Global Poverty: How the Rich Eat the Poor and the World: The big lies

The 2016 Oxfam Davos Report which the mass media have ignored arrestingly shows that 62 individuals – 388 in 2010 – now own more wealth than 50% of the world’s population. More shockingly, it reports from its uncontested public sources that this share of wealth by half of the world’s people has collapsed by over 40% in just the last five years. Yet the big lies persist even here that “the progress has been made in tackling world poverty” and “extreme poverty has been halved since 1990”.

Reversing Undeniable Fact as Ultimate Justification

Unbelievably, the endlessly repeated assertion of the form that ‘the poor are being lifted out of poverty in ever greater numbers’ continues on untouched despite the hard evidence that, in fact, the poorer half of humanity has lost almost half of their wealth in just the last five years.

This big lie is significant in its implications. For not only is a pervasive claim about the success of globalization undeniably falsified while no-one notices it. Basic market theory and dogma collapses as a result. What is daily claimed as an infallible benefit of the global market is shown to be the opposite of reality. What does it mean for “trickle-down theory” when, in truth, the trickle down goes up in hundreds of billions of dollars to the rich from the already poor and destitute?

What can we say now of the tirelessly proclaimed doctrine that the global market brings “more wealth for all” when, in fact, unimpeachable business evidence shows the opposite reality on the ground and across the world. For the poor have undeniably lost almost half their share of global wealth while the richest have multiplied theirs at the same time.

The evidence proves, in short, that the main moral and economic claims justifying the global market are very big lies becoming bigger all the time.

Worse than delusional, the lived reality of impoverishment of billions of people is reversed, the victims are continually proclaimed to be doing better under the system that increasingly deprives them of what little they have, and a trillion dollars worth of loss to the poorer half of humanity ends up in the pockets of the rich within only five years.

While the ever bigger lies go on justifying the global system that eats the poor alive as “poverty amelioration”, ever more of the same policies of accumulation by dispossession justify still more  stripping of  the majority as more “austerity”, more “welfare cuts”,  and more “labor flexibility” – in a word, more starvation and depredation of people’s lives and life conditions as “more freedom and prosperity for all”.

The Statistical Shell Game that Masks the Life-Devouring Reality

As World Bank, IMF and like figures claim to show the uplifting of the poor out of poverty across the world,  media of record like The Guardian and the New York Times report the claims with headlines to show all is well and getter for the poor and the majority as they are in fact grindingly reduced in their actual lives, work and life security. Thus the very big lies are instituted as given facts which economists and social scientists propagate without a blink.

In fact, these alleged great gains for the poor out of poverty and absolute poverty alike are based on income gains of less than a cup of coffee a day, an observation that is so well blocked from view that readers may now be seeing it for the first time. Thus the hypnotic thrall of the big lies are sustained, while no other life support system is. I have had economists and interviewers of high note respond angrily when this delusion is pointed out, as if I was letting down the poor rather than exposing the big lies. In this way, we find that the masking falsehoods  have gone so deep into expert and public assumption that the real-life world can no longer be engaged. These big lies then work in the background to the non-stop big lies that precede endless  foreign conflicts and wars to “defend the free world”

No-one appears to observe that the income gains ’lifting the poor out of poverty’ typically refer to emigrants from the countryside into polluted cities, insecure and dehumanized life conditions for those who formerly had at least a family dwelling, clean air and water and living horizons.  In short, the standard $1.50 +/- measure of uplift out of poverty and extreme poverty is inhumanly absurd, but triumphally used as proof that the system is serving the least too.

The Counter-Revolution against Social Evolution that Engineers Deepening Recession

Throughout the unseen redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich (now buried in much talk of “inequality”), ever more “market reforms” are enforced as “enhanced competition”, “liberalized de-regulation”,  “reduced welfare costs” and “austerity programs to correct excesses”. The “excessive entitlements” of the system are all projected on the victims so that  the truly insane entitlements of the richest to multiply their fortunes with no committed life function, value or coordinate but still more money-demand for them is somehow not noticed. This is yet another level of normalized big lies forming the ruling thought system.

In fact beneath the pervasive propaganda conditioning citizens to believe in the private money shell game devouring the world, the poorer half of humanity has been deprived of one trillion dollars of wealth while the 62 richest people have gained almost twice as much for themselves by the operations of this global disorder. Yet the Davos Report further emphasizes that still another US $760 billion goes annually to non-producing investors by immense transnational tax evasion with impunity across the world. Again the borderless money-capital freedom of ‘globalization’ vastly enriches the richest, while simultaneously doubling down on deprivation of the poor as ‘poverty reduction’.

Here the system is programmed in effect to strip the funding of all public sectors and institutions which have evolved to serve the common life interest. Public services and infrastructures too are perpetually driven towards bankruptcy not only by never-ending defunding, cutbacks, privatizations, and corporate lobby control of public policies and subsidies, but by ever-soaring public tax evasion near one trillion dollars annually about which governments and trade treaties have done nothing to correct yet.

Thus governments which could invest in sustaining humanity’s social and ecological life support systems from growing deterioration and collapse are now systematically bankrupted or debt enslaved along with most citizens. In consequence without governments knowing why, the world economy slips into ever deeper recession from the collapse of economic demand at the public and majority levels.

Eating the World Alive as Global Competition

The new law of human evolution is that are required to compete for more money and commodities for themselves as “necessary to survive”, with the borderless system de-regulated and structured to increasingly impoverish the great majority while multiplying the wealth of the rich. The facts are now long in. Corporate globalization is not only out of control. It is eating the world alive at all levels towards cumulative collapse of organic, social and ecological life organization. Global competition means, in fact, the majority’s life means and security keep falling as the environment is looted and polluted on ever larger scales of depredation. Yet only “more growth” of this system is imagined as a solution. The system is clinically insane

While the common life-ground is blinkered out a-priori by the ruling value system, those deprived and left behind disappear into multi-level big lies proclaiming the opposite. This is why the facts are not reported. This is why claimed actions to stop the world bleeding blinker out the system disorder causing them. This is why even progressives assume economic falsehoods as if they were true. Like a cancer system at the macro level, this exponentially multiplying private money-sequence system has only one set-point – to blindly grow itself while masking the life-devouring disorder as “enhancing people’s well-being”.

With Monsanto and Glyphosate on the Run AAAS Revokes Award to Scientists Whose Studies Led to Ban on Weedkiller in Sri Lanka and Other Countries

by Russell Mokhiber

Counterpunch

February 21, 2019

The popular weedkiller glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup, is on the run.

Congresswoman and Presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) last week called for a ban.

“We need to ban all products containing glyphosate, including Roundup,” Gabbard tweeted on February 16. “It’s poisoning our people, butterflies and other insects, the land and the water.”

And then again today, Gabbard tweeted: “Monsanto proves they’ll do anything to pad their pockets, including manufacturing ‘scientific studies’ to influence the EPA while destroying small farmers. They unleashed the scourge of Roundup on us and should be held accountable for the consequences.”

Also last week the Guardian reported on a broad new scientific analysis showing that people with high exposures to the popular pesticides have a 41% increased risk of developing a type of cancer called non-Hodgkin lymphoma.”

Last August, a jury in San Francisco awarded $289 million to a former school groundskeeper who said Monsanto’s Roundup left him dying of cancer.

But now comes the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).

On February 4, 2019, the AAAS put out a press release announcing it was awarding the 2019 Scientific Freedom and Integrity award to two scientists, Sarath Gunatilake and Channa Jayasumana, whose research into the hazards of glyphosate led to the banning of the weedkiller in Sri Lanka and other countries.

“Drs. Sarath Gunatilake and Channa Jayasumana faced death threats and claims of research misconduct while working to determine the cause of a kidney disease epidemic that has claimed tens of thousands of lives in their home country of Sri Lanka and around the world,” the AAAS said in its press release. “Ultimately, their advocacy led to the culprit, an herbicide called glyphosate, being banned in several affected countries.”

“To right a wrong when significant financial interests are at stake and the power imbalance between industry and individual is at play takes the unique combination of scientific rigor, professional persistence and acceptance of personal risk demonstrated by the two scientists recognized by this year’s award,” said Jessica Wyndham, director of the Scientific Responsibility, Human Rights and Law Program at AAAS in the press release.

Then, the next day, the researchers received an email from Wyndham telling them that the award has been revoked and the press release taken down.

“As discussed over the phone earlier today, following the announcement of the Scientific Freedom and Responsibility Award yesterday, AAAS has received concerns from scientists and members of the organization that we consider need assessment,” Wyndham wrote. “That means that we will not be able to present to you and Dr. Jayasumana the Award next week as originally planned.”

“We are defining the assessment process, but in general I expect it will involve convening subject matter experts, including those from within AAAS’ governing bodies, so that their concerns can be elaborated. There will of course be an opportunity for you and Dr. Jayasumana to be engaged in the process. Following that review we will determine next steps.”

“As I mentioned, I do not suggest cancelling the tickets altogether at this stage, but rather suspending them until after the assessment has reached its conclusion. Travel costs that you and Dr. Jayasumana may have incurred because of this change will be reimbursed once we know how we are proceeding.”

Wyndham did not return calls seeking comment for this article.

“I feel this is an insult, discrimination, humiliation to a scientist live in poor third world country,” Jayasumana told Corporate Crime Reporter last week.  “All my friends and colleagues ask why award is pulled after the announcement. I have no answer. I feel industry is behind this shameless process.”

“The AAAS has a lot of explaining to do about why they revoking an award to these two scientists,” said Gary Ruskin of US Right to Know. “The appearance here is that the AAAS is caving to the agrichemical industry.”

“The AAAS has many significant ties to the agrichemical industry.  An influential former AAAS president, Nina Federoff, works for the Big Ag lobbying firm Olsson Frank. Other former AAAS presidents, such as Peter Raven, have close ties to Monsanto.”

And former Monsanto employee Alison L. Van Eenennaam is the incoming chair of the AAAS Agriculture, Food and Renewable Resources Steering Group.

“Is corporate corruption eating at the heart of American science?” Ruskin asked.

LACSN Solidarity with the Yemeni Community – A Statement

Toronto, September 8, 2018

 

The Latin American and Caribbean Solidarity Network (LACSN) a democratic, non-profit and independent organization based in Toronto, that brings together various grassroots groups, networks and organizations that carry out work in solidarity with progressive and democratic transformation processes taking place in Latin America and the Caribbean.

I stand today on behalf of LACSN in solidarity with the people of Yemen. LACSN strongly condemns the deadly air strike in Yemen, which killed 22 children and four women.

For the past 4 years, the western backed Saudi-led coalition have targeted everything in Yemen. The list includes hospitals, factories, bridges, water tanks, power stations, school, universities, wedding halls and even cemeteries! This has caused a severe damage to the Yemeni economy and tens of thousands of people have lost their lives.

LACSN members stand in unity condemning the continuous attacks on the people of Yemen, where women and children are victims of this horrendous attacks.

We call for a cease fire and for a peaceful end.

We call to stop the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia

We call to save the people of Yemen

Stop the slaughter

The people united will never be defeated!

 

Magdalena-LACSN

How the US Occupied the 30% of Syria Containing Most of its Oil, Water and Gas

While gaining control of key resources for partitioning Syria and destabilizing the government in Damascus, the U.S.’ main goal in occupying the oil and water rich northeastern Syria is aimed not at Syria but at Iran.

By Whitney Webb

April 17, 2018 “Information Clearing House”  DAMASCUS, SYRIA –   After the U.S. launched “limited” airstrikes on Friday against Syria, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley announced that the U.S. will maintain its illegal presence in Syria until U.S. goals in the area are fulfilled, opening the door for the U.S. occupation to continue indefinitely.

hile the U.S. military presence in Syria has been ongoing since 2015 – justified as a means of countering Daesh (ISIS) — U.S. troops have since turned into an occupying force with their failure to pull out following Daesh’s defeat in northeastern Syria. Currently, the U.S. occupies nearly a third of Syrian territory — around 30 percent — including much of the area east of the Euphrates River, encompassing large swaths of the Deir Ezzor, Al-Hasakah and Raqqa regions.

Though the U.S. currently has between 2,000 to 4,000 troops stationed in Syria, it announced the training of a 30,000-person-strong “border force” composed of U.S.-allied Kurds and Arabs in the area, which would be used to prevent northeastern Syria from coming under the control of Syria’s legitimate government. Though it backtracked somewhat after backlash from Turkey, the U.S. has continued to train “local forces” in the area. Russian military sources have asserted that former members of Daesh — who were allowed to leave cities attacked by the U.S. and their proxies, as was the case in battle for Raqqa — are to be included among the force’s ranks.

This, along with the U.S. government’s insistence on maintaining the occupation until Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is removed from power, shows that the U.S. government has no intention of permitting the reunification of Syria and will continue to occupy the region over the long term.

The illegal U.S. occupation of Syria has been widely noted in independent and corporate media, but little media attention has focused on identifying the wider implications of this occupation and the U.S.’ main objectives in keeping northeastern Syria from coming under the control of the legitimate, democratically elected Syrian government. As is often the case in U.S. occupations, both historical and present, it is an effort born out of two goals: resource acquisition for U.S. corporations and the destabilization of a government targeted for U.S.-backed regime change.

Control of fossil fuel deposits and flow

Northeastern Syria is an important region owing to its rich natural resources, particularly fossil fuels in the form of natural gas and oil. Indeed, this area contains 95 percent of all Syrian oil and gas potential — including al-Omar, the country’s largest oil field. Prior to the war, these resources produced some 387,000 barrels of oil per day and 7.8 billion cubic meters of natural gas annually, and were of great economic importance to the Syrian government. However, more significantly, nearly all the existing Syrian oil reserves – estimated at around 2.5 billion barrels – are located in the area currently occupied by the U.S. government.

In addition to Syria’s largest oil field, the U.S. and its proxies in northeast Syria also control the Conoco gas plant, the country’s largest. The plant, which can produce nearly 50 million cubic feet of gas per day, was originally built by U.S. oil and gas giant ConocoPhillips, which operated the plant until 2005, after which Bush-era sanctions made it difficult to operate in Syria. Other foreign oil companies, like Shell, also left Syria as a result of the sanctions.

With the U.S. now occupying the area, the oil and gas produced in this region are already benefiting U.S. energy corporations to which Trump and his administration have numerous ties. According to Yeni Şafak, the U.S. along with the Saudis, Egypt, and Kurdish officials held meetings where decisions were made to extract, process and market the fossil fuels harvested in the region, with the Kurds being given a handsome share of the profits. As of 2015, the Kurds were said to be earning in excess of $10 million every month.

Syria’s Kurdistan exports its oil to Iraq’s Kurdistan, with which it conveniently shares a border, and it is then refined and sold to Turkey. Though no corporations are publicly involved, the deal between Syrian and Iraqi Kurds was brokered by unnamed “oil experts” and “oil investors.” The Kurds in Syria and Iraq did not even sign the agreement in person. They were subsequently “informed” of the agreement by the United States and instructed to supervise the operation.

A source in Iraq’s Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) told NOW News that “with regard to southern Kurdistan, it was a company and not the KRG that signed the deal, and it is [the company] that directly hands over the sums in cash every month.” Given that over 80 foreign companies are involved in the KRG’s oil trade, most of them U.S.-based, we can safely assume that many of the same players have also been involved in developing the oil trade of Syria’s Kurdistan.

Major corporate interests

The Trump administration’s numerous connections to the U.S. oil industry make this alliance clear. Former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who was fired in March, was previously the top executive at ExxonMobil, an oil company that unilaterally brokered an oil deal with Iraqi Kurds behind the back of the Iraqi government and has expressed interest in developing Syrian oil interests in the portion of the country currently occupied by the U.S.

ExxonMobil also had a major stake in the proposed Qatari pipeline, whose rejection by Assad was a likely factor in jumpstarting the Syrian conflict. Trump himself, prior to assuming the presidency, also had sizable investments in ExxonMobil — as well as in 11 other major oil and gas companies, including Total, ConocoPhillips, BHP and Chevron.

In addition, even though Tillerson has now gone, his replacement, Mike Pompeo, is equally a friend to the U.S. oil and gas industry. Pompeo is the “#1 all time recipient” of money from Koch Industries, which has numerous interests in oil and gas exploration, drilling, pipelines, and fossil-fuel refining.

While the U.S. occupation of Syria is no doubt motivated by a desire to exploit the region’s oil and gas resources for itself, the U.S.’ refusal to leave the area is also born out of a concern that, were the U.S. to leave, its chief rival, Russia, would claim the oil and gas riches of Syria’s northeast. Indeed, according to an energy cooperation framework signed in January, Russia will have exclusive rights to produce oil and gas in areas of Syria controlled by the Syrian government.

Since 2014, the U.S. has been aggressively trying to limit Russia’s fossil-fuel sector, particularly its exports to Europe, and replace them with U.S.-produced fossil fuels. As former Speaker of the House John Boehner wrote in 2014, “The ability to turn the tables and put the Russian leader in check lies right beneath our feet, in the form of vast supplies of natural energy.” Allowing the Russian fossil fuel sector to strengthen, whether in Syria or elsewhere, would harm U.S. strategic objectives, U.S. corporate bottom lines and the U.S.’ vision of maintaining a unipolar world at all costs.

Location, location: pipeline maps and a zero-sum game with Russia

In addition to its fossil fuel resources, Syria’s strategic location makes it crucial to the regional flow of hydrocarbons. Having the northeastern section of Syria under the control of the U.S. and its proxies could have a profound effect on future and existing pipelines. As The New York Times noted in 2013, “Syria’s prime location and muscle make it the strategic center of the Middle East.”

For that very reason, much of the U.S.’ Middle East policy has been aimed at seizing control of territory and pushing for the partition of countries to secure safe transit routes for oil and gas. In Syria such plans to partition the country for this purpose date back to as early as the 1940s, when European oil interests in the country’s northeast began to grow. Since then, several countries have tried to occupy parts of northern Syria to secure control of the region for these strategic purposes, including Turkey and Iraq in addition to Western powers.

A crucial pipeline already exists in northeastern Syria that connects Syria’s oil fields to the Ceyhan-Kirkuk pipeline. Though that pipeline sustained heavy damage in 2014, there are plans to rebuild it or build a new pipeline alongside it. Thus, northeastern Syria also boasts oil export infrastructure that could help Syrian oil travel easily to Turkey and thus to the European market.

In addition, the conflict in Syria – now in its seventh year – was, in part, initiated as a result of clashes over two pipeline proposals that needed to secure passage through Syria. Syria, not long before the foreign-funded proxy war besieged the country, had turned down a U.S.-backed proposal that would take to Europe natural gas from Qatar in favor of a Russia-backed proposal that would take natural gas originating in Iran.

Though those pipeline proposals are no longer as powerful in shaping motives as they once were – largely due to Qatar’s rift with other Gulf monarchies and improved relations with Iran – the northeastern part of Syria remains key to U.S. objectives. According to the German publication Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten, the U.S. has developed plans to build a new pipeline from the Persian Gulf to Northern Iraq and into Turkey through northeastern Syria, with the ultimate goal of supplying oil to Europe. Russia, for its part, opposes this plan, as it seeks to maintain its own lucrative exports of fossil fuels to Europe.

Water and land

Beyond fossil fuels and pipelines, northeast Syria boasts several other key advantages in terms of resources. Chief among those is water – a resource of prime importance in the Middle East. The U.S.-controlled portion of Syria is home to the country’s three largest freshwater reservoirs, which are fed by the Euphrates river.

One of those reservoirs now controlled by the U.S. and its proxies, Lake Assad, is the country’s largest freshwater reservoir and supplies government-held Aleppo with most of its drinking water. It also provides the city with much of its electrical power, which is generated by Tabqa Dam, also located in the occupied territory. Another key hydroelectric power plant is located at Tishrin Dam and is also controlled by U.S.-backed proxy forces.

In addition to its abundant water resources, northeastern Syria is also home to nearly 60 percent of Syria’s cropland, a key resource in terms of Syria’s sustainability and food independence. Prior to the conflict, Syria invested heavily in bringing irrigation infrastructure into the area in order to allow agriculture there to continue despite a massive regional drought. Much of that irrigation infrastructure is fed by the occupied Tabqa Dam, which controls the irrigation water for 640,000 hectares (2,500 square miles) of farmland.

Game plan for occupation, partition

Unlike the northeast’s fossil fuel resources, the U.S. is not hoping to gain financially from the region’s water and agricultural resources. Instead, the interest there is strategic and serves two main purposes.

First, control over those resources – particularly water and the flow of the Euphrates – gives the U.S. a key advantage it could use to destabilize Syria. For example, the U.S. could easily cut off water and electricity to government-held parts of Syria by shutting down or diverting power and water from dams in order to place pressure on the Syrian government and Syrian civilians.

Though such actions target civilians and constitute a war crime, the U.S. has used such tactics in Syria before, such as in the battle for Raqqa when it cut off water supplies to the city as its proxies took control of the city from Daesh (ISIS). Other countries, like Turkey, have also cut off the flow of the Euphrates on two occasions over the course of the Syrian conflict in order to gain a strategic advantage.

By controlling much of the country’s water and agricultural land – not to mention its fossil fuel resources — the U.S. occupation will not only accomplish its goal of destabilizing Syria’s government by depriving it of revenue; it also invites a broader conflict from Syria and its allies, who are eager to prevent another long-term U.S. occupation in the Middle East and to reclaim the territory for Syria.

Another way the U.S. has the ability to destabilize Syria through its occupation of the northeast is its plan to have the Saudis rebuild much of the area. Though the U.S. initially allied itself with the Kurds in northeastern Syria, opposition from Turkey has led Washington to focus more on working with Arabs in the area, particularly those allied with or formerly part of Saudi-allied Wahhabi groups, in order to create a Saudi-controlled enclave that could be used to destabilize government-controlled areas of Syria for years to come. The area is set to become much like the Idlib province, which is also essentially an enclave for Wahhabi terrorists.

The U.S. plan to create a Wahhabi enclave in northeast Syria was directly referenced in a Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report from 2012. That report stated:

“THE WEST, GULF COUNTRIES, AND TURKEY [WHO] SUPPORT THE [SYRIAN] OPPOSITION… THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN REGIME…” [capitalization original]

Despite Daesh’s defeat, their presence in Northeastern Syria, as the DIA reveals, was cultivated to provide a pretext for the foreign control of the region.

Partition chess: thinking two moves ahead

Whether the Saudis or the Kurds ultimately end up dominating the portion of Syria currently occupied by the United States is besides the point. The main U.S. purpose in occupying the northeast portion of Syria is its long-standing goal of partitioning Syria, thereby permanently separating the country’s northeast from the rest of the country.

Throughout the Syrian conflict, the U.S. government has repeatedly tried to sell partition to the public, arguing that partition is the “only” solution to Syria’s ongoing “sectarian” conflict. However, this sectarianism was cynically engineered and stoked by foreign powers precisely to bring about the current conflict in Syria and ultimately justify partition.

WikiLeaks revealed that the CIA was involved in instigating anti-Assad and “sectarian” demonstrations as early as March 2011. Declassified CIA documents show that the plan to push partition by directly engineering sectarianism in order to weaken the Syrian state dates back to at least the 1980s. The partition idea was also repeatedly touted by the Obama administration, which stated on several occasions that it “may be too late” to keep Syria whole.

Though the Obama administration has come and gone, the Trump administration is also set to push for partition, thanks to the recent appointment of John Bolton to the position of National Security Adviser. As MintPress recently reported, Bolton has long advocated for combining northeastern Syria with northwestern Iraq in order to create a new country, which Bolton called “Sunnistan,” that would dominate the two countries’ fossil fuel resources and would count on the key water and agricultural resources of the region to sustain the population. Bolton called for the Gulf Arab states, like Saudi Arabia, to finance the creation of that state – hence the Trump administration’s recent attempts to negotiate a “deal” with the Saudis by which they take over control of the U.S.-occupied portion in Syria if they agree to pay $4 billion for reconstruction.

Aiming at Iran

While gaining control of key resources for partitioning Syria and destabilizing the government in Damascus, the U.S.’ main goal in occupying the oil and water rich northeastern Syria is aimed not at Syria but at Iran.

As U.S.-based intelligence firm Stratfor noted in 2002, taking control of Syria’s northeast would greatly complicate the land route between Syria and Iran as well as the land route between Iran and Lebanon. In January, Tillerson made this objective clear. Speaking at Stanford University, Tillerson noted that “diminishing” Iran’s influence in Syria was a key goal for the U.S. and a major reason for its occupation of the northeast.

By cutting off the route between Tehran and Damascus, the U.S. would greatly destabilize and weaken the region’s “resistance axis” and the U.S. — along with its regional allies – would be able to greatly increase its regional influence and control. Given the alliance between Syria and Iran, as well as their mutual defense accord, the occupation is necessary in order to weaken both nations and a key precursor to Trump administration plans to isolate and wage war against Iran.

With internal reports warning of the U.S.’ waning position as the “world’s only superpower,” the U.S. has no intention of leaving Syria, as it is becoming increasingly desperate to maintain its influence in the region and to maintain as well the influence of the corporations that benefit the most from U.S. empire.

Acknowledgment: Investigative journalist Rick Sterling, who specializes in the Syria war, provided MintPress with some images and pertinent information that was used in this story.

Top Photo | American troops look out toward the border with Turkey from a small outpost near the town of Manbij, Syria, Feb. 7, 2018. (AP/Susannah George)

Whitney Webb is a staff writer for MintPress News and a contributor to Ben Swann’s Truth in Media. Her work has appeared on Global Research, the Ron Paul Institute and 21st Century Wire, among others. She has also made radio and TV appearances on RT and Sputnik. She currently lives with her family in southern Chile.

This article was originally published by “MintPress” –

 

RUSIA: LOS SISTEMAS ANTIAEREOS SIRIOS INTERCEPTARON 71 DE LOS 103 MISILES LANZADOS

Resumen Latinoamericano / RT / 14 de abril de 2018 –

El Estado Mayor ruso ha ofrecido una rueda de prensa tras el ataque a Siria de EE.UU. y sus aliados.

 

El Estado Mayor ruso ha provisto detalles respecto al ataque contra Siria efectuado por EE.UU., Francia y Reino Unido este 14 de abril. Los militares han precisado que 103 misiles fueron lanzados hacia el país árabe, entre ellos varios proyectiles Tomahawk.

“Fueron interceptados 71 misiles de crucero”, afirmó el jefe de la gestión operativa de las Fuerzas Armadas del Estado Mayor de Rusia, Serguéi Rudskói, quien precis´p que sus objetivos incluyeron bases aéreas de las fuerzas gubernamentales sirias.

“Ningún misil de crucero entró en la zona de responsabilidad de Rusia”, indicó el teniente general en rueda de prensa. “Nuestros sistemas antiaéreos no fueron utilizados”, agregó.

No hay instalaciones de producción de armas químicas en Siria, hecho que fue constatado por la Organización para la Prohibición de las Armas Químicas (OPAQ)Serguéi Rudskói, jefe de la gestión operativa de las Fuerzas Armadas del Estado Mayor de Rusia

El jefe de la gestión operativa de las Fuerzas Armadas del Estado Mayor de Rusia informó además que Washington y sus aliados dirigieron parte del ataque a posibles almacenes de lo que ellos denominan como el “programa químico militar” de Damasco, y algunos de esos puntos resultaron parcialmente destruidos por los misiles. “No se utilizan desde hace mucho tiempo, no había personas ni equipo en ellos“, aseveró, negando que contuviesen sustancias de esa naturaleza.

“No hay instalaciones de producción de armas químicas en Siria, hecho que fue constatado por la Organización para la Prohibición de las Armas Químicas (OPAQ)”, acotó Rudskói.

Un ataque sin pruebas

La semana pasada, Occidente acusó al Gobierno del presidente sirio Bashar al Assad de haber perpetrado el 7 de abril un ataque químico en la ciudad de Duma (Guta Oriental), tras aparecer reportes no confirmados sobre esa supuesta acción.

El Consejo Ejecutivo de la OPAQ anunció que emprendería una investigación independiente el 14 de abril, pero este bombardeo contra Siria fue realizado antes de que la misión llegara al terreno. El presidente estadounidense Donald Trumpordenó el ataque sin autorización del Congreso de su país ni la aprobación del Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU.

Hasta ahora no ha sido presentada ninguna prueba que confirme el supuesto ataque químico. El embajador ruso en Naciones Unidas, Vasili Nebenzia, destacó ante el Consejo de Seguridad de ese organismo internacional que en los hospitales de Duma no hay pacientes con síntomas de intoxicación ni hay pruebas de suelo que delaten el uso de sarín o cloro.

Además, los servicios rusos de seguridad química y radiológica viajaron al supuesto lugar del incidente, pero “no se encontraron personas tratadas por intoxicación química”, informó la Embajada de Moscú en Londres a través de un comunicado.

El 13 de abril, el ministro de Exteriores de Rusia, Serguéi Lavrovafirmó que su Gobierno tiene “datos irrefutables” de que el presunto ataque químico es “una nueva puesta en escena y en ella participaron los servicios secretos de uno de los Estados que se desvive por estar en la vanguardia de la campaña rusófoba”.