that you obviously support in its attempts to maintain the global reserve petrodollar and thus global hegemony. The only reason I can think of for you continuing on in this asinine manner, using your ‘talking points’ so repetitively as you accuse the Harper neo-Conervatives of doing in Parliament, is that...hmmm…..I really don’t know.

It could be that you are simply the asinine dolt you present yourself as here, or maybe someone is paying you to maintain this outlandish reiteration of stupidity, perhaps you too are a member of the neo-Conservatives, or maybe the CBC has been given its marching orders to operate the news the way the neo-Conservatives (i.e. Harper) wants it to be presented….you certainly do not represent an intelligent, independent, analytical media.

To interview an ambassador to our country with many repetitions of untrue statements about the economy, telling him his boss, Mr. Putin was evil, about an action for which Mr. Darchiev gave you a clear answer and was willing to talk about other concerns between Russia and Canada, with many interruptions and indeed over talking of Mr. Darchiev so that he could not continue with his explanations - all that is simply astonishingly idiotic (have I used that word yet….no, appears not, would not want to repeat myself too often).

The interview ends - at least as presented on CBC internet, with Solomon going through a quick series of questions. The first was “Why? Why are sanctions counterproductive?” And then as Mr. Darchiev tried to give an answer, you again interrupted repeatedly, and again over talked him.

Hopefully Mr. Darchiev, you have already met many more knowledgeable and rational Canadians, and are able to put aside - without forgetting (how could you) this insult to both your position and intelligence, not to mention the insult it makes to many Canadians who are able to see through the uber-patriotic U.S. right wing drivel that passes for foreign policy in Ottawa.

Again, my apologies for this malcontent character’s inane method of interviewing you.

Best wishes for a Merry Christmas, and best wishes for a more sane and reasonable New Year.

Jim Miles

Jim Miles is a Canadian educator and a regular contributor/columnist of opinion pieces and book reviews for The Palestine Chronicle. Miles' work is also presented globally through other alternative websites and news publications.

Warrant "Gingerly" Issued for Arrest of Religious Leader in Pakistan School Attack Investigation

Maulana Abdul Aziz on the Defensive...For Now

by Peter Lee - China Matters

[Update: An Islamabad court has issued an order for Aziz' arrest. Judging from the Guardian report, characterize the police reaction as "gingerly": “Police have received the court order and we are trying our best to implement it,” a police official in capital Islamabad said, requesting anonymity as he was not authorised to talk to media. CH, 12/28/2014]

If you've been following the @chinahand twitter feed, you know I've been retweeting a stream of tweets from Pakistan civil society stalwarts trying, with some success, to put the focus on Abdul Maulana Aziz and the Lal Masjid mosque in the wake of the Peshawar student massacre on December 16. In that attack, Pakistan Taliban or TTP militants penetrated a military-run school and massacred 132, mostly young students who were the children of military officers.

The Pakistan army is apparently and understandably genuinely infuriated by the murder of the children of their own officers and has killed several dozen Pakistan Taliban in retaliation. It is unclear to me whether these operations are targeting Pakistani Taliban directly implicated in the attack, or if they are broad brush "price tag" attacks that draw a bright line for the TTP not to cross--and leave plenty of space behind the bright line for jihadi skullduggery.

For instance, the current head of the main faction of the TTP, Maulana Fazlullah, (we can't talk of the TTP as a unified group anymore; it has fragmented, with some factions breaking away and declaring allegiance to IS) is apparently not particularly capable or popular and the ISI may have decided to use the furor to forcibly rejigger the leadership structure of his group.

At times like this I greatly miss the insights and knowledge of Saleem Shahzad, the intrepid Asia Times Online reporter who was murdered in May 2011 as he investigated an al Qaeda cell in the high levels of the Pakistan military.

The Afghan Taliban--which is trying to lay the foundation for its eventual domination of Afghan politics with the assistance of Pakistan's security establishment and has little patience with its Pakistan cousin--immediately condemned the attack.

There is a broad and frustrated swath of educated Pakistani opinion that is horrified by what the nation has become, and is hoping the reaction to the Peshawar massacre will rally civil society in favor of an alternate future, in which the nation is not a plaything in the hands of extremists and their military and intelligence enablers.

The only effective anti-TTP political force in Pakistan, the MQM--a rather thuggish party that dominates Karachi through its championing of the interests of the "Mujahir" (immigrants from India at the time of partition) majority and treats the local presence of Pashtuns, extremists and otherwise, as an existential challenge--jumped on the bandwagon with its own vociferous condemnation of the attack, and of Maulana Aziz and the Lal Masjid mosque.

Adbul Maulana Aziz is an unrepentant and, until recently, unapologetic advocate of Islamic extremism. He refused to condemn the Peshawar horror at first, leading to a storm of criticism and a filing of a "First Information Report" or FIR in Pakistan's courts--the first step in a criminal investigation--in Islamabad, and another FIR filed in Karachi by the MQM and accompanied by mass rallies in response to anti-MQM threats allegedly made by the cleric made in a recent sermon.

Maulana Aziz's attention to these challenges was probably accentuated by reports that the Pakistan government was claiming adequate grounds had been found to re-open a clutch of cases against the cleric--cases that had apparently been ditched when the government was cultivating him as its outreach agent to the TTP.

With every appearance of insincerity, Maulana Aziz condemned the massacre on December 21, five days after the event, and, I would think, expects with some justification that he'll be able to ride out the transitory storm of outrage and return to business as usual.

ISLAMABAD: Submitting to a huge outcry from civil society, the chief cleric of Lal Masjid Maulana Abdul Aziz apologised for failing to unconditionally condemn the Peshawar massacre carried out by Taliban on December 16.

“I condemn the killing of schoolchildren and apologise,” Aziz said while talking to The Express Tribune.

The cleric admitted he realised his mistake only after his followers convinced him. He clarified that he did not threaten any member of civil society and police have registered FIR against him under social pressure which is not a good precedent.

Aziz said his personal opinion was unnecessarily propagated in the media.

“I forgave Musharraf for launching military operation against us, how it is possible that I was not saddened by the killing of innocent schoolchildren,” he added.

The post [linked] below provides some background on Aziz, why he and the Lal Masjid mosque are at the center of Pakistan Islamic extremism...and why the People's Republic of China is closely and uncomfortably interested in this cleric, his mosque, and the military movement it spawned.

ISIS Tentacles Reach Toward China
August 14, 2014

Collusion in the Oil Markets

Did The Saudis And The US Collude In Dropping Oil Prices?

by Andrew Topf - Oilprice.com

The oil price drop that has dominated the headlines in recent weeks has been framed almost exclusively in terms of oil market economics, with most media outlets blaming Saudi Arabia, through its OPEC Trojan horse, for driving down the price, thus causing serious damage to the world's major oil exporters – most notably Russia.

While the market explanation is partially true, it is simplistic, and fails to address key geopolitical pressure points in the Middle East.

Oilprice.com looked beyond the headlines for the reason behind the oil price drop, and found that the explanation, while difficult to prove, may revolve around control of oil and gas in the Middle East and the weakening of Russia, Iran and Syria by flooding the market with cheap oil.

The oil weapon

We don't have to look too far back in history to see Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil exporter and producer, using the oil price to achieve its foreign policy objectives. In 1973, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat convinced Saudi King Faisal to cut production and raise prices, then to go as far as embargoing oil exports, all with the goal of punishing the United States for supporting Israel against the Arab states. It worked. The “oil price shock” quadrupled prices.

It happened again in 1986, when Saudi Arabia-led OPEC allowed prices to drop precipitously, and then in 1990, when the Saudis sent prices plummeting as a way of taking out Russia, which was seen as a threat to their oil supremacy. In 1998, they succeeded. When the oil price was halved from $25 to $12, Russia defaulted on its debt.

The Saudis and other OPEC members have, of course, used the oil price for the obverse effect, that is, suppressing production to keep prices artificially high and member states swimming in “petrodollars”. In 2008, oil peaked at $147 a barrel.

Related: OPEC Ministers Decry Price War Conspiracy Theories

Turning to the current price drop, the Saudis and OPEC have a vested interest in taking out higher-cost competitors, such as US shale oil producers, who will certainly be hurt by the lower price. Even before the price drop, the Saudis were selling their oil to China at a discount. OPEC's refusal on Nov. 27 to cut production seemed like the baldest evidence yet that the oil price drop was really an oil price war between Saudi Arabia and the US.

However, analysis shows the reasoning is complex, and may go beyond simply taking down the price to gain back lost marketshare.

“What is the reason for the United States and some U.S. allies wanting to drive down the price of oil?” Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro asked rhetorically in October. “To harm Russia.”

Many believe the oil price plunge is the result of deliberate and well-planned collusion on the part of the United States and Saudi Arabia to punish Russia and Iran for supporting the murderous Assad regime in Syria.

Punishing Assad and friends

Proponents of this theory point to a Sept. 11 meeting between US Secretary of State John Kerry and Saudi King Abdullah at his palace on the Red Sea. According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, it was during that meeting that a deal was hammered out between Kerry and Abdullah. In it, the Saudis would support Syrian airstrikes against Islamic State (ISIS), in exchange for Washington backing the Saudis in toppling Assad.

If in fact a deal was struck, it would make sense, considering the long-simmering rivalry between Saudi Arabia and its chief rival in the region: Iran. By opposing Syria, Abdullah grabs the opportunity to strike a blow against Iran, which he sees as a powerful regional rival due to its nuclear ambitions, its support for militant groups Hamas and Hezbollah, and its alliance with Syria, which it provides with weapons and funding. The two nations are also divided by religion, with the majority of Saudis following the Sunni version of Islam, and most Iranians considering themselves Shi’ites.

“The conflict is now a full-blown proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia, which is playing out across the region,” Reuters reported on Dec. 15. “Both sides increasingly see their rivalry as a winner-take-all conflict: if the Shi’ite Hezbollah gains an upper hand in Lebanon, then the Sunnis of Lebanon—and by extension, their Saudi patrons—lose a round to Iran. If a Shi’ite-led government solidifies its control of Iraq, then Iran will have won another round.”

The Saudis know the Iranians are vulnerable on the oil price. Experts say the country needs $140 a barrel oil to balance its budget; at sub-$60 prices, the Saudis succeed in pressuring Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamanei, possibly containing its nuclear ambitions and making the country more pliable to the West, which has the power to reduce or lift sanctions if Iran cooperates.

Adding credence to this theory, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani told a Cabinet meeting earlier this month that the fall in oil prices was “politically motivated” and a “conspiracy against the interests of the region, the Muslim people and the Muslim world.”

Pipeline conspiracy

Some commentators have offered a more conspiratorial theory for the Saudis wanting to get rid of Assad. They point to a 2011 agreement between Syria, Iran and Iraq that would see a pipeline running from the Iranian Port Assalouyeh to Damascus via Iraq. The $10-billion project would take three years to complete and would be fed gas from the South Pars gas field, which Iran shares with Qatar. Iranian officials have said they plan to extend the pipeline to the Mediterranean to supply gas to Europe – in competition with Qatar, the world's largest LNG exporter.

“The Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline – if it’s ever built – would solidify a predominantly Shi’ite axis through an economic, steel umbilical cord,” wrote Asia Times correspondent Pepe Escobar.

Global Research, a Canada-based think tank, goes further to suggest that Assad's refusal in 2009 to allow Qatar to construct a gas pipeline from its North Field through Syria and on to Turkey and the EU, combined with the 2011 pipeline deal, “ignited the full-scale Saudi and Qatari assault on Assad’s power.”

“Today the US-backed wars in Ukraine and in Syria are but two fronts in the same strategic war to cripple Russia and China and to rupture any Eurasian counter-pole to a US-controlled New World Order. In each, control of energy pipelines, this time primarily of natural gas pipelines—from Russia to the EU via Ukraine and from Iran and Syria to the EU via Syria—is the strategic goal,” Global Research wrote in an Oct. 26 post.

Poking the Russian bear

How does Russia play into the oil price drop? As a key ally of Syria, supplying Assad with billions in weaponry, President Vladimir Putin has, along with Iran, found himself targeted by the House of Saud. Putin's territorial ambitions in the Ukraine have also put him at odds with US President Barack Obama and leaders of the EU, which in May of this year imposed a set of sanctions on Russia.

As has been noted, Saudi Arabia's manipulation of the oil price has twice targeted Russia. This time, the effects of a low price have hit Moscow especially hard due to sanctions already in place combined with the low ruble. Last week, in an effort to defend its currency, the Bank of Russia raised interest rates to 17 percent. The measure failed, with the ruble dropping another 20 percent, leading to speculation the country could impose capital controls. Meanwhile, Putin took the opportunity in his annual televised address to announce that while the economy is likely to suffer for the next two years and that Russians should brace for a recession, “Our economy will get diversified and oil prices will go back up.”

He may be right, but what will the effect be on Russia of a sustained period of low oil prices? Eric Reguly, writing in The Globe and Mail last Saturday, points out that with foreign exchange reserves at around $400 billion, the Russian state is “in no danger of collapse” even in the event of a deep recession. Reguly predicts the greater threat is to the Russian private sector, which has a debt overhang of some $700 billion.

“This month alone, $30-billion of that amount must be repaid, with another $100-billion coming due next year. The problem is made worse by the economic sanctions, which have made it all but impossible for Russian companies to finance themselves in Western markets,” he writes.

Will it work?

Whether one is a conspiracy theorist or a market theorist, in explaining the oil price drop, it really matters little, for the effect is surely more important than the cause. Putin has already shown himself to be a master player in the chess game of energy politics, so the suggestion that sub-$60 oil will crush the Russian leader has to be met with a healthy degree of skepticism.

Related: OPEC Calls For Widespread Production Cuts

Moscow's decision on Dec. 1 to drop the $45-billion South Stream natural gas pipeline project in favor of a new pipeline deal with Turkey shows Putin's willingness to circumvent European partners to continue deliveries of natural gas to European countries that depend heavily on Russia for its energy requirements. The deal also puts Turkey squarely in the Russian energy camp at a time when Russia has been alienated by the West.

Of course, the Russian dalliance with China is a key part of Putin's great Eastern pivot that will keep stoking demand for Russian gas even as the Saudis and OPEC, perhaps with US collusion, keep pumping to hold down the price. The November agreement, that would see Gazprom supply Chinese state oil company CNPC with 30 billion cubic meters of gas per year, builds on an earlier deal to sell China 38 bcm annually in an agreement valued at $400 billion.

As Oilprice.com commented on Sunday, “ongoing projects are soldiering on and Russian oil output is projected to remain unchanged into 2015.”

“Russia will go down with the ship before ceding market share – especially in Asia, where Putin reaffirmed the pivot is real. Saudi Arabia and North America will have to keep pumping as Putin plans to uphold his end in this game of brinksmanship.”

By Andrew Topf of Oilprice.com

Oil Price Dive: Is It a US/Saudi Conspiracy?

Irreversible Decline?

by Mike Whitney - CounterPunch

“Saudi oil policy… has been subject to a great deal of wild and inaccurate conjecture in recent weeks. We do not seek to politicize oil… For us it’s a question of supply and demand, it’s purely business.”  – Ali al Naimi, Saudi Oil Minister

“There is no conspiracy, there is no targeting of anyone. This is a market and it goes up and down.” – Suhail Bin Mohammed al-Mazroui, United Arab Emirates’ petroleum minister

“We all see the lowering of oil prices. There’s lots of talk about what’s causing it. Could it be an agreement between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia to punish Iran and affect the economies of Russia and Venezuela? It could.” – Russian President Vladimir Putin

 

Are falling oil prices part of a US-Saudi plan to inflict economic damage on Russia, Iran and Venezuela?

Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro seems to think so. In a recent interview that appeared in Reuters, Maduro said he thought the United States and Saudi Arabia wanted to drive down oil prices “to harm Russia.”

 

Bolivian President Evo Morales agrees with Maduro and told journalists at RT that: “The reduction in oil prices was provoked by the US as an attack on the economies of Venezuela and Russia. In the face of such economic and political attacks, the nations must be united.”

 

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said the same thing,with a slightly different twist: “The main reason for (the oil price plunge) is a political conspiracy by certain countries against the interests of the region and the Islamic world … Iran and people of the region will not forget such … treachery against the interests of the Muslim world.”

 

---

 

US-Saudi “treachery”? Is that what’s really driving down oil prices?

Not according to Saudi Arabia’s Petroleum Minister Ali al-Naimi. Al-Naimi has repeatedly denied claims that the kingdom is involved in a conspiracy. He says the tumbling prices are the result of “A lack of cooperation by non-OPEC production nations, along with the spread of misinformation and speculator’s greed.” In other words, everyone else is to blame except the country that has historically kept prices high by controlling output. That’s a bit of a stretch, don’t you think? Especially since–according to the Financial Times — OPEC’s de facto leader has abandoned the cartel’s “traditional strategy” and announced that it won’t cut production even if prices drop to $20 per barrel.

 

Why? Why would the Saudis suddenly abandon a strategy that allowed them to rake in twice as much dough as they are today? Don’t they like money anymore?

 

And why would al-Naimi be so eager to crash prices, send Middle East stock markets into freefall, increase the kingdom’s budget deficits to a record-high 5 percent of GDP, and create widespread financial instability? Is grabbing “market share” really that important or is there something else going on here below the surface?

 

The Guardian’s Larry Elliot thinks the US and Saudi Arabia are engaged a conspiracy to push down oil prices. He points to a September meeting between John Kerry and Saudi King Abdullah where a deal was made to boost production in order to hurt Iran and Russia. Here’s a clip from the article titled “Stakes are high as US plays the oil card against Iran and Russia”:

 

“…with the help of its Saudi ally, Washington is trying to drive down the oil price by flooding an already weak market with crude. As the Russians and the Iranians are heavily dependent on oil exports, the assumption is that they will become easier to deal with…

John Kerry, the US secretary of state, allegedly struck a deal with King Abdullah in September under which the Saudis would sell crude at below the prevailing market price. That would help explain why the price has been falling at a time when, given the turmoil in Iraq and Syria caused by Islamic State, it would normally have been rising.

The Saudis did something similar in the mid-1980s. Then, the geopolitical motivation for a move that sent the oil price to below $10 a barrel was to destabilize Saddam Hussein’s regime. This time, according to Middle East specialists, the Saudis want to put pressure on Iran and to force Moscow to weaken its support for the Assad regime in Syria… (Stakes are high as US plays the oil card against Iran and Russia, Guardian)

That’s the gist of Elliot’s theory, but is he right?

 

Vladimir Putin isn’t so sure. Unlike Morales, Maduro and Rouhani, the Russian president has been reluctant to blame falling prices on US-Saudi collusion. In an article in Itar-Tass, Putin opined:

 

“There’s a lot of talk around” in what concerns the causes for the slide of oil prices, he said at a major annual news conference. “Some people say there is conspiracy between Saudi Arabia and the US in order to punish Iran or to depress the Russian economy or to exert impact on Venezuela.”

“It might be really so or might be different, or there might be the struggle of traditional producers of crude oil and shale oil,” Putin said. “Given the current situation on the market the production of shale oil and gas has practically reached the level of zero operating costs.” (Putin says oil market price conspiracy between Saudi Arabia and US not ruled out, Itar-Tass)
As always, Putin takes the most moderate position, that is, that Washington and the Saudis may be in cahoots, but that droopy prices might simply be a sign of over-supply and weakening demand. In other words, there could be a plot, but then again, maybe not. Putin is a man who avoids passing judgment without sufficient evidence.

The same can’t be said of the Washington Post. In a recent article, WP journalist Chris Mooney dismisses anyone who thinks oil prices are the result of US-Saudi collaboration as “kooky conspiracy theorists”. According to Mooney:

“The reasons for the sudden (price) swing are not particularly glamorous: They involve factors like supply and demand, oil companies having invested heavily in exploration several years ago to produce a glut of oil that has now hit the market — and then, perhaps, the “lack of cohesion” among the diverse members of OPEC.” (Why there are so many kooky conspiracy theories about oil, Washington Post)

Oddly enough, Mooney disproves his own theory a few paragraphs later in the same piece when he says:

“Oil producers really do coordinate. And then, there’s OPEC, which is widely referred to in the press as a “cartel,” and which states up front that its mission is to “coordinate and unify the petroleum policies” of its 12 member countries…. Again, there’s that veneer of plausibility to the idea of some grand oil related strategy.” (WP)

Let me get this straight: One the one hand Mooney agrees that OPEC is a cartel that “coordinates and unify the petroleum policies”, then on the other, he says that market fundamentals are at work. Can you see the disconnect? Cartels obstruct normal supply-demand dynamics by fixing prices, which Mooney seems to breezily ignore.

 

Also, he scoffs at the idea of “some grand oil related strategy” as if these cartel nations were philanthropic organizations operating in the service of humanity. Right. Someone needs to clue Mooney in on the fact that OPEC is not the Peace Corps. They are monopolizing amalgam of cutthroat extortionists whose only interest is maximizing profits while increasing their own political power. Surely, we can all agree on that fact.

 

What’s really wrong with Mooney’s article, is that he misses the point entirely. The debate is NOT between so-called “conspiracy theorists” and those who think market forces alone explain the falling prices. It’s between the people who think that the Saudis decision to flood the market is driven by politics rather than a desire to grab “market share.” That’s where people disagree. No denies that there’s manipulation; they merely disagree about the motive. This glaring fact seems to escape Mooney who is on a mission to discredit conspiracy theorists at all cost.

Here’s more:

 

(There’s) “a long tradition of conspiracy theorists who have surmised that the world’s great oil powers — whether countries or mega-corporations — are secretly pulling strings to shape world events.”…

“A lot of conspiracy theories take as their premise that there’s a small group of people who are plotting to control something, to control the government, the banking system, or the main energy source, and they are doing this to the disadvantage of everybody else,” says University of California-Davis historian Kathy Olmsted, author of “Real Enemies: Conspiracy Theories and American Democracy, World War I to 9/11″. (Washington Post)

Got that? Now find me one person who doesn’t think the world is run by a small group of rich, powerful people who operate in their own best interests? Here’s more from the same article:

 

(Oil) “It’s the perfect lever for shifting world events. If you were a mad secret society with world-dominating aspirations and lots of power, how would you tweak the world to create cascading outcomes that could topple governments and enrich some at the expense of others? It’s hard to see a better lever than the price of oil, given its integral role in the world economy.” (WP)

“A mad secret society”? Has Mooney noticed that — in the last decade and a half — the US has only invaded nations that have huge natural resources (mainly oil and natural gas) or the geography for critical pipeline routes? There’s nothing particularly secret about it, is there?

The United States is not a “mad secret society with world-dominating aspirations”. It’s a empire with blatantly obvious “world-dominating aspirations” run by political puppets who do the work of wealthy elites and corporations. Any sentient being who’s bright enough to browse the daily headlines can figure that one out.

Mooney’s grand finale:

“So in sum, with a surprising and dramatic event like this year’s oil price decline, it would be shocking if it did not generate conspiracy theories. Humans believe them all too easily. And they’re a lot more colorful than a more technical (and accurate) story about supply and demand.” (WP)

Ah, yes. Now I see. Those darn “humans”. They’re so weak-minded they’ll believe anything you tell them, which is why they need someone as smart as Mooney tell them how the world really works.

 

Have you ever read such nonsense in your life? On top of that, he gets the whole story wrong. This isn’t about market fundamentals. It’s about manipulation. Are the Saudis manipulating supply to grab market share or for political reasons?

 

THAT’S THE QUESTION. The fact that they ARE manipulating supply is not challenged by anyone including the uber-conservative Financial Times that deliberately pointed out that the Saudis had abandoned their traditional role of cutting supply to support prices. That’s what a “swing state” does; it manipulates supply keep prices higher than they would be if market forces were allowed to operate unimpeded.

 

So what is the motive driving the policy; that’s what we want to know?

 

Certainly there’s a strong case to be made for market share. No one denies that. If the Saudis keep prices at rock bottom for a prolonged period of time, then a high percentage of the producers (that can’t survive at prices below $70 per barrel) will default leaving OPEC with greater market share and more control over pricing.

 

So market share is certainly a factor. But is it the only factor?

 

Is it so far fetched to think that the United States–which in the last year has imposed harsh economic sanctions on Russia, made every effort to sabotage the South Stream pipeline, and toppled the government in Kiev so it could control the flow of Russian gas to countries in the EU–would coerce the Saudis into flooding the market with oil in order to decimate the Russian economy, savage the ruble, and create favorable conditions for regime change in Moscow? Is that so hard to believe?

 

Apparently New York Times columnist Thomas Freidman doesn’t think so. Here’s how he summed it up in a piece last month: “Is it just my imagination or is there a global oil war underway pitting the United States and Saudi Arabia on one side against Russia and Iran on the other?”

 

It sounds like Freidman has joined the conspiracy throng, doesn’t it? And he’s not alone either. This is from Alex Lantier at the World Socialist Web Site:

 

“While there are a host of global economic factors underlying the fall in oil prices, it is unquestionable that a major role in the commodity’s staggering plunge is Washington’s collaboration with OPEC and the Saudi monarchs in Riyadh to boost production and increase the glut on world oil markets.

As Obama traveled to Saudi Arabia after the outbreak of the Ukraine crisis last March, the Guardian wrote, “Angered by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, the Saudis turned on the oil taps, driving down the global price of crude until it reached $20 a barrel (in today’s prices) in the mid-1980s… [Today] the Saudis might be up for such a move—which would also boost global growth—in order to punish Putin over his support for the Assad regime in Syria. Has Washington floated this idea with Riyadh? It would be a surprise if it hasn’t.” (Alex Lantier, Imperialism and the ruble crisis, World Socialist Web Site)

And here’s an intriguing clip from an article at Reuters that suggests the Obama administration is behind the present Saudi policy:

 

“U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry sidestepped the issue (of a US-Saudi plot) after a trip to Saudi Arabia in September. Asked if past discussions with Riyadh had touched on Russia’s need for oil above $100 to balance its budget, he smiled and said: “They (Saudis) are very, very well aware of their ability to have an impact on global oil prices.” (Saudi oil policy uncertainty unleashes the conspiracy theorists, Reuters)

Wink, wink.

Of course, they’re in bed together. Saudi Arabia is a US client. It’s not autonomous or sovereign in any meaningful way. It’s a US protectorate, a satellite, a colony. They do what they’re told. Period. True, the relationship is complex, but let’s not be ridiculous. The Saudis are not calling the shots. The idea is absurd. Do you really think that Washington would let Riyadh fiddle prices in a way that destroyed critical US domestic energy industries, ravaged the junk bond market, and generated widespread financial instability without uttering a peep of protest on the matter?

 

Dream on! If the US was unhappy with the Saudis, we’d all know about it in short-order because it would be raining Daisy Cutters from the Persian Gulf to the Red Sea, which is the way that Washington normally expresses its displeasure on such matters. The fact that Obama has not even alluded to the shocking plunge in prices just proves that the policy coincides with Washington’s broader geopolitical strategy.

 

And let’s not forget that the Saudis have used oil as a political weapon before, many times before. Indeed, wreaking havoc is nothing new for our good buddies the Saudis. Check this out from Oil Price website:

 

“In 1973, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat convinced Saudi King Faisal to cut production and raise prices, then to go as far as embargoing oil exports, all with the goal of punishing the United States for supporting Israel against the Arab states. It worked. The “oil price shock” quadrupled prices.

It happened again in 1986, when Saudi Arabia-led OPEC allowed prices to drop precipitously, and then in 1990, when the Saudis sent prices plummeting as a way of taking out Russia, which was seen as a threat to their oil supremacy. In 1998, they succeeded. When the oil price was halved from $25 to $12, Russia defaulted on its debt.

The Saudis and other OPEC members have, of course, used the oil price for the obverse effect, that is, suppressing production to keep prices artificially high and member states swimming in “petrodollars”. In 2008, oil peaked at $147 a barrel.” (Did The Saudis And The US Collude In Dropping Oil Prices?, Oil Price)

1973, 1986, 1990, 1998 and 2008.

So, according to the author, the Saudis have manipulated oil prices at least five times in the past to achieve their foreign policy objectives. But, if that’s the case, then why does the media ridicule people who think the Saudis might be engaged in a similar strategy today?

 

Could it be that the media is trying to shape public opinion on the issue and, by doing so, actually contribute to the plunge in oil prices?

 

Bingo. Alert readers have probably noticed that the oil story has been splashed across the headlines for weeks even though the basic facts have not changed in the least. It’s all a rehash of the same tedious story reprinted over and over again. But, why? Why does the public need to have the same “Saudis refuse to cut production” story driven into their consciousness day after day like they’re part of some great collective brainwashing experiment? Could it be that every time the message is repeated, oil sells off, and prices go down? Is that it?

 

Precisely. For example, last week a refinery was attacked in Libya which pushed oil prices up almost immediately. Just hours later, however, another “Saudis refuse to cut production” story conveniently popped up in all the major US media which pushed prices in the direction the USG wants them to go, er, I mean, back down again.

 

This is how the media helps to reinforce government policy, by crafting a message that helps to push down prices and, thus, hurt “evil” Putin. (This is called “jawboning”) Keep in mind, that OPEC doesn’t meet again until June, 2015, so there’s nothing new to report on production levels. But that doesn’t mean we’re not going to get regular updates on the “Saudis refuse to cut production” story. Oh, no. The media is going to keep beating that drum until Putin cries “Uncle” and submits to US directives. Either that, or the bond market is going to blow up and take the whole damn global financial system along with it. One way or another, something’s got to give.

 

Bottom line: Falling oil prices and the plunging ruble are not some kind of free market accident brought on by oversupply and weak demand. That’s baloney. They’re part of a broader geopolitical strategy to strangle the Russian economy, topple Putin, and establish US hegemony across the Asian landmass. It’s all part of Washington’s plan to maintain its top-spot as the world’s only superpower even though its economy is in irreversible decline.

 

Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at fergiewhitney@msn.com.